A Question For Anyone Vaguely Computer Literate

[TomGoodheart 373]

Rob seriously think about getting a mac. Microsoft software is so full of holes that scammers etc find ways in. Then Microsoft release a patch and so on. Every new piece of software you load slows the machine down even if you uninstall it as it usually stays in the registry.

Since I have had my apple I have virtually zero problems

My main problem is that (apart from minor experience with iTunes and iPods which seem to do exactly as they please, whether that's what you want or not) an equivalent Apple laptop to my Toshiba would cost me about twice what I paid.

I've not had any problems with what I have and it works the way I want it to. I just can't see the point in paying more for something that doesn't appear to do anything more.

*shrug*

[Peckris 579]

Apple software cannot run legally on a PC, though I've heard of the 'Hacintosh', so it's been done.

Then they are suffering from an overdose of egotism. There's nothing wrong with the PC hardware, and even the apple software has bugs looking at the crap that the various ayephones occasionally dispense. Even designer shi*e has a price limit.

It's not egotism - it's their EULA. Every software designer (unless open source) has one. For example, technically, only a registered copy of Windows can be installed on a Mac, but Apple's EULA prevents even the reverse of that, primarily because they're a hardware company first, software second.

Rob seriously think about getting a mac. Microsoft software is so full of holes that scammers etc find ways in. Then Microsoft release a patch and so on. Every new piece of software you load slows the machine down even if you uninstall it as it usually stays in the registry.

Since I have had my apple I have virtually zero problems

My main problem is that (apart from minor experience with iTunes and iPods which seem to do exactly as they please, whether that's what you want or not) an equivalent Apple laptop to my Toshiba would cost me about twice what I paid.

I've not had any problems with what I have and it works the way I want it to. I just can't see the point in paying more for something that doesn't appear to do anything more.

*shrug*

It's two things : one, the quality of components, which is why you pay more for a BMW than a Ford. Two, the included software for example Garageband and iMovie, makes the overall value of the package much more competitive with your Toshiba than it would be without.

[damian1986 142]

It's two things : one, the quality of components, which is why you pay more for a BMW than a Ford. Two, the included software for example Garageband and iMovie, makes the overall value of the package much more competitive with your Toshiba than it would be without.

And the massively important third thing is the brand. You're paying more because it comes in a pretty white box and they paid Mitchell and Webb and whoever else to market their shiny products.

Their components are, as a general rule, high quality, but not strictly value for money if you're really looking to get juice out of your machine! E.g. the 27 inch iMac at £1,740:

• 27" monitor, beautiful
• 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
• Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz
• 8GB (two 4GB) memory at 1600MHz
• 1TB hard drive 7200rpm
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M with 2GB video memory

Not actually very good!!

1. Mac monitors are excellent but you can pick up a high-end 4K screen for in the region of £600 now.
2. The i5 is a hell of a lot cheaper than the i7 and performs far worse. You can get a six-core i7 processor overclocked for in the region of £400.
3. Turbo boost is nonsensical. Just overclock your processor to 4.5 GHz and be done with it.
4. 8GB of ram is piss-poor for a high-end machine. 16GB of ram operating at 2400 Mhz is easily achieved for in the region of £130
5. A 1TB mechanical hard drive costs about £50. You want a solid state drive nowadays.
6. The graphics card is not particularly good if you want to do any high end gaming or video processing work.

As to the operating system debate, well, pros and cons across the board. Mac OS is well-polished but fewer software vendors develop for the platform and support for any hardware that Apple didn't develop drivers for is rubbish.

[HistoricCoinage 115]

Their components are, as a general rule, high quality, but not strictly value for money if you're really looking to get juice out of your machine!

Precisely why I've built my own desktops over the years - it means I can have exactly what I want for less than a pre-built one.

[damian1986 142]

Their components are, as a general rule, high quality, but not strictly value for money if you're really looking to get juice out of your machine!

