Apokalipse
Golden Master
- Messages
- 14,559
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Ok, first off, EVERY computer crashes at some point. Even the multi-million dollar server systems made by companies such as Sun Microsystems crash once in a while, and theyre built for stability, not ease of use like most home computers.
Macs prolly do crash occasionally, but the amount they crash is far less than on PC's, my laptop that has had a fresh hard drive, format and install of XP, crashed on its first day running on its new HDD
Windows 2.0 (and up to 3.11, especially 3.11) were VERY stable operating systems. But when it comes to stability, it all boils down to the user who is operating the computer.
Windows 3.11 didn't run very much software AT ALL, I think if you tried to run as much software as the average user, using 3.11 it can and will crash, and more people need to run more software now
A Mac is built to be very user friendly, which in turn lowers the ammount of "tweakability" of the operating system. They dont let you do that much on the OS itself, so there arent many ways to get yourself in trouble with errors and lockups.
I bet if people knew about as little of Windows as most people know of Macs you'd say this about Windows. Mac's OS's have soooo many hidden settings, like XP, that just haven't been discovered by the average user.
Windows XP has been more like a mac in the way that everything is all colorful and automated, and "easy to use" but you can turn all that off and make it useable for a person like me who does more than check their email, chat, and play some games all day, which is what a majority of the computer owners in the US do. Period.
there is some other matter, why is XP less stable than 2000? because of its extra "features" but the extra features on the Mac's haven't make them less stable
All the regulars on the forum use a computer much for much more than that, and thats when a mac's little colorful dialogs and help systems (and windows xp's crap it has, also) just get in the way.
you're saying XP does this too, then why are you bashing Mac for it? and actually for the most part these little helpings are actually used by advanced Mac users
Another thing is that the majority of the computers out there are built by companies such as Compaq, HP, Dell, Gateway, Emachines, etc. and all of them have personalized software with the company's name on it and many extra "helpful" things thrown in. in my experience (except with Dell PCs, as theyre not quite as bad) this just is more crap that these computers have to deal with , and that they always seem to lack in memory just makes it all worse... again. the hardware used in a compaq is not near as good in quality as a ASUS or Abit product, hands down.
I agree with you there on this one
Much of these PC's reliability issues are from their crappy equipment. Its like they all use ECS motherboards.... ( )
actually it is a lot more software-based, XP actually runs faster on my PC than 98, still crashes a lot but not nearly as much, and I do have for the most part fairly good quality hardware, just not very big performancewise
Any person who builds a homebuilt PC correctly with quality parts, and a stable OS like Win2k, WinXP PRO, (NOT HOME as it is not near as reliable) or a Linux system will have wonderful compadability, reliability, and an all out good experience with their PC.
Ok, I guess what it all boils down to is, the user, the quality of parts, and the edition of OS.
yes, and the Mac's Os's, built on the very stable Unix, and all the quality parts built by Mac, make it sooo stable, well I can't even think of an example for this, that's how stable they are.
also, Mac makes its own hardware AND its OS's, so they can optimise both on each other.
Any person who has went thru a lemon of a PC has learned probably more from it then any other PC they've owned. Even if PC's arent as reliable, what doenst kill you will just make you stronger, right? So when a PC crashes REAL bad, (which again is probably a user-related Fault)
they will learn about it and be a stronger, smarter user. a mac person who doenst go thru any problems will never learn about the computer itself, how it works, why it works, why it doenst work, and how to fix either your own, or a freinds.
I agree with this, but this is just saying: how many people need to fix a Mac?
one more bone to pick... WHEN does the AVERAGE computer user EVER need 8 GB of ram? Having more ram in a mac doenst make it better, it probably means that it needs more ram to do the same thing a PC can do...
actually, the 8GB of RAM is an OPTION, it DOESN't NEED it, but it shows what it is capable of. and people do use it for heavy photo editing, and it's very good in the Movie industry where they may require that much software and images open
still have problems with some programs that arent specifically made to perform good on a mac. Max PC (magazine) Benchmarked the HELL out of the most powerful AMD, Intel, and Mac "consumer" pcs out at the time (P4EE, AMD 64 FX-1(?) and G5 dual 2.0ghz proc.) and the mac was WAY behind on most tests, except of course for the mac original sofware that is built to run great on a mac, and only had windows ports out (i.e., Quicktime conversions) ... ALL this and it has TWO "incredably powerful" procs? wow! id just have to say PWNED at that mac...
and just how reliable is this benchmark, how do you know they aren't biasing it?
actually the Mac G5 did HEAVILY outperform the P4's, yes it DID outperform the P4 extreme. prolly the only CPU's now that only slightly outperform it are the Athlon 64 3400+ and/or the FX, and like I said before, the amount is just a catchup, and now Mac should have something else well under development, which would be the reason they are discounting now.
