Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

No reason not to get Mac

  1. Feb 6, 2005 #1
    There is truely no reason not to get a mac as far as i'm concerned. The hardware is great, the software is great and now with the new mac mini the price is great. Besides games anything you want to do on a windows pc you can do on a mac. Even when you talk about games, any game that's worth anything will be on a mac anyway. Viruses rarely infect macs if at all. The counter argument is that 95% of the worlds computers use windows so viruses are made for windows. To me that argument has only some validity. I could argue that if it was MacOS instead of windows there wouldn't be as many viruses simply because it's a more robust OS. I mean seriously, who's bright idea was it to automactically run vbscript in emails. The MacOS is based in UNIX as well so the geeks have something to play with.

    Sorry if this seems like i'm some sort of mac salesman but I just want to know what about macs you do not like because it seems like all positives to me. I've never had a mac however my next purchase will definetly be one.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 6, 2005 #2
    I just saw the Thread in the software section that is a similar topic. Sorry if this seems like double posting threads. CLose this thread if you want admin.
  4. Feb 6, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The statement, "the hardware is great," is quite an understatement. The G4 & G5's are top of the line processors. I've been doing some FFTs with their SIMD instruction set called, Altivec. All I have to say is that I'm very impressed with the processors, specifically Altivec, itself

    OS X is essentially FreeBSD with some Apple goodies. Since, I'm a FreeBSD user, a PowerPC and FreeBSD combined is very nice.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2005
  5. Feb 6, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus

    Yes, noticed a lot more people getting macs. I think this is a goog thing. It is going to force Microsoft to get off its butt and start innovating, instead of taking what the apple people do.
  6. Feb 6, 2005 #5

    I use PC's because that's what people around me have, so I can get help easier. I'm also familiar with having 2 mouse buttons, Macs only seem to have one.

    As far as internal workings go, all I'm concerned about is that the computer runs the software I need and doesn't crash too often, so I don't waste time or lose data.

    My decision between the two is quite stricly limited to these concerns alone.
  7. Feb 6, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What makes you think that Apples only have support for their mice only? There's a Logitech three-button mouse hooked up to my Powerbook's USB port at the moment, and it works great.
  8. Feb 6, 2005 #7
    Why only 1 mouse button by default? Microsoft patented the 2-button mouse OS? I've used Windows since it was born, and have grown quite accustomed to right-clicking, it saves time. I suppose one gets used to it.
  9. Feb 6, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Nonsense, you can use all three buttons in OS X. For some reason, Apple just decides to ship a one button mouse.
  10. Feb 6, 2005 #9

    This is OS fanboy logic graphic7, take note, since you have trouble identifying it.

    I can think of enough reasons not to get a mac:

    Linux meets all my needs for less,
    FreeBSD meets all my needs for less,
    Mac fans annoy me, and getting tech help from them would be something i would not enjoy.
    And of course: I simply need a stable development platform with an OS that does what i want it to, and then gets out of my way. From all of my experience with macs, that is not a Mac.
  11. Feb 6, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Care to explain that statement a bit more?

    I've had quite a different experience with Macs as far as software development. Apple now builds OS X with gcc, and gcc is the compiler they ship in the development tools. Java development isn't quite as good, given OS X requires it's own fork from Sun's version. Overall, though, Altivec is very impressive. I had a link to a whitepaper from several organizations detailing how Altivec can be used for FFT, and lots of other Linear Algebra stuff. While I've never done much with MMX/SSE, I have high regards for Altivec.

    No, Mac hardware isn't the cheapest. Yes, OS X does cost, but not every propiertary platform/OS is a bad one.
  12. Feb 6, 2005 #11
    Don't worry about it. Not really worth explaining.

    I actually do not have any development experience on a mac, my comment about my experience of it was more in reference for an OS that does what i need, and then gets the heck out of my way, and stays there.

    I never said proprietary OSs were inherently bad. But they're also not inherently better. I do most of my work in Perl, and F90, and i see no way, nor have i been told of anyway that a mac would suit my needs better than my linux platform.

    Another thing: I'm not real big on IDEs. Again, i want my system to do what i need it to, and then get out of my way, and not waste cpu cycles in the process. All i really need are command line compilers for the languages i use, and a simple text editor, that again, does what i need, and then gets out of my way.

    There is no way i could justify the cost of a mac that gives me no benefit for what i'm doing.

    I'm not even saying linux is the best for what i need, i've been told by more than a few people that FreeBSD would be better suited for my purposes (and i do intend on trying it out in the next week or so). But neither windows nor a mac are suitable.
  13. Feb 6, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus

    From what i've heard the reason the macs ship with one button mice is becuase they don't want software developers to put tons of menus within the mouse menu. They are trying to simplify everything as possible.
  14. Feb 6, 2005 #13

    Your arguments seem to be based solely on cost. To me this is only a problem with the powermac and the server. With the top of the line hardware they have it's worth the cost. Plus the server is certified to work with RedHat and Yellow Dog if you really want to run linux. If cost is that much of a problem than I don't see why the mini mac can't fill out your needs.
  15. Feb 6, 2005 #14
    specs on a mini mac:

    1.42GHz PowerPC G4
    256MB DDR333 SDRAM
    ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB DDR video memory
    80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
    Combo drive
    DVI or VGA video output
    AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth optional

    Why that doesn't meet my needs:

    I'm curently working on a solar convection model that uses a 2-dimensional rungekutta algorithm with 3 mutually interdependent variables, determined by 3 highly nonlinear differential equations, and solving for these variables at 7.2 million different positions, and their variation over time.

    My comp's specs:
    1.8 Ghz
    768 DDR RAM (two chips, different speeds, too lazy to open the case and look)
    Otherstuff, not important, still better than the mac mini specs.

    That, as it is too slow. I'm not going to downgrade to inferior hardware.

    And i'm not running windows, so the normal spiel about cpu cycles not telling it all doesn't work. Like i said, i need an OS that does what i need, and then gets out of my way and does not waste cpu cycles doing it, because i don't have any to spare.

    Now, to be fair, my system did cost more than the mac mini. But that was more because hard drive than anything else (200 GB SATA hard drive). Mind you, this is also my personal use computer.

    So, true the mini mac is not more expensive. But it is inferior, especially on memory, which i badly need.

    And no, since you don't botyher to read, my argument is not based solely on cost. Its based on what i need, as much mileage out of my system resources as i can possibly get. An OS that does what i need, and then gets out of my way. That is NOT OS X.
  16. Feb 6, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Please tell me that you're not making this determination solely based on the CPU speeds.

    So, use the difference in costs and buy some more RAM.
  17. Feb 6, 2005 #16
    No it was mostly based on losing 512 Mb of RAM, which is more important than that difference in CPU speeds, but every piece on there is lower than my system's.

    Or i could go buy more ram for my current system, and again, still have better hardware.
  18. Feb 6, 2005 #17
    Not true, IMO, but it's a personal preference thing. In general, if you're into gaming at all, it's not recommended that you buy a Mac.
  19. Feb 13, 2005 #18
    Why do you say it is not recommended that one should not buy a Mac if one is not into gaming? Just curious..
  20. Feb 13, 2005 #19
    If you reread my statement, you can see that I said you should not buy a Mac if you're into gaming, not if you're not into gaming. Unless you happen to enjoy only the select games that are made for the Apple platform, you can't play anything on Macs. Not to mention that you can only play multiplayer with other Mac users, and those are obviously much harder to find than PC gamers.
  21. Feb 13, 2005 #20
    Oh. My bad, i read your post wrong :)
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook