Why use Mac?

[L[0ne]R]

I've been wondering this for a very long time but haven't found a definite answer to this question:

Why do most graphic designers/digital artists/video editors and other media specialists use Macs?


Here are a few things I've heard:
- projects are easier to transfer and are more compatible between Macs.
- something about hardware compatibility with not-sure-what.
- Macs are simple and noob-friendly.
- Macs are slim and shiny.

None of these reasons sound clear and convincing enough to use Macs for Digital Media, so for me the question is still very far from answered. I work with digital media myself but I don't like Macs and don't see how are they better than PCs. It gives me an uneasy feeling that I don't know something important.

If you know what it could be - share your thoughts and put my mind at ease.

[DarkCrusade]

Macs looks stylish.

[dnmr]

Macs looks stylish.

THE reason to pay double the price.
Also, you can't upgrade and customize macs as much. Great plus as well.

[jrgp]

Macs:
 - Don't waste your time with security/virus issues. (unix underneath the pretty interface)
 - Pretty interface
 - Installing / Uninstalling actual software is just a matter of dragging and dropping
 - They don't get obsolete anywhere near as fast as PC's do
 - There are no blue screens of death
 - They're fast, and way more resource efficient
 - Giant and friendly support community
 - System maintenance is never really required (unlike defragging and checking for viruses on windows)

Essentially graphics people like them because they don't get in your way and are always really reliable.

All that said, if I had the money I'd switch from Linux to Mac (on the desktop/laptop, not server) immediately.

Also, you can't upgrade and customize macs as much. Great plus as well.

They manage resources in such a way and don't incorporate "planned obsolescence" so upgrading them as often as you upgrade pc's isn't necessary.

[croat1gamer]

The advantages over windows and linux are so big that you cant notice them.
Afaik, the Adobe products are running smoother on Macs because of something.

Still, it doesnt make up that they are a crappy OS (option wise) and in general noone who is an semi-advanced user would use it.
Mac users are rich crybabies who dont know some basic computer stuff, for them the looks are first and you know how it goes after that.


But its good for iPenis products.

Stay with an win/linux combination.

[jrgp]

and in general noone who is an semi-advanced user would use it. Mac users are rich crybabies who dont know some basic computer stuff, for them the looks are first and you know how it goes after that.

This really isn't the case. As I mentioned above, they have fully functioning POSIX compliant UNIX underneath. This means that you can use it pretty much the same way you can use Linux, via the ever powerful and useful command line (as well as all the other things UNIX makes easier, like having scripts act like fully functional programs). This is why UNIX fans like macs: they have the usual reliability and flexibility of UNIX and the ability to use most commercial software, like the Adobe Products.

But, yes, semi-advanced Windows users wouldn't find Macs appealing because it's UNIX underneath, so you have a valid point if you look at it from that direction.

[Psycho]

A PC can do everything a mac can do. A mac can only do a fraction of what a PC can do.

Want to miss out on the ability to use thousands of programs and games? Want a piece of expensive plastic? Go for mac!
I've used mac every day when I went to school, and they crashed alot more than my PC. Was not a blue screen, but a total system lockup is the same thing.

jrgp I dont get your "does not get obsolete so fast" thing. Hardware is hardware regardless of operating system.

[croat1gamer]

Why not using just Linux instead? Its free and doesnt have a cult.


Though, you have a +5 popularity bonus on mainstream publics when equipping Mac as an OS.

[DarkCrusade]

The answer to all your questions is right here!

[Espadon]

You can buy a Mac but I'll still run circles around you with my PC because I'm simply a better artist.

Fears about compatibility and viruses are perpetuated most by paranoid shtters who blame their failures on their tools instead of themselves. For example, yes, UNIX is unpopular for virus writers, but the people who get hit hardest by viruses are the same idiots who get phished by Nigerian spammers. Common sense is the best antivirus.