Precisely why I've built my own desktops over the years - it means I can have exactly what I want for less than a pre-built one.

Yeah it's the best way to go about it and I run Windows as my core OS with other operating systems running as virtual machines. Unfortunately you can only develop Mac and iOS apps using a Mac machine so you pretty much have to go out and buy one of their products. I have a Mac Mini which represents the cheapest option given its intended usage.

It's more difficult with laptops though where you can't pick-and-choose your monitor and case and in this area Apple excel, build quality is excellent. That said if you went to Dell for an ultrabook at the same price as a Macbook you could give them a run for their money.

In the interests of balance Windows is a pain in the arse platform at the best of times and their latest monstrosity (8) is detrimental to... actually using the thing.

Linux-based operating systems are wonderful until you realise that no one wrote the drivers for your sound card and half the software you want has to be compiled from source.

[Accumulator 52]

Their components are, as a general rule, high quality, but not strictly value for money if you're really looking to get juice out of your machine!

Precisely why I've built my own desktops over the years - it means I can have exactly what I want for less than a pre-built one.

Yeah it's the best way to go about it and I run Windows as my core OS with other operating systems running as virtual machines. Unfortunately you can only develop Mac and iOS apps using a Mac machine so you pretty much have to go out and buy one of their products. I have a Mac Mini which represents the cheapest option given its intended usage.

It's more difficult with laptops though where you can't pick-and-choose your monitor and case and in this area Apple excel, build quality is excellent. That said if you went to Dell for an ultrabook at the same price as a Macbook you could give them a run for their money.

In the interests of balance Windows is a pain in the arse platform at the best of times and their latest monstrosity (8) is detrimental to... actually using the thing.

Linux-based operating systems are wonderful until you realise that no one wrote the drivers for your sound card and half the software you want has to be compiled from source.

I don't agree that building your own is the best way to go. Every component has it's own foibles and has quite possibly never been fully tested with every other component you're using, including the software. Basically you're building a bag of bits and hoping the whole thing will hang together. It never does, and crashes will happen.

So, unless you're a techy geek and enjoy working out why various elements of your homemade super computer appear to be claiming the same memory space, and a dozen other problems, I would stick to tried and tested. That means buying a fully integrated system from a single supplier, which is where Apple comes into it's own.

It's also the reason that, whereas thousands of viruses can affect PC's, virtually no virus exists that can affect a MAC. And why most computer technicians in the City are kept in such gainful employment on Windows systems, but go home to a MAC.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Accumulator

[TomGoodheart 373]

It's two things : one, the quality of components, which is why you pay more for a BMW than a Ford. Two, the included software for example Garageband and iMovie, makes the overall value of the package much more competitive with your Toshiba than it would be without.

But I only do a very limited number of things with my pc. Not much point paying for stuff I don't need.

As for building my own, well I'm only a little more literate than Rob. I found Linux Lite the most frustrating experience and just impossible to use. And I'm lazy. I just want something that looks and works in a familiar way straight out the box. There's no way I'd know how to choose a bespoke system let alone assemble one.

I sympathise with Rob. It's a pain in the arse when a supposed 'update' is simply a way of adding toolbars, changing your search engine preference and generally mucking up what you have gotten used to. Designers seem to give you all the bells and whistles of movie players and music centres and more whether you want them or not. All I want is to search the internet quickly, store photos and a few basic text files and send emails.

The facility to hibernate my laptop so when I open the lid all the pages and tabs I was looking at yesterday are still there is my highest priority. Next is to be able to make my desktop look pretty and just how I want it. That's it really ...

[HistoricCoinage 115]

It's also the reason that, whereas thousands of viruses can affect PC's, virtually no virus exists that can affect a MAC. And why most computer technicians in the City are kept in such gainful employment on Windows systems, but go home to a MAC.

Well, there are viruses out there that target Macs, e.g. The Flashback Trojan, but I do agree that far more target PCs and, as you say, keep many techies in business.

