windows, mac, or linux?

Pages: 123456
DTSCode, no need to apologise...it's a common 'belief'.
closed account (jwkNwA7f)
+1 naraku9333 I am not running it on my mac though if it is possible :)
Last edited on
It does, you just chose to ignore it (or else misunderstood it somehow). That point was against the idea that Apple computers somehow have better "build quality" than other manufacturers despite being assembled in exactly the same way. That idea can now be safely discarded.


I just bought the new Samsung ATIV Book 8. And now I've been reading that the previous version of my laptop along with the rest of their previous lineup, had a bug where booting an OS in UEFI mode could permanently brick your laptop. Literally if you booted Ubuntu live from a flash drive, your laptop would be toast. It's assumed to be fixed now through a bios update, but I am not willing to be the first to confirm it.

This is an example of one way that quality control is more than just assembly.

Then again Macs have had problems where updates cause them to be bricked.

My first reaction was that I should have bought the Asus.
Last edited on
@htirwin
That's a fair point, although the BIOS software is not developed by the manufacturer but rather by another company (AMI for example;), and it's the motherboard manufacturer that actually loads it onto the motherboard. But I can see how more stringent testing on the part of Apple vs. other manufacturers would make a difference. I was thinking only in terms of the hardware, and didn't consider firmware.
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
The same thing can happen on any OS and from any company.

Many companies can match or even surpass the build quality of Mac with their top tier models. The thing is Mac only really caters to the top tier model group it doesn't drop down into the economy builds that cost much less and in turn have a much poorer build quality.

That is why Mac has such a good reputation for their build quality. If they started to do low end laptops in the $400 dollar price range like most other companies do they would be using the same crappy build quality all other companies use to. And then their overall reputation for delivering quality products would drop.

Basically it comes down you get what you pay for. If you want a good quality laptop you are going to have to spend a little extra to get it. Yes build quality will still vary from company to company just like in anything in this world but not by much really once you get into them top tier laptops.
Last edited on
chrisname wrote:
But have you ever done an empirical test? Have you ever read any kind of evidence? Of course you haven't. What you've probably read is Apple marketing data
Why would you make that assumption? I've worked at a computer shop for 3 years. I've talked to hundreds of people who own macs; worked on thousands of computers (macs alike). This is the educated conclusion that I have drawn from years of experience. Apple can shove their marketing data up their asses; I don't care what it says. This is why I believe what I believe.
Now, why do you believe what you believe?

EDIT:
chrisname wrote:
And besides, once again, they're exactly the same!
Are you suggesting that all ATX motherboards are the same? That all NVIDIA or ATI graphics cards are equal? That all Intel processors function alike?
Last edited on
What I hate about Apple is the way that they inconvenience their customers with buggy, or annoying software that is practically essential to the use of their products, in order to have some control over how they can store and manage files.

I have an Ipad 1 for example, that had suddenly deleted all of files without warning. I googled it, it is a very common thing to happen. Just google, Mac all my files are missing, or, ipad all my files are missing.
Last edited on
chrisname wrote:
But have you ever done an empirical test? Have you ever read any kind of evidence? Of course you haven't. What you've probably read is Apple marketing data that you've chosen to believe for some reason...
Does 15 odd years of running Macs and PCs count towards testing? My own personal experience, my Apple kit is more reliable/better designed than other kit I have had.
Thumper wrote:
Now, why do you believe what you believe?

Mostly deductive reasoning based on facts, although it differs from belief to belief (some things can't be investigated empirically so there aren't facts on which to base deductive reasoning on). See my next paragraph for an (re)explanation of why I believe the quality of Apple hardware is no different to that of other PC vendors.

Are you suggesting that all ATX motherboards are the same? That all NVIDIA or ATI graphics cards are equal? That all Intel processors function alike?

Clearly not; my point, for the third time, is that all PCs, Apple or otherwise, use the same hardware built by the same companies, complying to the same specifications, so how could Apple hardware possibly be higher quality? It's been common knowledge for a while that Apple hardware is largely made by a Taiwanese company called Foxconn, which also happens to be used by Acer, Dell, HP and Sony, among others. All of those companies are desktop and laptop vendors, and their hardware is made by the same company. So how exactly could the quality be any different from one to another?