Since Macs now use Intel processors, there's nothing for Mac fans to claim on the hardware field so it's become pretty much an OS fight. You should stick with the OS you're more familiar with. If you're not a power PC user, it's not a waste of time to go learn Mac, but if you're wasting 30 minutes figuring out how to clear a snag on Mac that you could have cleared in minutes on a PC, you're using the wrong platform and you're going to be wasting waaaay more time than the purported "Mac efficiency" is going to ever benefit you.

Again in the end, being a proficient artist is going to save you way more time than the few extra seconds that "superior compatibility" on a Mac will ever give you.

The Macs-are-artsy notion is just a holdover from the 90's now, but it's no contest that their 'underdog' status will forever endear them to the Trendy Wendys out there that want to shout out to the world, "LOOK AT ME I'M AN ARTIST!"

Further analogy to pound it in: PC vs Mac is like AK47 vs M4A1. You can argue the numbers all you want but ultimately, it's the better man that wins.

Linux ... doesnt have a cult.

You've GOT to be fkin kidding. Srs.

[Dusty]

Macs are popular among artists because they used to perform better with the needed applications. Nowadays Windows is on the same level as OSX when it comes to creative programs. 

[a-4-year-old]

Some graphics software is mac only, depending on who you work for/where you go to learn you might need a mac.  Its the same deal as engineers who use autocad that only works on windows.

The Mac pro (the desktop thing) is basically built for these guys.

These topics always end up with some misconceptions.
For starters apple products are expensive, but with the computers you actually get pretty good value for money, it is true however that anything with an "i" is practically highway robbery.  And its also true that macs don't have a problem with a blue screen of death (BSOD) they have kernel panics and a spinning pinwheel.

With regards to windows, any competent human being can run windows without ever encountering a BSOD and never contracting a virus. I worry about viruses about as much as I worry about spontaneously shitting myself in public.  I'd be much more concerned running a computer that can get viruses (mac) without any sort of detection tool.  Using viruses as a trump card is about as ignorant and outdated as citing the Apple LISA as an example of overpriced apples.

And jrgp unless apple made some kind of anti-aging cream for computer chips, the idea that two computers running the same hardware become obsolete at different rates is total bullshit.

[Espadon]

4yo I give you assload of karma

[jrgp]

For example, yes, UNIX is unpopular for virus writers, but the people who get hit hardest by viruses are the same idiots who get phished by Nigerian spammers. Common sense is the best antivirus.

UNIX is not unpopular for Virus writers, it's just largely impossible. Think about it. The majority of websites on the internet are hosted on UNIX. If you could successfully hack UNIX with viruses/malware, it'd be awesome for crackers since they'd be able to take down nearly the entire internet. The reason UNIX doesn't need antivirus is because of: it's security model, code quality, and the impossibility of privilege escalation. The only reason the term "antivirus" exists is because of Windows. The same goes for the term "defragment" because NTFS is the only modern file system that encounters serious fragmentation.

And jrgp unless apple made some kind of anti-aging cream for computer chips, the idea that two computers running the same hardware become obsolete at different rates is total bulls**t.

I meant the "usefulness" of the aging hardware. By that I mean new Mac software often doesn't require the latest and greatest Mac hardware, thus letting old'ish hardware last longer without as many upgrades.

[Espadon]

Does either make a difference in practical computing though? I really don't think so. I can see why it's a major point for porn-collectors who happen to lack common sense, though. I might need a unix box for a web site, but I certainly don't need unix to make art, just like I don't need superglue to bond paper.

Not sure you can back up your claim about the hardware. Old Macs I've worked with are just as slow and cranky as old PCs. And the 2003 HP I have running Ubuntu is just as slow as it was running WinXP.
I'm sure if you want to believe it's faster it'll seem faster though.

[jrgp]

Old Macs I've worked with are just as slow and cranky as old PCs. And the 2003 HP I have running Ubuntu is just as slow as it was running WinXP.

I didn't mean a giant gaping 7 year old difference, I meant more like a 3 or so year difference.

