If you compare a 1500$ macbook with a Dell Latitude or IBM Thinkpad, the latter one won't die easy on you either. And they're equally expensive for similar hardware.
A windows computer will be cheaper in general, but a macbook will last longer. (from experience). Macs are also better integrated and run smoother because of that.
You really mean that linux is better than Windows or Mac?
Oh and Linux beats everything else, hands down. There is no argument against that.
Linux is good for a number of things: ls, grep, head, cat, echo, etc and some less-one-idea applications like SSH and GCC. Basicly, commandline. For all other things it is complete crap. Developing under Linux is crap, since there is no good IDE. Drivers are somewhere between awesome (for irrelevant hardware) and crap (for relevant hardware). Sure, linux has some advantages, but none in the world of usability as desktop environment.
The Mac shortcut key's are awesome if you know them, otherwise they're complete retarded. But that's the same for Windows. (and not for Linux, because they don't have dashboard tricks )
Mac ftw I can check my soccer and basketball scores easier than a PC.. lovin my dashboard tricks lol
Why is that not fair? There is no market for it. People don't buy a mac for gaming. Secondly, _many_ games are developed in DirectX. Guess what, there is no native DirectX for MacOS.
But I don't think its fair how so little games are for the mac and how there's no COD switcher for it .
I would only do the same for the price. A $500 laptop is completely different (see above), at least compare it to a IBM thinkpad or something.
I'd take a $500 i5 PC over the equivalent $1500 macbook. I just don't get it. My sister is not someone that I would consider up to date with PC technology. Guess what, she only uses macs along with her designer trendy stuff. I don't see why anyone would want to limit themselves on available software and hardware by using an MAC OS. And you can install a MAC OS on a windows PC so what is worth extra $$$?
Besides, if you only use applications that run on a Mac, why not buy a Mac? It's fancy, modern, things like that. And it works perfect once you get used to it, that is worth a lot of $$$. How many hours have you spend in the night working on why that $thing doesn't run where you only discover that it is some weird configuration issue? You don't have that on a Mac. Of course, if you want to do that small configuration issue you have another problem, but for many noobs mac's are sufficient.
Yes you can run games on a Mac, but it is not officially supported. As I said somewhere above, MacOS does not support DirectX natively (nor does Linux). So, some people dediced to make an layer between the game (or OS) and the hardware, s.t. you can use DirectX. Some people say it's even faster, but it is *NOT* supported officially.
i always hear that you cannot play games on a mac. is this actually true? for instance, can i play skyrim on a mac? how about battlefield 3 or mw3?
It's the same quality. Do you really think Apple builds different chips?
I guess I like shiny things then. Who doesn't.
There are several reason to develop an operating system for specific components only, none of them include overclocking I'm afraid. I rather prefer quality over a cheap price and alleged lifetime warranties. And I'm willing to pay more for good products.
The CPU's, memory, etc, are all the same. They have(had) a deal with Intel about one chip, but that was already 2 years ago (and other companies had the same chip implemented a month later, I believe it was a low voltage CPU for the first MacBook Air)
First of all, OS X is not based on Linux. The Mac OS kernel is based on BSD, developed in Berkley a few decades ago, and BSD is a variant of Unix. Linux is also started from Unix.
OS X combines linux with a rich GUI. You don't have to see an advantage in that, I do. I have yet to find a program I need which doesn't run on my system. If I would find one, I would simply run it in a virtual machine. Of course a 4.5GHz machine would definitely outdo a Mac, even the most expensive and expandable state-of-the-art Apple server systems.
The main difference, other than the kernel, is the user licence, which is unbelievebly strict for Linux (GPL, I hate it, if you use a single library and publish your app, then you have to publish the sourcecode) and very freely for BSD (only modifications to the kernel require distribution of source code). Do you really think that MacOS is running Linux with it's GPL? Hell, MacOS is more closed-source than Microsoft (too lazy for examples).
I've used it, but not long. If you're used to Windows and Linux, every additional OS is a pain in the ass.
I just don't like people judging about things they've never used and form an opinion based on wrong facts they've read on the internet.
Yes you can, google supplies more than enough examples. And closed source is completely irrelevant, since Microsoft is that too, but you can run it in Virtual machine
anyway: I can't judge about mac (and os X) : almost never used it, somebody an idea how I can test a os X without having to buy a mac (bit expensive to just test)
linux distro's: I just download and run in virtual machine's, can you do the same with os X ?
probably not because of:
- closed sources
- hardware specific if I'm not wrong
Apparently there is a double-post merge as well as a quote-section limit of 10. Gonna have to wait for the second reply/part until that double-post merge can be avoided (which, I guess, is by a reply).