[Peckris 579]

It's two things : one, the quality of components, which is why you pay more for a BMW than a Ford. Two, the included software for example Garageband and iMovie, makes the overall value of the package much more competitive with your Toshiba than it would be without.

And the massively important third thing is the brand. You're paying more because it comes in a pretty white box and they paid Mitchell and Webb and whoever else to market their shiny products.

Their components are, as a general rule, high quality, but not strictly value for money if you're really looking to get juice out of your machine! E.g. the 27 inch iMac at £1,740:

• 27" monitor, beautiful
• 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
• Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz
• 8GB (two 4GB) memory at 1600MHz
• 1TB hard drive 7200rpm
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M with 2GB video memory

Not actually very good!!

1. Mac monitors are excellent but you can pick up a high-end 4K screen for in the region of £600 now.
2. The i5 is a hell of a lot cheaper than the i7 and performs far worse. You can get a six-core i7 processor overclocked for in the region of £400.
3. Turbo boost is nonsensical. Just overclock your processor to 4.5 GHz and be done with it.
4. 8GB of ram is piss-poor for a high-end machine. 16GB of ram operating at 2400 Mhz is easily achieved for in the region of £130
5. A 1TB mechanical hard drive costs about £50. You want a solid state drive nowadays.
6. The graphics card is not particularly good if you want to do any high end gaming or video processing work.

As to the operating system debate, well, pros and cons across the board. Mac OS is well-polished but fewer software vendors develop for the platform and support for any hardware that Apple didn't develop drivers for is rubbish.

Sorry, but most of this is untrue.

[damian1986 142]

I don't agree that building your own is the best way to go.

Well there's scope for getting it wrong but it's not that difficult nowadays to piece together a system of compatible components. One thing Windows did get right is support for the myriad hardware available - so long as you go with a known and trusted vendor I don't see too many problems. If you were looking at going down the Intel route you'd have probably only half a dozen motherboards to choose from for any given chipset.

As to viruses you're correct but if Apple suddenly consumed the whole of the desktop market I'm pretty sure you'd see many more start to appear. Apple aren't invulnerable (which is why Comet were marketing Macs as "do not get PC viruses" rather than "do not get viruses" hah).

And the massively important third thing is the brand. You're paying more because it comes in a pretty white box and they paid Mitchell and Webb and whoever else to market their shiny products.

Their components are, as a general rule, high quality, but not strictly value for money if you're really looking to get juice out of your machine! E.g. the 27 inch iMac at £1,740:

• 27" monitor, beautiful
• 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
• Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz
• 8GB (two 4GB) memory at 1600MHz
• 1TB hard drive 7200rpm
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M with 2GB video memory

Not actually very good!!

• Mac monitors are excellent but you can pick up a high-end 4K screen for in the region of £600 now.
• The i5 is a hell of a lot cheaper than the i7 and performs far worse. You can get a six-core i7 processor overclocked for in the region of £400.
• Turbo boost is nonsensical. Just overclock your processor to 4.5 GHz and be done with it.
• 8GB of ram is piss-poor for a high-end machine. 16GB of ram operating at 2400 Mhz is easily achieved for in the region of £130
• A 1TB mechanical hard drive costs about £50. You want a solid state drive nowadays.
• The graphics card is not particularly good if you want to do any high end gaming or video processing work.

As to the operating system debate, well, pros and cons across the board. Mac OS is well-polished but fewer software vendors develop for the platform and support for any hardware that Apple didn't develop drivers for is rubbish.

Sorry, but most of this is untrue.

Well I didn't just make it up!!!

• The Dell P2815Q is a 28" monitor with a resolution of 3840 x 2160! It's one of the first affordable 4K screens to come to market and has its issues with refresh rates but at £527 is testament to the quality of monitors the likes of Dell and Asus are pushing out now. Mac monitors are excellent but you can find a quality alternative at a similar price point.
• Bear in mind that the iMac is £1700 and I think it's completely fair to hold the processor to the very highest standards. The i5 is a decent processor but better-performing ones are available if you have this sort of budget.