[Graham]

All I know is that when I need to take my laptop somewhere I don't want to look like a flaming homo so I will stick with a windows based laptop. Oh and steam still isn't on mac, so why would I want a desktop mac?

[Espadon]

As 4yo said, the only reason you really have to have a Mac for art is if you work at a place that uses proprietary software. For typical artists who just use stuff like Painter/AdobeCS[Il/Fl/Ps/Fw], the platform is more or less an issue of pride.

[FliesLikeABrick]

Still, it doesnt make up that they are a crappy OS (option wise) and in general noone who is an semi-advanced user would use it.

I disagree 100%.  Most extremely technical networking or IT management type of people that I've seen have a Mac (including myself).  Much of the audience at some particular networking conferences are almost completely Mac users.  It seems that technical people who don't like screwing around with their computer but want something reliable go with macs - they JFW and are fast and reliable.

Mac users fanboys are rich crybabies who dont know some basic computer stuff, for them the looks are first and you know how it goes after that.

Fixed that ^ part of your quote for you.

[Hair|Trigger]

In the looks/design department, I think Macs are pretty lame.  I am njot sure why but I feel more comfortable when I am surrounded with a heap of media buttons, blinking lights and stuff even if I don't really use them.  Not to mention Macs all look more or less the same.  Competitor brand laptops are not restricted to one design scheme so there's something for everyone, in fact I think that most current Acer, Asus, Sony Vaio and Dell notebooks look better than Macbooks.

[FliesLikeABrick]

I have no problem with Apple keeping a single signature style, regardless of whether they do it just to be more recognizable or because it is a waste of money coming up with new designs/styles all the time.

Who really cares about how a laptop (or computer) looks though?  I would think people should care about how they work.  If someone is buying a computer for looks or judging computers by their looks, I hardly think they should be pointing fingers at mac fans and users and calling them names because they have pretty computers or whatever

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

They manage resources in such a way and don't incorporate "planned obsolescence" so upgrading them as often as you upgrade pc's isn't necessary.

Half a year ago I installed Windows 7 on a six year old computer for my mom.  The only upgrade she's had since buying the thing is an extra 512MB of RAM (taking the computer up to a meager gig of RAM).  Guess what? It works just fine, with no lag or anything.  "Planned obsolescence" honestly seems like a nonsense term to me; if you're not writing programs to take advantage of the latest hardware, you're doing it wrong.  It's that simple.

[FliesLikeABrick]

Writing programs to use the resources made available to them is one thing, but writing an OS that is as light as possible while still being functional is great.  OS X is a bit heavier than I'd like it to be but is great, I have to say that Windows 7 seems to be better than Vista at that game, but XP will forever be lighter than 7 or Vista.

I've always been of the opinion that an OS should not have higher system requirements than most of the software you'll ever run on it, that is why 7 and Vista have rubbed me the wrong way from the start.

[Grimbad]

Why do most graphic designers/digital artists/video editors and other media specialists use Macs?

If you know what it could be - share your thoughts and put my mind at ease.

Use a macbook if it matches your prius, your womens' jeans and your starbucks latte.
I really wish I hadn't got a macbook, but it was a gift and beggars can't be choosers. There is no customization (two color schemes: blue and grey or grey and grey), it doesn't run anything fun, blahr blarh blarh. Can't even mod Soldat as well, I'd give my left big toe for microsoft paint and windows sound recorder. I'm glad I don't do digital art, all I use the mac for in my art is scanning and uploading.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

XP will forever be lighter than 7 or Vista.

Utterly meaningless.  Windows 3.1 will forever be lighter than Windows 95 or Windows XP, but it also doesn't do as much.  Increased functionality means increased resource usage, and if I'm still using Windows 7 in five years (which is very likely), the system requirements for it will seem negligible.  I'm sure XP seemed like it had ridiculous hardware requirements when it came out, but guess what? Computers got better.

[ds dude]

You guys seriously over think this. Using a Mac is not different than using a PC. They both run programs, and surf the internet. Not to mention both have a good amount of designing programs.

