Move to an iMac?
-
I agree with most of the comments that everyone have contributed. A Mac would have been my choice way back when, but it has always been out of my price range. The new UNIX based OS is something I would really like to try. VMs are a very good thing, VMWare works very well, ESX or GSX with Vmotion, we use at work. I can build a server in minutes vs hours.
Mac is an excellent graphics workstation, but hasn't been able to build a strong presents in the business application market, maybe someday!
My OS of choice is UNIX, maybe Windows will catch up someday, when it finally gets rid of the C:\ specification and understands what a mount point is! Until then, Windows will always be the OddLots of OS.
-
Not that I want to get into a flame war, but I don't understand the windows guy.
Not only does the mac support all the open source databases (Postgres, MySQL, HSQL, etc. ) it supports Oracle 10g (http://www.apple.com/server/resources/oracle/) . That means that you can use the mac as the database server. I know, you cannot run MS-SQL Server on the mac, but so what? I have no problem running a wintel box for a MS-SQL server if I so chose. I program on the mac, so I am pretty familiar with the API's and such. Cocoa and Java both support SQL server. Yes, I know, it means that you have to know something a bit more complicated than VB to write code for the mac, but trust me with the way that VB.net is more object oriented, and the syntax even feels more C-like, the trend is that you will need to know something more complicated than VB-classic anyway. And if you don't want to learn the native mac programming languages, you can always resort to RealBASIC (http://www.realsoftware.com/) which again supports SQL Server. The contention that database support on the mac begins and ends with Filemaker pro is eroneous.
I could go through and argue against the others, but my lunch is here, so all I will say is this, just because you are NOT a mac user, and you do NOT understand the mac does not mean that the mac is not a viable piece of software. It is Unix, it is hardened, and I think it looks better than windows (if you don't believe me then answer why windows looks extremely close to the macintosh). True, these days it is less about interoperability and more about preference (all three major platforms can operate well together), I think that saying that the mac lacks in the areas you pointed out are due to a lack of knowledge of the platform, and not the platform.
In the end, most of what I can do on a mac I can do on windows, and all of what I can do on windows I can do on a mac. It is preference for me. I don't like microsoft, but I will use microsoft because people pay me to do so. At home, though, I use the platform that I like best, the Mac.
Aleksei
-
To respond to you Mr. Nipirakis.
Four clear points
1) Cost.
In that magic world where money is no object (That's the same place where no one gets into car accidents and no one ever gets traffic tickets, a nice place granted) I would own only MAC's, I'd have one in every room. Two in the bathroom.
But dollars for donuts, PC's will always be cheaper. Unless they build one into an IPOD.
Further, noone really counts the costs of Postscript printing, typefaces, increased costs of SAN/NAS's occured with a network set up like that.
2) User base.
Economies of scale, allow ultimately for better anything. More users, more deployments, more support, cheaper costs. I think it's a 12 to 1 ratio. But 12 eggs its $2, buy 1 egg its still $2.
3) Flexibility.
I can put any OS on an INTEL box. I can build my own.
Mac's rule with QUARK, DVD burning, and with mice for people with only one finger, thats it.
The standardised hardware is it's downfall. I with windows have inherently greater choices for vendors, for parts, or for service. I compare it to chevy's to vw. Yeah the vw might be superior car, but try and get the timing chain changed.
4) Power
Computationally win's are more powerful than mac's, they both might be resource hogs compared to a nice slick custom compiled Linux / unix distro, or Sun box but then were not talking 'apples for windows'.
To conclude. I can program on a ream of paper and a pencil from Staples ( large scale office supply chain in the states) for about $5 or I can program on freshly pressed 100% linen and a mont blanc for $100. Which are you willing to as a customer pay for.
-
I have a Mac application that serves as a SQL Query Analyser. I made this for the odd Mac user at my old company. Trouble is, all the code for it is still on my Mac, which is in storage
If anyone is interested, I would be happy to revive this project and re-release it as shareware/open source! Just email me and let me know. I've been lookin for a good excuse to buy a new Mac anyway
Jasmine
-
I am a former Mac fan forced to go PC due to companies paying me to run windows and SQL server. Don’t get me wrong, I truly love SQL server. I have used 4D and FMP on the Mac but I prefer good ol SQL and SQL server is an outstanding product in my book.