  

• Turbo boost is a bit of a gimmick. Really the fact that a CPU can be boosted to perform a bit more quickly is by the by when you can safely overclock a CPU by a good 0.5 Ghz.
• The benchmarks (see here: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_ddr3_2400mhz&num=2) attest to high speed memory being much better. And while 8GB at 1600Mhz may be enough it's poor for a machine that's costing £1700, especially given that you can get high speed ram at the price I quoted above.
• Solid state hard drives have dipped to less than 50p per gigabyte of data now. A 250GB solid state drive + a 2TB mechanical drive for additional storage can be had for less than £200 so we're still within budget here.
• The stock graphics card in Apple's £1700 machine is not very good. It gets killed by the GTX 580 which is two (nearly three) generations old. The GTX 760 will set you back £170, again well within the budget of a £1700 machine.

  

[Peckris 579]

I don't agree that building your own is the best way to go.

Well there's scope for getting it wrong but it's not that difficult nowadays to piece together a system of compatible components. One thing Windows did get right is support for the myriad hardware available - so long as you go with a known and trusted vendor I don't see too many problems. If you were looking at going down the Intel route you'd have probably only half a dozen motherboards to choose from for any given chipset.

As to viruses you're correct but if Apple suddenly consumed the whole of the desktop market I'm pretty sure you'd see many more start to appear. Apple aren't invulnerable (which is why Comet were marketing Macs as "do not get PC viruses" rather than "do not get viruses" hah).

And the massively important third thing is the brand. You're paying more because it comes in a pretty white box and they paid Mitchell and Webb and whoever else to market their shiny products.

Their components are, as a general rule, high quality, but not strictly value for money if you're really looking to get juice out of your machine! E.g. the 27 inch iMac at £1,740:

• 27" monitor, beautiful
• 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
• Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz
• 8GB (two 4GB) memory at 1600MHz
• 1TB hard drive 7200rpm
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M with 2GB video memory

Not actually very good!!

• Mac monitors are excellent but you can pick up a high-end 4K screen for in the region of £600 now.
• The i5 is a hell of a lot cheaper than the i7 and performs far worse. You can get a six-core i7 processor overclocked for in the region of £400.
• Turbo boost is nonsensical. Just overclock your processor to 4.5 GHz and be done with it.
• 8GB of ram is piss-poor for a high-end machine. 16GB of ram operating at 2400 Mhz is easily achieved for in the region of £130
• A 1TB mechanical hard drive costs about £50. You want a solid state drive nowadays.
• The graphics card is not particularly good if you want to do any high end gaming or video processing work.

As to the operating system debate, well, pros and cons across the board. Mac OS is well-polished but fewer software vendors develop for the platform and support for any hardware that Apple didn't develop drivers for is rubbish.

Sorry, but most of this is untrue.

Well I didn't just make it up!!!

• The Dell P2815Q is a 28" monitor with a resolution of 3840 x 2160! It's one of the first affordable 4K screens to come to market and has its issues with refresh rates but at £527 is testament to the quality of monitors the likes of Dell and Asus are pushing out now. Mac monitors are excellent but you can find a quality alternative at a similar price point.
• Bear in mind that the iMac is £1700 and I think it's completely fair to hold the processor to the very highest standards. The i5 is a decent processor but better-performing ones are available if you have this sort of budget.

  

• Turbo boost is a bit of a gimmick. Really the fact that a CPU can be boosted to perform a bit more quickly is by the by when you can safely overclock a CPU by a good 0.5 Ghz.
• The benchmarks (see here: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_ddr3_2400mhz&num=2) attest to high speed memory being much better. And while 8GB at 1600Mhz may be enough it's poor for a machine that's costing £1700, especially given that you can get high speed ram at the price I quoted above.
• Solid state hard drives have dipped to less than 50p per gigabyte of data now. A 250GB solid state drive + a 2TB mechanical drive for additional storage can be had for less than £200 so we're still within budget here.
• The stock graphics card in Apple's £1700 machine is not very good. It gets killed by the GTX 580 which is two (nearly three) generations old. The GTX 760 will set you back £170, again well within the budget of a £1700 machine.