You don't need to be so picky.

[Espadon]

Macs are good for work because you won't have any good games to play on them olololo

[FliesLikeABrick]

XP will forever be lighter than 7 or Vista.

Utterly meaningless.  Windows 3.1 will forever be lighter than Windows 95 or Windows XP, but it also doesn't do as much.  Increased functionality means increased resource usage, and if I'm still using Windows 7 in five years (which is very likely), the system requirements for it will seem negligible.  I'm sure XP seemed like it had ridiculous hardware requirements when it came out, but guess what? Computers got better.

That's fine, you're picking on something that was merely one passing comment/small part of what I was saying.   To date, Vista/7's requirements surpass almost any application that someone would run on it except for the most demanding games and rendering/other intensive applications (particularly memory requirements).

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

That's fine, you're picking on something that was merely one passing comment/small part of what I was saying

It's the one thing that really bugged me is all.

[croat1gamer]

Ill try to avoid such topics 1 week after talking to a fanboy over it.
They are like goddamn walking promotion panels, and they dont even have to get paid for it.

Before i start raging again: with an Apple product you buy the name, almost everything else is possible on win/linux, just a bit different.
Its similar to comparing Photoshop with The Gimp (not a good one, but still), they can do the same, it needs just a bit of modding.
As espadon said, it comes to the end user and his experience with it.

*rage @ Apple goes here*

[Hair|Trigger]

I have no problem with Apple keeping a single signature style, regardless of whether they do it just to be more recognizable or because it is a waste of money coming up with new designs/styles all the time.

Who really cares about how a laptop (or computer) looks though?  I would think people should care about how they work.  If someone is buying a computer for looks or judging computers by their looks, I hardly think they should be pointing fingers at mac fans and users and calling them names because they have pretty computers or whatever

I guess design is more important to some people than others.  If you like to see the world through numbers, then you probably dont really care much about the design.  If I like the look of something (and as long as its not madly overpriced for the specifications) I will feel better about owning it.  In fact I don't really have any problems with not using powerful equipment, it all gets out dated sooner or later, but my ergonomic experience with it will keep me happy for a long time.

[Psycho]

That's fine, you're picking on something that was merely one passing comment/small part of what I was saying.   To date, Vista/7's requirements surpass almost any application that someone would run on it except for the most demanding games and rendering/other intensive applications (particularly memory requirements).

I can actually agree here that windows 7 is heavier than it should have been. Rumour has it that Microsoft is aiming for the next windows version to be more lightweight and faster than 7. And we can all agree that vista was a bloated bag of bile in that regard.

Although I have recently gone from XP to W7, and can't really say that I am experiencing any noticeable difference in performance on anything really. But I had 4 GB of ram, and I heard XP 32-bit could only use 3GB of them. Another reason to upgrade I guess.

[SDFilm]

As a Media student/video editor for 7 years, I can say that the only reason why I'd want to buy a Mac is because Final Cut Pro is increasingly overtaking Avid as the professional industry standard for video editing (and good thing too, Avid is s**t), and it's only available for Macs.

Other than that, Macs being "better for the creative industries" is total BS. They are less compatible, not much more reliable, insanely overpriced and most of the creative design tools are available for the PC anyway.

[Espadon]

I guess design is more important to some people than others.  If you like to see the world through numbers, then you probably dont really care much about the design. 

That's subjective. I looked at the numbers and got an ugly Sager instead of a sleek MacBook.

[Mangled*]

The real reason that people use Macs is because up until just a few years ago most people didn't realise you could get Adobe Photoshop on Windows.

Apple products will always be overpriced and overrated. Their commercial success isn't down to their design or functionality, it's down to their marketing. The iPod was a fluke on Apple's part.