That said, I still miss my Mac EVERY SINGLE DAY! I think I must, at least once a day, yell out loud at my PC "It's called technology Bill, look into it!"
I also watched Stevo's key note on the web (funny, my office is only 6 blocks away, but it was easier and cheaper to sit at my desk and watch) and was quite intrigued by the Intel MacBookPro. I am a MUCH bigger fan of virtualization than duel booting though. I have better things to do than sit watching my machine reboot for 10 minutes a few times a day.
What I am excited about is native virtualization apps for Intel Macs. That seems like the sweet spot to me. The current pc virtualization apps are slow due to emulating cisc on risc etc. But with an Intel inside many of the calls no longer need to be emulated, they could call directly to the chip. It stands to reason that the VM apps should be much faster once they are native. Not sure what sort of effort will be required by the developers of the apps but the idea gets me very excited.
I have no interest in managing my SQL servers from anything other than MS tools but I would love to have a Mac for other things.
PCWorld had a great article (http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,124370,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp) that mentions plans of two virtualization tools for Mac and their respective upgrade plans. One is as soon as Feb. I am watching with bated breath!!
-
OK, I think that GPF2^192 brings up some valid points. Macs are more expensive. Note in my original post, that I said I paid more for my iBook. Ultimately it was worth it for me since agrivation level on the mac was less than on a PC running Linux. When I bought my mac it had 256 MB Ram and a 30 gb hard drive, a 1.2 GHZ G4 PowerPC Processor 64 MB Video RAM and a CDRW/DVD drive. I upgraded the RAM to 756 but everything else is the exact same. I will say, though, that the mac does run relatively fast for what it is and what it does. In fact, compared to my PC which has 512MB Ram and a 2.8 GHZ celeron processor, it seems to be comparible. In any case, the mac cost me about $1200.00. A comparible windows laptop might have been below the $700.00 mark. Yes, macs are more expensive.
I must also concede on number of users. Yes there are lots and lots of Windows users. Thats why Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Take into account, though, that not all of those users are high performance users. Macs are not marketed towards (well, I guess now they are trying to be marketed for) Grandma and Grandpa who want to check email. Windows is targeted at that audience. You can get a fairly decent dell for about $400.00 with software, etc. You cannot really get a good mac for that price. Macs are targeted at professionals: Video Professionals, Graphics Professionals, Scientists, etc. Just yesterday, my Fiance was commenting on how she was happy that I had a mac since she is a 3D animator and most 3D animation happens on Macs. Yeah, there are more Windows users than Mac users, but then there are more Windows users than Cray Supercomputer Users and SGI Users. Macs are a targeted platform. There are advantages to windows, and thats why even on my linux machine at home I dual boot. I program in windows and thus have a vested interest in the platforms continuence. I suppose what I am saying is that I don't hate windows, I just rather use a mac.
Macs are less flexible than pc's and more expensive, but people still buy them because they are better for some applications. Thats my take, however small. In the end, I agree with your analyisis of the situation.
Aleksei
-
Way back from 1995-1997 I sold and repaired Apple system from a campus bookstore. This stands out in my mind as one of the worst jobs I ever had. And I have despised Apple since. Warranty issues from Apple were terrible. first there was the geoport modem. I apologize to anyone that I sold these to. I spent weeks troubleshooting them for customers - with no aid from apple. We sold numberous all-in one systems (52XX series). These had a poorly designed video interface cable, that would make the screen flicker and change colors. These little guys went on nationwide backorder for 6 months. So the users had to deal with the problem for 6 months. Apple offered me no options to send the machines back DOA or to even send back the remaining stock without it counting against my quarterly returns (you can only return so much stock that you purchase with intent to sell - very similiar to popular pyramid schemes). Then there was the powerbook fiasco where again the screens had problems and parts were backordered. Then another issue with powerbook batteries. Then the 62XX series that was recalled for problems. However the recall only happend for units that were sitting in distribution centers. If you happend to have taken delivery of these systems, they were not recalled and again good luck if you sold one to a customer. Then the mac clones entered the market and life was good for a while. The machines were reliable, cheaper and better. So apple stopped licensing the OS, killed the clone market, stuck us with inventory that we could not sell and stole inovations from UMAX and Motorola. Then the Y2k pathes to OS 7.5. Alarmingly 60% of the machines that were patched ended up needing to be reformatted either immediatly or shortly thereafter.