  

I had a much longer reply, but hit the wrong button and lost it all

Ok, point for point :

1. Mac monitors are indeed excellent, which probably accounts for quite a proportion of the cost

2. Macs are sold with Core i7 as well as i5 processors. You pays your money...

3. Agreed

4. All computers are sold with not enough RAM, except for the basics. Mine has struggled along with 4GB for a few years but I'm about to upgrade with another 8GB from Crucial, for £65. It's easy enough to do, even for me.

5. A 1TB HD is standard. SSDs are not yet universal and have their own drawbacks

• poor memory management - unless usage is spread evenly, they're more liable to bad sectors
• you can delete files from SSDs, but you can't securely wipe them, the only option is to overwrite with new data

The best compromise I've heard of is hybrid : use SSDs for the ROM so the computer boots up almost instantly, then a conventional drive after that

6.The GFX cards are absolutely fine for video editing - if not, why do so many video editors use Macs? As for ultimate top-end 3D shooter gaming, yes they are a micro community with very demanding needs which Apple won't cater for, as a high proportion of them build their own machines anyway, so I don't accept that point, which has been made - missing the entire point - since the 1980s; it's a well worn chestnut but just doesn't stand up.

As for software, yes there's much more available for the PC but a whole lot of it is rubbish; most of the Mac stuff is at least halfway decent. As for hardware drivers, sorry but that's rubbish. Apple just don't write drivers for 3rd party devices, the manufacturers write their own. On the other hand, Apple supplies a few GB of every known printer driver with every new machine, and Aperture comes with import driver recognition for every known camera (at the time). Name me one piece of leading hardware that can't be used on a Mac for lack of a driver?

[damian1986 142]

Ok, point for point :

1. Mac monitors are indeed excellent, which probably accounts for quite a proportion of the cost

2. Macs are sold with Core i7 as well as i5 processors. You pays your money...

3. Agreed

4. All computers are sold with not enough RAM, except for the basics. Mine has struggled along with 4GB for a few years but I'm about to upgrade with another 8GB from Crucial, for £65. It's easy enough to do, even for me.

5. A 1TB HD is standard. SSDs are not yet universal and have their own drawbacks

• poor memory management - unless usage is spread evenly, they're more liable to bad sectors
• you can delete files from SSDs, but you can't securely wipe them, the only option is to overwrite with new data

The best compromise I've heard of is hybrid : use SSDs for the ROM so the computer boots up almost instantly, then a conventional drive after that

6.The GFX cards are absolutely fine for video editing - if not, why do so many video editors use Macs? As for ultimate top-end 3D shooter gaming, yes they are a micro community with very demanding needs which Apple won't cater for, as a high proportion of them build their own machines anyway, so I don't accept that point, which has been made - missing the entire point - since the 1980s; it's a well worn chestnut but just doesn't stand up.

As for software, yes there's much more available for the PC but a whole lot of it is rubbish; most of the Mac stuff is at least halfway decent. As for hardware drivers, sorry but that's rubbish. Apple just don't write drivers for 3rd party devices, the manufacturers write their own. On the other hand, Apple supplies a few GB of every known printer driver with every new machine, and Aperture comes with import driver recognition for every known camera (at the time). Name me one piece of leading hardware that can't be used on a Mac for lack of a driver?

Yes I'm probably being a bit harsh on the graphics but for what you're paying I just don't think a 775M is good enough. I did say high-end video editing and gaming for which a beast of a card would be better - granted you may not need such a card but £1700 is a pretty good budget for a new machine you could easily accommodate one.