Grey Wolf wrote:
Does 15 odd years of running Macs and PCs count towards testing? My own personal experience, my Apple kit is more reliable/better designed than other kit I have had.

It counts as testing, it doesn't count as empirical unless it was actually done empirically.

Zereo wrote:
Many companies can match or even surpass the build quality of Mac with their top tier models. The thing is Mac only really caters to the top tier model group it doesn't drop down into the economy builds that cost much less and in turn have a much poorer build quality.

That is why Mac has such a good reputation for their build quality. If they started to do low end laptops in the $400 dollar price range like most other companies do they would be using the same crappy build quality all other companies use to. And then their overall reputation for delivering quality products would drop.

Can you please define this term "build quality"? People keep throwing it around, and as I've said, it's very vague and I don't see how more money can make the quality of the build better. I'm fairly sure what you're paying for when you buy a more expensive computer is (or should be) higher-end hardware; a more powerful CPU, GPU or more RAM or something. I don't think they give the hardware to a more intelligent or more dexterous person if you spend more on it. It's still manufactured by the same minimum wage, unqualified manual labourers. At least, I assume so. It might actually be done automatically like a car, but either way, it doesn't take any skill to do so I don't see how they could have it done by better personnel or better robots, and so I don' see how paying more money can get you better build quality. It doesn't work. If they had more qualified employees maybe, but as we've established, it's not a qualified job. Again, it requires as much skill as Lego and less creativity.
Last edited on
chrisname wrote:
all PCs, Apple or otherwise, use the same hardware built by the same companies
I bring back my same point again; are you suggesting that all hardware built by these companies are equal? Because that would be silly.

chrisname wrote:
define this term "build quality"
Build quality. The standard to which products are built. Or quality control. Here's that definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_control
Apple does it well.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
I personally always liked Levono's they also tend to have very nice build quality. Trying to convince my boss that I need a new Levono X1 Carbon ;p.

But I will admit Apple does do it well.
Thumper wrote:
all PCs, Apple or otherwise, use the same hardware built by the same companies
I bring back my same point again; are you suggesting that all hardware built by these companies are equal? Because that would be silly.

Yes and no. Suppose we have two graphics cards with GPUs from the same company (e.g. NVIDIA), built to identical specifications by one company (e.g. Foxconn) at the behest of one vendor (e.g. ASUS). I accept that there could be some variation in the quality between those two pieces of hardware. Now suppose we have several batches of graphics cards with NVIDIA GPUs built by Foxconn on behalf of ASUS, Gigabyte, XFX, etc. Naturally the same variations between individual cards built for one vendor as there are between individual cards built for different vendors. Let's assume that quality can actually be quantified as a number, let's say a percentage (kind of like the condition of weapons and armour (CND) in Fallout games). One card might have a quality of 85% and another 75%. What I'm saying is if we took the mean quality of each batch, we would find it to be approximately the same, let's say the mean would be 70%. Of course this doesn't really make sense, since "quality" is a very, very vague term and not something I think you can really quantify, but you see my point, I hope. If not: it's not that there aren't differences between supposedly-identical pieces of hardware, but that the higher-quality hardware doesn't magically end up with Apple and the lower-quality hardware doesn't magically end up with all other vendors. They're all made by the same company to the same specifications, so how could Apple's be better on average than anyone else's? "Build quality"? See the next paragraph. "Quality control"? See the one after next.

Build quality. The standard to which products are built.

That definition doesn't help me at all, it's still very vague. Tell me how build quality might differ between two vendors, because when I hear "build quality" I'm thinking of how skilled the person building the PC is, assuming the components are of equal quality. As I've said probably four or five times now, and as you've agreed, building a PC is not skilled labour, so the skill of the labourer can't be what causes Apple computers to be so much better than other manufacturers, as you claim.

