stephaniekscott wrote:I have a Mac and I LOVE it [...]
They don't get bogged down like the PCs, they are REALLY intuitive, and of course, no viruses, which is pretty nice.
Ok, I don't want to be the defender of Microsoft because I'm far from being a fan, but I just want to point out a few facts (based on 25 years with computers, also used to do consulting in the computer industry and using anything from Silicon Graphics Onyx 2 to DOS and Linux):
- Macs are overpriced, standard components costs several hundred dollar more than on the competition and that's because of the monopoly Apple holds (it won't allow anybody else to install MacOS)
- I'm not sure what it means "bogged down" - Yes, Windows (especially Vista) has the tendency to eat up a lot of resources but for the price of a Mac, one can get a more powerful PC (quality of components is very important for final speed of system) which runs smooth (my computer never "bogs down"). And Windows has a lot more choice of software and device drivers, meaning that every piece of hardware out there will work with Windows, but not necessarily with MacOS.
- Mac HAS viruses, oh yes it does. You just hear more about Windows viruses for the mere fact that for every Mac out there there are 95 PCs.
So, not protecting one's computer under the belief that MacOS has no viruses is just naive (at that, Linux is a lot better because of its kernel).
- As far as being intuitive... ehm... actually MacOS allows very little interaction for the advanced user, it offers less options and that's why it seems easier. I prefer Windows because as an advanced user it's a lot easier to tweak it (and I hate one mouse button).
- As for Apple itself, not unlike Microsoft, it has the tendency to use common devices and call them with a proprietary name and pretend to (to borrow an italian expression) have invented hot water (or reinvented the wheel, if you prefer the english expression) like for the Airport (which is a lot slower and they didn't invent it).
I'd also like to know why their "Cinema Displays" are so expensive, up to $1000 more than other brands for same size of screen and much less quality. As a matter of fact Apple was sued recently for lying to indicate the bitplan of their Cinema Displays; which someone discovered is lower than any other display in the market and therefore capable of showing less colors. For example compare Apple's 23" for $899 (contrast ration 700:1, response time 16ms, the highest in the market, similar to a 5 year old screen, meaning there will be some trailing if you watch movies or play certain games; no HDMI connection for better quality, no HDCP which means impossible to play High Definition movies from Blue Ray, etc.) with Gateways 24" $499 ($479 at other retailers; HDCP, HDMI, contrast ratio 1000:1, 3ms response time - 5 times faster than the Apple, Full High Definition 1080p; and as a bonus it swivels 90 degrees, so great for photographers who want to work on photos shot vertically). Why is Apple charging nearly twice as much for a largely inferior product (the price gap increases with larger size models)?
Because people buy the brand name, not the quality.
I welcome an alternative to Microsoft (historically I'm an Amiga guy), but I don't believe Apple, with their arrogance, is it.
Sorry to point all this out, Stephanie, at the end is all about personal preference, but I like to keep facts straight because the propagation of myths doesn't help anyone. Certainly nothing against you, I'm happy you're happy with your choice.