Again 1TB is fine but in the context of price I'd like to see an ssd in there. They're edging their way towards being standard issue and many-an-old-laptop could be salvaged just by replacing the hard drive with an SSD - the performance improvements are that significant.

I have had problems with a few older webcams and a graphics tablet in the past but you're right probably the whole of the hardware market is writing drivers for macs now that OS X is so prevalent. And actually the latest flavours of Linux don't seem to have too many problems with hardware so this is becoming much less of an issue.

I only really had two points to make: (1) that Apple do charge a premium on their products by virtue of the strength of their brand and (2) they do not offer excellent value for money at the hardware level.

The first point I haven't really addressed but it's fair to assume that they're not operating on tight margins! And as to the second point I think this is covered.

Now, as to what constitutes value is partly subjective - if you're invested in Apple technologies and deem their software to be superior or better-suited to your needs (both in terms of what you need now and what you're likely to need in 2 years time) then excellent: make the purchase and be happy with what is ultimately a very good product.

Just to add, are viruses etc. really keeping most IT technicians in business? I don't know that Apple have ever done networking and IT infrastructure that well and certainly when we get to the servers running the likes of Facebook and the BBC you're looking at an operating system like Red Hat.

[Peckris 579]

Ok, point for point :

1. Mac monitors are indeed excellent, which probably accounts for quite a proportion of the cost

2. Macs are sold with Core i7 as well as i5 processors. You pays your money...

3. Agreed

4. All computers are sold with not enough RAM, except for the basics. Mine has struggled along with 4GB for a few years but I'm about to upgrade with another 8GB from Crucial, for £65. It's easy enough to do, even for me.

5. A 1TB HD is standard. SSDs are not yet universal and have their own drawbacks

• poor memory management - unless usage is spread evenly, they're more liable to bad sectors
• you can delete files from SSDs, but you can't securely wipe them, the only option is to overwrite with new data

The best compromise I've heard of is hybrid : use SSDs for the ROM so the computer boots up almost instantly, then a conventional drive after that

6.The GFX cards are absolutely fine for video editing - if not, why do so many video editors use Macs? As for ultimate top-end 3D shooter gaming, yes they are a micro community with very demanding needs which Apple won't cater for, as a high proportion of them build their own machines anyway, so I don't accept that point, which has been made - missing the entire point - since the 1980s; it's a well worn chestnut but just doesn't stand up.

As for software, yes there's much more available for the PC but a whole lot of it is rubbish; most of the Mac stuff is at least halfway decent. As for hardware drivers, sorry but that's rubbish. Apple just don't write drivers for 3rd party devices, the manufacturers write their own. On the other hand, Apple supplies a few GB of every known printer driver with every new machine, and Aperture comes with import driver recognition for every known camera (at the time). Name me one piece of leading hardware that can't be used on a Mac for lack of a driver?

Yes I'm probably being a bit harsh on the graphics but for what you're paying I just don't think a 775M is good enough. I did say high-end video editing and gaming for which a beast of a card would be better - granted you may not need such a card but £1700 is a pretty good budget for a new machine you could easily accommodate one.

Again 1TB is fine but in the context of price I'd like to see an ssd in there. They're edging their way towards being standard issue and many-an-old-laptop could be salvaged just by replacing the hard drive with an SSD - the performance improvements are that significant.

I have had problems with a few older webcams and a graphics tablet in the past but you're right probably the whole of the hardware market is writing drivers for macs now that OS X is so prevalent. And actually the latest flavours of Linux don't seem to have too many problems with hardware so this is becoming much less of an issue.

I only really had two points to make: (1) that Apple do charge a premium on their products by virtue of the strength of their brand and (2) they do not offer excellent value for money at the hardware level.

The first point I haven't really addressed but it's fair to assume that they're not operating on tight margins! And as to the second point I think this is covered.

