Re: Giant laptops
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A friend of mine has been in the computer business as long as there has <span style="font-style: italic">been</span> a computer business - and I don't mean personal computers, either, as he was one of the original columnists for Byte magazine. (Yeah, I'm dating myself. I'm old.)
He says that an Apple is a great system as long as the software will do exactly what you want to do. If so, doing things with an Apple is simple.
But, he says, a Microsoft system can be made to do anything.
When Jason said, "Macs are for people who can't figure out how to make a PC run right," he was right on the money.
</div></div>
You can make a Mac do anything you like too, it just might be a little less mainstream than the Win stuff. There are two kinds of Apple users, the extreme novice and the extreme expert. Most of the great old workstation producers have essentially given up on UNIX workstations these days. A MacPro with OS-X is tightly integrated high-quality hardware married to a BSD based operating system. That makes it pretty much the closest thing to a true workstation out there with any sort of readily available retail support structure.
I've been using, professionally, PC's since QDOS and I never once had an urge to switch to Apple. Until a couple of years ago when OS-X matured and 8-core Intel workstations supporting many GB of RAM came out and 64-bit XP was dead in the water and Vista was Win98 all over again. With an Apple running fusion I could run multiple XP virtual machines on 1 keyboard/mouse/monitor-stack with copy/paste between them (VMware's Win Workstation was and still is not nearly as mature as Fusion,) completely decommission my UNIX workstation running in the corner, and as icing on the cake benefit from all the pretty look/feel advantages of the Mac over XP. Since snow-leopard came out I can now connect to multiple Exchange servers from a single client (something Outlook still can't do) and for the last year or so I've found that most of the time my XP virtual machines stay suspended and I tend to work almost exclusively off of OS-X except when using Visual Studio or testing the output thereof. This realization (and especially that multiple Exchange server thing) made me buy a MacBook Pro to replace my XP laptop when it finally started getting flaky on me a couple months ago. Apples have their advantages and software will ALWAYS do whatever you want, so long as you accept that in the end you may have to write it yourself.
But that's not to say that everyone should buy a Mac. Most people will not use theirs or see the same advantages as I do and so it comes down to what will you use it for and what sort of consumer experience do you prefer. Computers aren't sold to computer people any more. Apple or PC, they're all marketed at lay-people. The difference is that Apples are marketed to the population that is GLAD they aren't computer people and PC's are marketed to the population that wants to BELIEVE they are computer people (and this includes the vast majority of IT staff.) Computer people are tired of the horseshit on both sides, know what they want already and build it from what they find available on the market.
Personally, for most users I find Windows machines to be easiest to understand and get the most functionality out of if for no other reason than they are the most mainstream and so it will be easiest to find a solution someone else has prepackaged for you. At the functionally subsidized prices a Windows box sells for, it's hard to say no to that kind of value. For grandmothers and the like, who really just want a web browser, some basic email, and a gentle voice to tell them where to click, low-end Apples might be worth the significant premium over what a similarly capable Windows machine would cost just because out of the box an Apple has a nice little fence put up around the sandbox to keep the user from wondering off and getting hit by a car.