[Neosano]

Reading this thread and understanding the GENIUS part of macs...
They cost A LOT. That's why they're getting popular.
For example linux, which is five times better than both windows and mac is getting underrated, because it's free :-S
If you are going to use mac - better try linux before that :-] It's way better, and you'll feel the power over your computer. And the best part of it - it's totally free! And even more, ALL PROGRAMS FOR LINUX ARE FREE. Enjoy!

btw someone mentioned that IT guys use macs. Not true. They use linux.

P.S. don't expect that linux is going to be same as windows. It's different, and it's more intuitive.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I guess design is more important to some people than others.  If you like to see the world through numbers, then you probably dont really care much about the design.

That's subjective. I looked at the numbers and got an ugly Sager instead of a sleek MacBook.

So...you saw the world through numbers and determined that design didn't matter?

For example linux, which is five times better than both windows and mac is getting underrated, because it's free :-S

No, it's because the other OSes have better compatibility, usability, support, and documentation.  However, I will agree with you that price == quality for me at a first glance.  Visual Studio? Better than open-source IDEs.  Microsoft Office? Better than OpenOffice.  Adobe Photoshop? Better than Paint.NET.  Regardless of whether or not that's actually the case (though I'm positive it is), that's just how I feel.

[Espadon]

Yes, it was better suited to my needs than a MacBook in every way except styling. It's thick, it's heavy, it sounds like a small vacuum cleaner when I game, and it looks like a 1980 Corolla reincarnated in computer form. Most of the case is a pretty strong plastic but it's slightly wavy and stuff, nothing like the laser-straight CNC'd look of the MacBooks.

Linux isn't intuitive for me; I can't even use ctrlaltdel when badly written opensource programs crash. I don't enjoy taking 10 minutes looking up commands to run on the terminal and pecking at the keys to write like bork@borkbork:~/bork/bork-sp10/borkbork/bork3$ bork * | wc -l 11835

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I was just saying that your example didn't really prove subjectivity, since you did the exact same thing that Hair|Trigger predicted.  Fully agree with the Linux bit, though.

[Espadon]

The point is that PCpretty/Macpretty is subjective and has no bearing on performance. He find PCs pretty while I think most PCs look rather garish.

[pavliko]

they crashed alot more than my PC.

Don't compair School computers.
With some good working parts & mac you can live with it until something breaks...
Unlike school computers which don't get that much of attention..

Macs are good for work because you won't have any good games to play on them olololo

lol +1 respect for being a smartass

[Psycho]

Actually they were brand new iMac's

[-Major-]

biggest diffrence between mac and pc is that PC got a lot more whining kids who must declare their choice is better, while the mac users doesn't really care.

[jrgp]

bork@borkbork:~/bork/bork-sp10/borkbork/bork3$ bork * | wc -l 11835

Nice job deliberately making it look more complicated and complex than it really is. The only part you'd be typing is what's in bold:
bork@borkbork:~/bork/bork-sp10/borkbork/bork3$ bork * | wc -l 11835

And it's pretty mean of you to post a nonsensical command to try to validate your point. It makes no sense, especially since bork probably doesn't exist and wc doesn't accept input from a file (you're specifying 11835) and stdin at the same time (the pipe character | there is telling to shell to redirect output from bork * into wc).

Don't compair School computers.
With some good working parts & mac you can live with it until something breaks...
Unlike school computers which don't get that much of attention..

Actually they were brand new iMac's

Quite possible. School computers are usually ignored and school IT people usually don't know what they're doing or care.

This hotel I was in one time had iMacs in each room. The one in mine was kinda old (this was 2008 and it was at least 3 years old). It was fast as hell and appeared to be rock solid. I used it a lot while I was there without a hitch.