Now, as to what constitutes value is partly subjective - if you're invested in Apple technologies and deem their software to be superior or better-suited to your needs (both in terms of what you need now and what you're likely to need in 2 years time) then excellent: make the purchase and be happy with what is ultimately a very good product.

Just to add, are viruses etc. really keeping most IT technicians in business? I don't know that Apple have ever done networking and IT infrastructure that well and certainly when we get to the servers running the likes of Facebook and the BBC you're looking at an operating system like Red Hat.

While I agree that Apple probably don't offer brilliant VFM at the hardware level (but then, nor do BMW ), their machines do tend to last quite a bit longer than all but their best rivals. Ok, you might think that means Apple users eventually go out of date more than other users, but 1) Macs are sold more to let people just get on with 'stuff', rather than to geeks, and 2) the number of Windows XP users still around (think Mac OS 9...) is a Big Number.

You also mentioned 'the brand', like it's appeared out of thin air. But look at what Apple have done (with the one proviso that a lot of this wasn't their own creation, but they did more to popularise it and make it accessible than most other computer companies) :

• the first usable, professionally produced home computer - Apple II
• the first usable GUI - the Macintosh
• the first company to make Desktop Publishing a reality
• the first company to produce a computer for which a killer app was created - the spreadsheet
• the first company to produce a truly useful, well-designed MP3 player
• the first company to negotiate musical downloads with major record labels for an online store
• the first company to make own-brand computer high street retailing work
• the company that transformed smartphones into a completely new user experience and changed the industry forever
• the company that made touch screens a widely available and useful reality
• the company that made tablets a practical reality
• the company that set great store by design, seeing form and function as equally important
• the company that set great store by 'ease of use' bringing digital devices to the masses

Yes, that's some brand! And actually, their prices - when you look at everything including bundled software and OS X and quality of components - are much more comparable with PC manufacturers than they were in the 1990s. The gap has been closing, not widening, with (or because of) increased success.

That's not to say they don't have their flaws - I'm sticking with OS X Snow Leopard for now as 1) I can still run Photoshop and 2) I don't like the creeping iOS-ification of subsequent OS X versions. Not as many users as have stayed with Windows XP, but a definitely a vocal minority.

[Accumulator 52]

I don't agree that building your own is the best way to go.

Well there's scope for getting it wrong but it's not that difficult nowadays to piece together a system of compatible components. One thing Windows did get right is support for the myriad hardware available - so long as you go with a known and trusted vendor I don't see too many problems. If you were looking at going down the Intel route you'd have probably only half a dozen motherboards to choose from for any given chipset.

If you wanted a car, would you buy the engine, gearbox, chassis, body etc. from separate suppliers? Ok, some people would. You've probably seen their kit cars on trailers heading for the nearest garage.

For most people a computer is a box they plug in, that just works. That's Apple's market.

[Rob 3,002]

Hmm. I appear to have inadvertently started a major discussion, not that I have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. When you have reached some sort of agreement, a little resume for the rest of us might be useful.

For the majority of users it is a simple tool. Most people do not push their system to the limit, so any basic system will do. Most only require the ability to write word documents, do a bit with a spreadsheet and send/receive emails.

[Peter 615]

My laptop died last week.

Rather than spend a fortune I will just go and buy an Argos special.

Back up on boys on a £40 hard drive.

Windows 8 could Pee me off.

[damian1986 142]

Hmm. I appear to have inadvertently started a major discussion, not that I have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. When you have reached some sort of agreement, a little resume for the rest of us might be useful.

For the majority of users it is a simple tool. Most people do not push their system to the limit, so any basic system will do. Most only require the ability to write word documents, do a bit with a spreadsheet and send/receive emails.

Oh I forgot there was an actual purpose to this thread. I think we reached an agreement to stop. I did anyway, implicitly.

Are you actually entertaining the notion of getting a new machine? I never once said that Macs aren't excellent at what they do - bob into the Apple store and try one out or borrow one from a fellow northern forum member for a couple of days...