Macs prolly do crash occasionally, but the amount they crash is far less than on PC's, my laptop that has had a fresh hard drive, format and install of XP, crashed on its first day running on its new HDD
Windows 2.0 (and up to 3.11, especially 3.11) were VERY stable operating systems. But when it comes to stability, it all boils down to the user who is operating the computer.
Windows 3.11 didn't run very much software AT ALL, I think if you tried to run as much software as the average user, using 3.11 it can and will crash, and more people need to run more software now
A Mac is built to be very user friendly, which in turn lowers the ammount of "tweakability" of the operating system. They dont let you do that much on the OS itself, so there arent many ways to get yourself in trouble with errors and lockups.
I bet if people knew about as little of Windows as most people know of Macs you'd say this about Windows. Mac's OS's have soooo many hidden settings, like XP, that just haven't been discovered by the average user.
Windows XP has been more like a mac in the way that everything is all colorful and automated, and "easy to use" but you can turn all that off and make it useable for a person like me who does more than check their email, chat, and play some games all day, which is what a majority of the computer owners in the US do. Period.
there is some other matter, why is XP less stable than 2000? because of its extra "features" but the extra features on the Mac's haven't make them less stable
All the regulars on the forum use a computer much for much more than that, and thats when a mac's little colorful dialogs and help systems (and windows xp's crap it has, also) just get in the way.
you're saying XP does this too, then why are you bashing Mac for it? and actually for the most part these little helpings are actually used by advanced Mac users
Another thing is that the majority of the computers out there are built by companies such as Compaq, HP, Dell, Gateway, Emachines, etc. and all of them have personalized software with the company's name on it and many extra "helpful" things thrown in. in my experience (except with Dell PCs, as theyre not quite as bad) this just is more crap that these computers have to deal with , and that they always seem to lack in memory just makes it all worse... again. the hardware used in a compaq is not near as good in quality as a ASUS or Abit product, hands down.
I agree with you there on this one
Much of these PC's reliability issues are from their crappy equipment. Its like they all use ECS motherboards.... ( )
actually it is a lot more software-based, XP actually runs faster on my PC than 98, still crashes a lot but not nearly as much, and I do have for the most part fairly good quality hardware, just not very big performancewise
Any person who builds a homebuilt PC correctly with quality parts, and a stable OS like Win2k, WinXP PRO, (NOT HOME as it is not near as reliable) or a Linux system will have wonderful compadability, reliability, and an all out good experience with their PC.
I know it isn't very important, but Linux, 2000 and XP still crash more often than Mac's Os'soriginally posted by me
I'm sick of people saying the Mac's aren't compatible with anything, the Mac's are in fact even more compatible than the Windows computers, the upgrades: AGP, DDR RAM, USB, speakers, IDE, SATA, are all the same as Windows PC's, PCI-X is the only real different expansion slot. also the software itself is no problem, like I said before, WINDOWS EMULATOR, among with - you may or may not realise - the already abundant software for Mac's (not all of it is on the shelves) it can also run Windows programs, although most people don't need to!
Ok, I guess what it all boils down to is, the user, the quality of parts, and the edition of OS.
yes, and the Mac's Os's, built on the very stable Unix, and all the quality parts built by Mac, make it sooo stable, well I can't even think of an example for this, that's how stable they are.
also, Mac makes its own hardware AND its OS's, so they can optimise both on each other.
Any person who has went thru a lemon of a PC has learned probably more from it then any other PC they've owned. Even if PC's arent as reliable, what doenst kill you will just make you stronger, right? So when a PC crashes REAL bad, (which again is probably a user-related Fault)
they will learn about it and be a stronger, smarter user. a mac person who doenst go thru any problems will never learn about the computer itself, how it works, why it works, why it doenst work, and how to fix either your own, or a freinds.
I agree with this, but this is just saying: how many people need to fix a Mac?
one more bone to pick... WHEN does the AVERAGE computer user EVER need 8 GB of ram? Having more ram in a mac doenst make it better, it probably means that it needs more ram to do the same thing a PC can do...
actually, the 8GB of RAM is an OPTION, it DOESN't NEED it, but it shows what it is capable of. and people do use it for heavy photo editing, and it's very good in the Movie industry where they may require that much software and images open
still have problems with some programs that arent specifically made to perform good on a mac. Max PC (magazine) Benchmarked the HELL out of the most powerful AMD, Intel, and Mac "consumer" pcs out at the time (P4EE, AMD 64 FX-1(?) and G5 dual 2.0ghz proc.) and the mac was WAY behind on most tests, except of course for the mac original sofware that is built to run great on a mac, and only had windows ports out (i.e., Quicktime conversions) ... ALL this and it has TWO "incredably powerful" procs? wow! id just have to say PWNED at that mac...
and just how reliable is this benchmark, how do you know they aren't biasing it?
actually the Mac G5 did HEAVILY outperform the P4's, yes it DID outperform the P4 extreme. prolly the only CPU's now that only slightly outperform it are the Athlon 64 3400+ and/or the FX, and like I said before, the amount is just a catchup, and now Mac should have something else well under development, which would be the reason they are discounting now.