[L[0ne]R]

A few comments on supposedly good looks and design:
As far as Macbook Pros go - I found nothing good about neither the looks, nor the technical specifics of the case of the models that we used at college (brand new ones). Here are a few issues that I experienced in a 2-year period:

1) Pieces are not fit together well, some spots feel wobbly and deform easily, lots of gaps where the dirt gets into. (http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro#Warped_casing)
2) Really bad choice of material - attracts dirt very easily, after a few days of gaming the keyboard would look so dirty it was embarrassing and gross.
3) The surface corrodes from sweat (!!!). Nearly a half of my classmates had that happen with their macs. (http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro#Corrosion_on_MBP_Topcase)
4) Flimsy key attachments that could easily break when you take the keys off to clean underneath.
5) Only 2 USB ports.
6) Whitish spots on the display (like semi-dead pixels) after a short time.
7) The display died after only about a year of use.

And here are a ton more issues that I didn't mention: http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro

I haven't used other laptops, but from what I've seen - they look much better assembled and more durable. And have at least 4 USB ports.



On the other hand new mac desktops look decent, and I loved the solid and compact design of the keyboards.. but that's where good things about macs end for me. :S

I think the "durability" some people are talking about comes from inability to mess with the system much. Unlike PCs where nearly everything is easily accessible (and vulnerable), on Macs most of that is hidden from users and even programs are not always allowed to change much.



Thanks for all the replies so far. It really gave me a much better idea about Macs vs. PCs.

[Espadon]

Well MacBooks are made by the same company that cranks out Dell laptops...

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

bork@borkbork:~/bork/bork-sp10/borkbork/bork3$ bork * | wc -l 11835

<some linux talk>

I think in your nitpicking you're missing the point that what Espadon wrote, while nonsensical, is something you could CONCEIVABLY SEE ON A LINUX TERMINAL.  The fact that you can even say "well I guess this would work if this phrase here was that instead" should just drive home how ridiculously complex such a system is.

[Espadon]

Regardless, it's not worth it for someone who's not going to be working with IT administration to learn UNIX's near-arbitrary shorthand commands. Not to mention that Linux isn't very supportive of creative software and tablets.

Bottom line:
If it has the hardware you need to run the software you need, then it's all you need.
Loner, I think you're on the right track in just comparing defect issues between computers.

[jrgp]

Not to mention that Linux isn't very supportive of creative software and tablets.

Really?

[Espadon]

Thanks for finding that for me.

Let's work on making GIMP less annoying next.

[jrgp]

Let's work on making GIMP less annoying next.

Try Inkscape? Kpaint?

[FliesLikeABrick]

Well MacBooks are made by the same company that cranks out Dell laptops...

If you're referring to ASUS, then you should specify motherboards.

[ds dude]

Holy crap, Google is hosting their Indian server on Linux.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.google.in

[jrgp]

Holy crap, Google is hosting their Indian server on Linux.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.google.in

So is the rest of Google.

[Espadon]

I believe Quanta holds the contract for manufacturing the case and assembling the MacBooks.

[FliesLikeABrick]

Holy crap, Google is hosting their Indian server on Linux.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.google.in

So is the rest of Google.

Yeah, Google and most other large sites are hosted on 100% Linux or [Free]BSD (and a large amount of other site for that matter).

[Kazuki]

You use Macs to support Apple so they can crank out more useless models of the iPod. Maybe they'll re-release the iPod Shuffle, but this time they'll give it a huge touch-screen and sell it for $300.

But in all seriousness, there are very few points that I agree with. One of them is jrgp's point that UNIX, while complex, is just awesome. It makes you feel like you have much more direct control over your OS than you do with Windows. The second point I agree with is Brick's point that Win Vista/7 are too heavyweight. Perhaps Gamer is right and they're just heavy for the time being, but I like the balance that Windows XP has between functionality and featherweight speed. Vista and 7 just seem sluggish, and a lot of the features they have over XP seem extraneous.

I suppose the one thing I might really like about a Mac is that everything is well-integrated. Most programs that run on Windows systems are third-party. Sure, there are few issues with software running on the OS, but there's a comfort to be found in knowing that the video editor you're using was developed with your specific OS in mind by the same company that developed the OS itself. Everything just seems to ... fit better.

Other than that, I personally don't prefer Macs to Linux or Windows.