[TomGoodheart 373]

For the majority of users it is a simple tool. Most people do not push their system to the limit, so any basic system will do. Most only require the ability to write word documents, do a bit with a spreadsheet and send/receive emails.

There you go Rob. I corrected it for you!

[Peckris 579]

Hmm. I appear to have inadvertently started a major discussion, not that I have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. When you have reached some sort of agreement, a little resume for the rest of us might be useful.

For the majority of users it is a simple tool. Most people do not push their system to the limit, so any basic system will do. Most only require the ability to write word documents, do a bit with a spreadsheet and send/receive emails.

In 1999 perhaps!!! Nowadays, the 'casual' computer user wants somewhere to store and play music, upload pictures from their camera, login to various social networks (which can involve a lot of picture sharing), play (and maybe download) videos on YouTube, play the odd game, perhaps buy and / or rent music and films, listen to live radio or TV online, or catch up on programmes they missed. If they're creative they will also use their computers to make music, edit movies, photographs etc, or write.

Jeez Rob, where you bin these last 10 years or so?

[Rob 3,002]

Hmm. I appear to have inadvertently started a major discussion, not that I have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. When you have reached some sort of agreement, a little resume for the rest of us might be useful.

For the majority of users it is a simple tool. Most people do not push their system to the limit, so any basic system will do. Most only require the ability to write word documents, do a bit with a spreadsheet and send/receive emails.

In 1999 perhaps!!! Nowadays, the 'casual' computer user wants somewhere to store and play music, upload pictures from their camera, login to various social networks (which can involve a lot of picture sharing), play (and maybe download) videos on YouTube, play the odd game, perhaps buy and / or rent music and films, listen to live radio or TV online, or catch up on programmes they missed. If they're creative they will also use their computers to make music, edit movies, photographs etc, or write.

Jeez Rob, where you bin these last 10 years or so?

The same place I was the twenty odd years before - Manchester.

Right, lets deal with the list.

I don't store music, but do listen to the odd track occasionally on you tube.

I upload pictures for the site, though the results are sketchy.

Don't do social networks apart from this forum and a couple others.

Don't download videos or play games.

Don't buy or rent music or films. For the first see above, for the second, films are mostly much the same featuring the same old actors time after time. My kids have watched so many films down the years, I could probably make a collage of the snippets seen in passing and say I've seen the lot.

I listen to the radio in the car. Don't listen to TV or radio online and rarely regret missing a TV program. Even if I have missed something it wil be repeated on a choice of channels tomorrow. The surfeit of drivel which passes for programming is on the whole uninspiring. I don't mind the odd documentary, but prefer to get my history lessons from books rather than Hollywood.

As I said, it's a tool - not the centre of my universe.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Rob

[Nordle11 564]

Don't do social networks apart from this forum and a couple others.

Love it

Who me officer? No, I don't smoke drugs apart from this joint in my hand and the one I had yesterday and the day before

[RLC35 288]

Don't do social networks apart from this forum and a couple others.

Love it

Who me officer? No, I don't smoke drugs apart from this joint in my hand and the one I had yesterday and the day before

too funny Nordie!

[Rob 3,002]

Don't do social networks apart from this forum and a couple others.

Love it

Who me officer? No, I don't smoke drugs apart from this joint in my hand and the one I had yesterday and the day before

This is a forum, not a social network in the generally accepted sense. The latter are things like facebook, twitter etc where people post inane comments incessantly, frequently displaying the fact they are an extrovert and quite often a t**t to boot. Personally I don't care if someone had a dump at 9am, less still do I want to see it in cinemascope. A forum can rise above that to discuss topics meaningfully, be it about coins or any other topic of interest.

[Nordle11 564]

No offence meant Rob, just joshing around.

[pies 33]

Rob a mac in car terms is like an Aston Martin, Bentley Audi.

A PC is more like TVR, Fiat Datsun

You pays your money.....