I frequently felt that Apple was leaving me out to dry with any warranty issue. So I spent numerous hours providing free support to make up for Apples incompetence. I spent many nights wide awake trying to figure out how to remedy impossible situations that Apple put me in and dreading seeing any past customers that had problems. So in 2000 when I took a different job in a department that was mostly mac based, I was very learly. And my fears were correct. Any machines that were heavily used began dying after 13 months - shortly after warranty. I received 5 G4's that needed to be low-level reformatted immediatly as they were improperly setup at the factory and would seek a network boot partition for 20 minutes before booting up. Apple tech support acknowledeged the problem after wasting 4 days troubleshooting and reloading OS's on bad partitions. Now, we have a mainframe application that requires use of function keys. This simply does not work any any new powerbooks, so for those users we had to spend $100 per to buy a terminal emulator with an on-screen keyboard, so they could click the keys with their mouse - talk about awkward to use!
So If I were you I would avoid any apple made crap. Simplify your life and find something with a better warranty, that is cheaper to replace when it dies.
-
Actually, if I could get a mac that would dual-boot Windows and OSX, I would consider making the switch. However, the way things stand right now, I can't justify another machine and the cost of a Mac. If they get to the point where I can get Apple-approved hardware that I can swap out myself for a reasonable cost, this might be worthwhile. Who knows, I may switch over to OS X as my primary. Ideally, I'd like to see support for AMD's processors, too, but that's unlikely anytime soon. 🙁
I have stayed away from Macs for a variety of reasons. #1 is cost - they just don't offer enough for me to justify spending the extra $$. #2 was their lack of support for 3rd party hardware (at least initially). While I could pick up just about anything to run under Windows (and yes, sometimes regretting it), there was very little to buy for Mac and what there was seemed to cost a mint. #3 - Games. I like games and until much later in the Mac game, they just weren't available. While I'm not a big FPS fan, those games just didn't exist for Mac for a long time. Even now, most new games come out for PC before they come out for a Mac. (if they even bother with a PC/Mac port)
Of course, there's also the consideration of running SQL Server - I'd have to maintain a separate box to do this with a Mac. Something I just can't justify easily at this time. 🙁
Anyway, once Intel Macs start appearing, the option will be much more appealing and I'll re-consider future purchasing decisions. A lot does depend on whether Apple locks down their hardware to prevent other OS's running on it, though.
-Pete
-
Dude, that's like a plumber saying all the pipes in the world are bad. Obviously you had a problem, or you wouldn't have been called. You were the repairman, so you weren't exposed to any Macs that were working correctly. I've had several Macs that never had any problems like that. I will agree that the Geoport modem sucked rocks, but that's a minor consideration. Every Mac I've used was very stable. Schools all over the world use these, some of them are 15-20 years old and still working perfectly. I've never seen that with a Windows box. Windows boxes fail after 5 years, reliably.
This is an old argument, and one which doesn't need to be re-hashed. The difference between a Mac and a Windows box is like the difference between a Ferarri and a Ford. The Ferarri is gonna break down sometimes and be a bitch to fix, but honestly, which would you rather be driving?
Jasmine
-
I want an iSteve.
-
Here is something of note for those that prefer Macs (unlike me) but still need to work in the Windows world:
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/virtualpc.aspx
Yep, Microsoft sells Virtual PC for the Mac. So you can "Put a Little PC in Your Mac" (as they say on the web site).
Enjoy!
[font="Tahoma"]Bryant E. Byrd, BSSE MCDBA MCAD[/font]
Business Intelligence Administrator
MSBI Administration Blog -
I think vmware will do that as well and they have a free vmware viewer that lets you login to a virtual OS as well.
I personally want a virtual workplace instead of a virtual paycheque.
-
The Mac OS is not suited to a business environment for one critical issue, it has a thread ability problem. In Lmbench 3.0 measurements of OS X performance are 2-5 times slower then Linux. Applications constantly have to wait for a thread, meaning that highly threaded applications such as database systems and other business software will perform like their hands are tied behind their back.
For an in-depth review of why OS X is not (IMHO) suitable for business environments read this: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520
Secondly, Apple has the worst customer service in the industry. I think this is a direct outgrowth of Steve Jobs personality and his view that Mac customers are so loyal they will continue to buy their computers at over inflated market prices no matter if they support them or not.
-
I hear chuck norris doesnt like macs either.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 34 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply