[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Ok, apple products being of high quality is definitely the case, but this is a bit too much of myth making here and I say that as someone that does graphical and design art as a profession and has direct access to both Microsoft and Apple products.

Well I regularly work with Photoshop and Illustrator and have a colleague who works with AutoCAD. We have a division of sound engineer who works with Macs as well and in our professional and corporate experience, we can say that Macs performs better, and I'm not talking merely about top end Mac Pros, even the standard iMacs work a treat compared to the pcs you can assemble for the same money; in addition to that you have a stable OS and a long guarantee.

First of all, recent apple OSes had some serious security faults. Leopard II had larger security holes then even Vista had. Apple did not produce more secure Ooperating Systems then Microsoft, it's just that Apple computers only share a friction of the market and thus are under the Radar of most hackers.

No, that's a myth that PC geeks love to think is true, but it's not because hackers don't find Macs appealing, it's cos viruses don't work on Macs, because OS X doesn't work like Windows. You can get certain trojans and ad-wares, but it's really hard because of the way permissions are structured within OS X.

The apple OS also has a huge advantage in being written for the same hardware all over. This makes it rather easy to optomize apple products opposite to Windows, which has to cope with a vast amount of devices. What you prefer here is personal choice, both apporaches have pros and negs. I personally like to work on my computer and upgrade it, purely performance wise you get more bang for the buck with hardware for Windows systems, peripheral producers in direct competition towards each other, so the performance gain in apple products software wise is very relative. It's also not so easy to just upgrade apple products hardware wise.

It's down to personal choice, but the whole misconception is that a machine with a greater chance to be tweaked shouldn't be put in the hands of people that don't know how to handle it. Take the virus examples again: viruses do spread because of a combination of poor security in terms of OS and bad policies or IT habits of average users. Apple took these factors into account and developed a fenced system that is not susceptible to these issues.
As a consequence, you have a stable machine, which reliable performance and that doesn't let you down.
The main difference is that Micro$oft develops a generic OS to be thrown to the lions, whereas Apple develops a complete package, which now is even capable to run the Windows OS (and performing better with those too).

Apple products are also greared more towards the noobs, which is not a bad thing, it's like an Audi A3 which has it's hood sealed so only mechanics from Audi are capable to work on it opposite to more basic approaches in cars that leaves your room to work on it yourself. Also a matter of personal choice, not an andvantage per se.

You probably never looked into a Mac Pro. That is hardware porn at its finest

My judgement may be clouded here because I got introduced to Apple when they only had one mouse button, which for me was amongst the most cumbersome and agonizing approaches in regards to using a computer, you always had to press extra keys on the keyboard to make it work. Espcially in the graphics department one mouse button was a pest.

things have changed, and keep on changing: Apple is now ditching the concept of the mouse in favour of the Magic Trackpad , which together with a pen tablet is all I use for work. The simple genius of multi-touching is incredibly useful.

I am also absolutely no fan of Apples apporach towards Apps, banning all free programming from their devices and making everything payware as a matter of principle.

you probably never worked with Apps. They generated an incredible amount of work and income for a lot of new companies, and many apps are for free. A developers' package is not very expensive and you can really make a lot of profit. The fact that apps are monitored by Apple is a further example of how they care about quality standards.

I am also not so convinced about Apple deisgns as in some cases, they were in some instances almost 1:1 copies of Braun industrial design from the 70ies. And lest we forget that in the modern age Apple was highly successfull in abusing modern patent law to kick any competition in the nuts.

Apple is a giant, they have more liquidity than the US of A in their bank. They're also winning causes for patent infringements done by other companies, because they worked hard on having their patenting done properly. They invested a lot in it, and it's paying back. As for design, it's questionable, designers continuously take inspiration from the past, so nothing wrong with that.

In my opinion apple created some very noteworthy and in the later stages, easy to use and good looking devices, but there is a bit too much of a hype going on. Windows once was hailed very similiary after it replaced DOS, good looking, easy to use in comparison, quite like Apple today. And like the Windows fans are rediculed nowadays, Apple fans should be cautious not to lean too far out of the window.

there's quite a difference: Apple delivers a complete, functioning package, Windows sells a ($hitty) OS, some applications and crappy peripherals. Their only advantage is that they arrived on the market before, and were cunning enough to steal key ideas and establish themselves into the market to become what they are today: an over-inflated, over-paid, overrated fart.

It all comes down to the point that you pay a lot of money for good looks, a brand name and rather easy usage. If people are willing to pay for that, and if they have the money I do not blame them, cool, but that does not make it a revolution.

You're completely missing on the actual business value here: time.
We ran a survey at work over a month's time, checking workflows of people that worked on same roles but with different platforms (say PC vs Mac).
It turned out that people working on Mac had a higher efficiency rate of circa 35%, this due simply to the time saved by a faster and less buggy machine, less need for costly IT support and generic compatibility issues with peripherals.

Our managing board is looking at the figures now, and rumors are that we're gonna all switch to Macs, because it simply saves us a HUGE amount of money.