[Neosano]

Holy crap, Google is hosting their Indian server on Linux.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.google.in

Are you kidding?? All servers use linux. Almost.




From: April 27, 2010, 03:52:24 am

You use Macs to support Apple so they can crank out more useless models of the iPod. Maybe they'll re-release the iPod Shuffle, but this time they'll give it a huge touch-screen and sell it for $300.

But in all seriousness, there are very few points that I agree with. One of them is jrgp's point that UNIX, while complex, is just awesome. It makes you feel like you have much more direct control over your OS than you do with Windows. The second point I agree with is Brick's point that Win Vista/7 are too heavyweight. Perhaps Gamer is right and they're just heavy for the time being, but I like the balance that Windows XP has between functionality and featherweight speed. Vista and 7 just seem sluggish, and a lot of the features they have over XP seem extraneous.

I suppose the one thing I might really like about a Mac is that everything is well-integrated. Most programs that run on Windows systems are third-party. Sure, there are few issues with software running on the OS, but there's a comfort to be found in knowing that the video editor you're using was developed with your specific OS in mind by the same company that developed the OS itself. Everything just seems to ... fit better.

Other than that, I personally don't prefer Macs to Linux or Windows.

What a good post.
Linux just allows you to do ANYTHING you want. And of course it must be complex to satisfy your needs.

[Kazuki]

Well, of course Linux doesn't let you do anything, but it is much more accessible and permits you to act at your own risk more freely. Now this is strictly my own opinion, but this is how I see it:

Windows: "I will be overprotective for as long as you live!"
Linux: "I trust you to experience and learn on your own, but I'll be here to help if you need me."

Also, of course it doesn't have to be complex to satisfy my needs. Hell, even a Mac will satisfy my needs well. What it comes down to is preference.

By the way, if you couldn't tell, I couldn't decide whether your post was sarcastic or not. >_>

Edit: AAARGH! You got your Google Ads in my Soldat Forums!

[pavliko]

Mac doesn't allow you to make spam troyans D:

[SDFilm]

biggest diffrence between mac and pc is that PC got a lot more whining kids who must declare their choice is better, while the mac users doesn't really care.

I would've thought it's the other way around

[ds dude]

I don't understand why some people bag on linux, it's just different and I think it's pretty cool to learn commands and stuff and understand how everything works.

Honestly, Linux actually improved my computational abilities.

Hopefully I made sense there.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I don't understand why some people bag on linux, it's just different and I think it's pretty cool to learn commands and stuff and understand how everything works.

I have a problem with Linux for the same reason I have a problem with Macs: the users.  The fanbase of each OS thinks theirs is the greatest thing ever, and the rest of the world is stupid for using Windows.  If it weren't for that, I wouldn't care one bit; each has its own place, and their market share is small enough that I don't need to worry about them getting the spotlight for application development anytime soon.

[ds dude]

I don't get it either, but Windows does the same thing. They bag on Mac's and Linux.

[FliesLikeABrick]

I don't understand why some people bag on linux, it's just different and I think it's pretty cool to learn commands and stuff and understand how everything works.

I have a problem with Linux for the same reason I have a problem with Macs: the users.  The fanbase of each OS thinks theirs is the greatest thing ever, and the rest of the world is stupid for using Windows.  If it weren't for that, I wouldn't care one bit; each has its own place, and their market share is small enough that I don't need to worry about them getting the spotlight for application development anytime soon.

Those are the ones who want to be loud and obnoxious about it.  For every one user of Linux/Mac that you want to punch in the face, I've found that there are 10 more that just use it and keep their mouths shut.

There are plenty of Windows fanboys in the world that are just as annoying and loud, don't act like there aren't.

[Espadon]

Well anyways I think the first page already cleared up the OP's question. This is degrading into personal preference issues.

[FliesLikeABrick]

Well anyways I think the first page already cleared up the OP's question. This is degrading into personal preference issues.

That's all any of this is - a matter of personal preference.  Some people just like to rip on others for their preference and it gets old real fast.