windows, mac, or linux?

Pages: 1... 3456
Let me end this argument now.

1) Apple computers are quality computers. They only build for the 'premium' market

2) They are on par with every other premium computer line put out there that use the same parts manufactured by the same company in the same line.

3) Supply and demand, dammit. Cost of goods is next to irrelevant at this scale. People are willing to pay $5000 for a $1000 dollar desktop, so they sell a 1000 dollar desktop for 5000 dollars.
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
In defense of low quality and cheap computers, I have had nothing but good luck. I have a 6 year old HP which was purchased for $300.00 that my daughter still uses because she is too cheap to upgrade.
For my personal use I only buy rebuilt Dell laptops at under 250.00 and have never had a problem. Two months ago I dropped my computer and had to buy another rebuilt laptop when I went to pick it up at the warehouse the gentleman asked me if I wanted to buy insurance--I laughed and nicely said no thank you.
My desktop is a 6+ year old Compaq Presario (only bought a nVidia GeForce 8600 and wifi PCI adapter for it). My laptop is a 6+ year old Compaq Presario (changed OS and put in a 1TB hard drive).
More strawmen, fantastic.

Agreed, although supply and demand may not be the right term in #3. Anyway, I'm not arguing the ethics of Apple's pricing; they're a company and, rightly or wrongly, companies exist only to make a profit, and to that end they charge what they can get away with. I just don't agree that the quality of the hardware justifies the price is all.
I suppose I did misrepresent your position a bit.
I concede.
And my apologies if I ever came across as an ass. I did get fired up there for a bit.

I never said (or meant to imply) that the hardware itself justifies the price.
You also pay for the operating system in the costs as well; which is why upgrading to the newer OS only costs ~$20.

On another note, I'm not sure how I feel about the same company that's developing the operating system to also be developing the computers. I mean, it allows for quality control, but it also feels a bit monopolistic.
Let's just say that I'm glad all Windows based computers aren't manufactured by Microsoft. :p
About closed platforms. I think that's ultimately a factor in apple losing market share to PCs and iphones losing share to android phones. Google is doing exactly what Microsoft did. Develop a platform, not a system.
The difference in "build quality" has less to do with component manufacturer and much more to do quality control. Chrisname mentioned Foxcon since they manufacture components for many different companies, but fails to mention (or realize) that in manufacturing parts are not created equal and one company (apple) can require far greater standards than another company. Same manufacturer but most definitely not the same quality.
Last edited on
not mac. nuf said (HackinToshFTW)
Last edited on
Well that went better than expected.
Windows is used much more than Linux and Mac.
Totally agree on that.
So Windows has much more viruses and other threats.If Mac (or Linux) were dominant there would had been much more malwares on them.(as much as on windows now).
[That argument] ignores Unix's dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties, including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm author who successfully targeted specifically Apache httpd Linux/x86 Web servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment and instantly earn lasting fame, and yet it doesn't happen."
- says Rick Moen, an experienced Linux system administrator. .

I found an article on ZDNet titled "Linux, Windows, and security FUD",
The Conclusion of that article was -
In the meantime, Linux, which I freely admit isn't completely secure—no operating system on the planet ever will be—continues to be be trusted by the world's biggest Web sites, such as Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia and by such mission-critical sites as the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange. Now, as it has been for decades, Linux remains more secure than Windows, and no FUD can refute this.
- Author of the article.

I think it's more of your personal opinion what OS suits you better , you are an Apple fan then their products (iMac, Mac-book,iPad etc.) are the best and so are Linux/*nix or windows fans.
Whether you use a mac ,a windows based PC or Linux , there are many good tool-chains and softwares for all of them (except much good games1 on Linux) and you could be satisfied by any of them.
If all you do is listen to music , watch music or surf the net then it doesn't really matter whether you use windows xp , mac or a Linux based distribution.

1. Good games as in those ultra-high res AAA games produced by big companies , Linux do have many open source and nice games but they don't compete as well with those big shiny titles.
Last edited on
i have XP v3, It is clearly the future of OSs
closed account (Dy7SLyTq)
^ i just found space cadet pinball for windows 7. xp is now obselete
pfft windows 7

how did you know i love space pinball??
Last edited on
closed account (Dy7SLyTq)
that made my day. thats better than the python one. and who doesnt love using paint + space cadet pinball?
just use a Commodore 64, it don't get better then that!
Amiga. Amiga gets better than that.
Atari TOS (with GEM) on a 520 ST (I still have one to the garage).
amiga 1200, 1992 zeitgiest, its all downhill from there.
Last edited on
I had an Amiga 1500 with a PC Bridgeboard. I sold that to get on Olivetti 286.

I could not bear to sell the ST, it later came in handy as the university I went to used STs for teaching Assembly so I could do all the assignments at home. The ST was the first 'Proper' computer that I bought myself...that is why I still have it.

Edit: I think I am now missing the disks so can't boot it. :0(
Last edited on
I got some boot disk images, i think they are even legal, i could give you anything you might need to get it running if you cant find it just ask, be pecific tho I forgotten how it all works XD
Pages: 1... 3456