Quality control is different. It may indeed be possible that Apple's quality control (e.g. testing of the hardware) is superior. I don't know about that either way. You say Apple does it well but I'd like to see if you have a source for that, or a source suggesting that Apple does it better than anyone everyone else as you seem to be suggesting. I'd also like to see you prove that the difference is worth the massive mark-up in price.

Here's an idea: instead of dodging all my points, why don't you tell me exactly why you think Apple computers are higher quality? Why don't you actually answer some of my points?

The bottom line is still this: you are paying a significant amount more money for a shiny box with a glowing picture of an apple on it. You even admitted to it already. Why are we still discussing this?
Have you guys seen this?
http://www.squaretrade.com/laptop-reliability-1109/

Their study found failure rates by manufacturer, from highest to lowest, to be as follows:

HP
Gateway
Acer
Lenovo
Dell
Apple
Sony
Toshiba
Asus

You would think that Apple would have done much better since they only make high end laptops.
Last edited on
htirwin, the report also said "Sony and Apple also performed better than the average."
the report also said "Sony and Apple also performed better than the average."

3rd and 4th out of 9
Last edited on
That list isn't accurate then as Acer now owns Gateway so they are the same manufacturers.
chrisname wrote:
instead of dodging all my points, why don't you tell me exactly why you think...
Sigh. This is what I meant by talking in circles. I have already answered that question.

chrisname wrote:
As I've said probably four or five times now, and as you've agreed, building a PC is not skilled labour
And it isn't. Designing one is. And that's what I mean by build quality. Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that. Apple picks and chooses with care what goes into their computers. It would appear they are very careful in selecting the specifications of their products, and choose to cater to the high-end. I respect that.

chrisname wrote:
I'd like to see if you have a source for that
I don't have a source for that. I only have experience. And you don't have a source proving otherwise either. Neither have you done an empirical study to disprove any of my points. Nor have I done one to disprove yours. We're spatting opinions, and obviously don't agree with one another :p

chrisname wrote:
I'd also like to see you prove that the difference is worth the massive mark-up in price.
I'd like you to prove to me that it's not worth the mark-up in price.
C'mon, you obviously know that that's a ridiculous request. You cannot prove opinion.

I'm not claiming that Apple makes the most fantastic wonderful computers in the world. I'm saying that they're quality. I like them, and would recommend them to anyone that can afford them. They've been nothing but good to me. Maybe that makes me naive. I'm okay with that though.
3rd and 4th out of 9
is not very relevant. There could be a very small or large difference in the figures but still be 4th.

Thumper wrote:
I'm not claiming that Apple makes the most fantastic wonderful computers in the world. I'm saying that they're quality. I like them, and would recommend them to anyone that can afford them. They've been nothing but good to me. Maybe that makes me naive. I'm okay with that though.
I would strongly agree with that.
Last edited on
@Thumper
No, no, you definitely said that Apple computers were "extremely high quality" and you've yet to prove, or show a shred of evidence to support, that statement. Personal experience, be that of you or Grey Wolf or myself or anyone else, is not relevant. And why should I attempt to disprove with evidence what has yet to be supported with evidence? I have argued that there's no reason to expect Apple hardware to be extremely high quality, at least in comparison to other vendors, since they largely use the same manufacturer for their hardware, but you've not answered that argument.

You cannot prove opinion

Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

You can prove some opinions. I could be opinionated that the earth has two moons. You could prove that true or false.
@chrisname
Well, I yield. Apple computers are poor machines. Definitely not good at all. I've never owned one or more of them, nor have I ever worked on them. All of the shit inside of them is standard. You pay only for the logo. The company is still alive solely because having a glowing apple on the lid of your laptop looks real good.

Maybe some of my points have been ridiculous, but you at least have to recognize that some of yours are too.

Also, there is no "proof" that you demand. Not everything has a scholarly article to reference. So I cannot prove my opinion to be true. I've explained as much as I can. Those who would believe me will. Those who don't don't. And I don't care either way.

You can prove some opinions
To prove something it has to become true. If it were true, then it is not opinion, it is fact, which means it were never an opinion to begin with.
You can disprove different word opinions all day. But that's not what I said. I love playing semantics.
Pages: 123456