since a mac nowadays is simply a xxx86 pc with os-x why does anyone bother buying them. anyone who wants to can install the mac os-x on just about any pc.
my pc can run vista xp me se win3.1 dos linux beos and os-x of any flavor. macs?
can a mac user change any or all of the hardware like in a normal pc?
and i just don't get the air mac portable, no drives? how would i get the 100 or so programs i need installed? or is it just a big pretty toy?
Results 1 to 30 of 191
"a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303
Can you please go to your beloved PC forum section and flame there with above nonsense? I mean, what a hell you are lookin here in Mac forum section? Do you have some secret desire to own a Mac or have some frustration which you cannot handle so you must post above stupidity here?
Can one of the admins lock or delete these last 2 threads so PC guys can go to some other place to drool over their mighty power PC's?
Well, err, a Mac with Intel architecture is really, in essence, a PC, except it's got a hack somewhere to run OSX. Not that any is better than the other, but with an almost identical set of guts, a fluid dual emulation is no surprise.
Being a marketing guy, I have my own speculations as to what visionary Steve Jobs does indeed foresee in the future for the Mac when he decided to adopt Intel...I hate VHS. I always did.
Originally Posted by SERBIAN
Was: what a hell you are lookin here in Mac forum section?
Should be: Why in the hell are you looking in the Mac forum?
The answer is: Because some people enjoy listening to the squeal when they poke a Mac-cult member.
1) There are loads of people who will always leave the dance with the partner they arrived with.
2) You may as well ask the MILLIONS of people who never do anything but email and Amazon on their Windows machines why they use Windows, when they get hit with the same trojans and other crap Windows "power users" get. Why not use something else? Because they don't want to, that's why. Why does anyone buy low-end Chrysler econoboxes when they're a really bad bet right now? Because they want to, because of price, who knows? They have their reasons.
3) The MacBook Air and the Mini are expressly obviously NOT, NYET, in NO WAY being marketed to the video jockeys on this forum who want to load up on drives, cards and all our other accumulated crap. They are not intended for this purpose, the ongoing poison directed at small-form-factor Macs is getting demented here. If your home or business is tight on space, you're not a "power user", and you don't mind using a Mac, the Mini is a great little box. Dead silent, robust, does what it needs to do but otherwise invisible. We have almost 120 deployed in our nationwide company, running Windows via VPN with added applications on OSX. The MacBook Air? All of our 60 salespeople are begging for them already. Why? What do salespeople do on a laptop? Email, quotes, reports, presentations AND THEY HAVE TO CARRY IT AROUND ALL DAY. Are there comparable Windows laptops? Of course! But if you are Mac-based, there wasn't anything this light until the MacBook Air. So its a sensation as a niche product. End of story.
4) Any long-term Mac user with half a brain knows where the Intel Macs are eventually headed: to running Windows. OSX is nothing more than Steve-O's "NexStep" dressed in a fright wig. It offers only two advantages to Mac users over Windows: greater web security (up to a point) and somewhat more reliable integration with peripherals. This isn't enough to hold or increase market share in a world populated by kids who can troubleshoot Vista better than their parents. OSX is not compelling the way the original Mac was, it gets in the way more than it does anything else. Designers and photographers who were comfortable with "Classic Mac" have already abandoned OSX in droves for Windows NT and XP- why bother to learn a whole new complicated Mac when for the same effort you could transition to Windows? On a corporate level, there are advantages to deploying it, but nothing that can really grab the consumer market anymore. Consumers go for the form factor and the better iTunes integration, that's pretty much it.
Sooner or later, Steve and Bill will have one of their periodic summit meetings, and figure out a way to close the bigger Windows loopholes once and for all. Apple will then start peddling their machines with Windows installed, and they will make a ton of money doing it. They want to stay in hardware, it works for them, but the only way to expand sales is to offer Apple Windows machines. Steve is ruthless and he knows this. There will probably not be a Mac OS-XI in the offing. Odds are, Steve's final act of vengeance for being thrown out of Apple years ago will be to terminate the Mac altogether. And perhaps its finally time. I personally love having the choice of Windows, Mac and Linux but the larger world will likely be better served by bowing to the inevitable and going all-Windows. IF, and its a big if, Windows can be made more secure for the average non-gearhead to use. Today, almost no one remembers Sony made Betamaxes. They were crafty, and waited to enter the VHS market at a point when no one would question the move. Apple is eagerly anticipating that day for themselves.
2)ok, vista still needs an a/v integrated, a/t already is with defender.
3)alright i can go with that.
4)i didn't have a clue mac users knew it was approaching.
p.s. there are weird little boxes/cases for pcs too. and add-ons to make itunes work just like the mac version on a pc.
so we're down a/v and make it easier and safer? sounds like vista+ due maybe next year.--
"a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303
Originally Posted by ffooky
I was afraid that I'd shoot flames, but I guess the torch is quite lit already, in this and in the "other" ongoing thread.
That's what I was hinting in my last post commenting on why Jobs decided to adopt Intel architecture, and I agree with Orsetto and disagree with ffooky.
Apple will indeed stay in hardware, but eventually will slowly adopt Windows. The marketplace has changed and Jobs knows it.
People criticize Mac for only having about 5% of the market, but personally I think it's an achievement that anyone can take/retain that much away from Windows in the first place, and a true testament to the brilliance of Jobs, and the brand that he's established.
And Jobs is visionary. He knows where the future for the Apple brand is in: hardware - regardless of OSX or Windows. And having a Windows/OSX machine in the near future is the great transition process to smooth along the timeline into being a Windows machine, and for brand distinction as well, and being THE leader in that field - way ahead of the likes of Dell, HP, and other such giants.
And Jobs has his "excuse" to go Windows. Time will create that for him instead of him having to admit some abandoning of OSX too soon.
I will bet big $$ that he and Gates are talking about their relationship and long-term strategy together for the next ten years. It's a win-win scenario for both: Gates gets control of virtually 100% of the market and Jobs becomes the top PC, err... HARDWARE provider...I hate VHS. I always did.
Originally Posted by PuzZLeR
I'm prepared to pay more for my machines because I want to run OS X and I certainly wouldn't want to fanny around with a hackintosh. I paid more for my MP3 players because they integrate with the OS/software I use and prefer.
If I had a fiver for every time I've read how people wish Apple would license OS X I'd be a rich man. If I had a fiver for every time I've come across someone who bought a Mac with the intention of installing Windows on it solely, I'd have f*** all.
So you presume that all Mac users are the kind of pricks who post unboxing pictures on Macrumors eh ? Terribly lazy of you. Having used OS 9, Win98, Ubuntu and XP and all flavours of OS X since Jaguar, I'd still prefer OS X if the company was fronted by an iguana...or even Billy boy himself.
no swooning is allowed here...
The sensible regulars in this forum have stayed well away from this thread and I really should have too but my dear wife is away, so I had to look elsewhere for annoying smugness and the inability to respect an opinion other than one's own.
Now I must thank you for stepping into the breach so wholeheartedly and bid you goodnight.
Gotta love this forum... :P
Ffooky, with all due respect, I'm not knocking Mac users and not knocking you for loving OSX. Nothing wrong with that. And I could tell all along that SCDVD was being more funny than anything.
But SCDVD does make a good point about Jobs and Gates being businessmen first - number one priority is the almighty dollar (or fiver...), not what's good for the Ol' Faithful. I wouldn't be surprised if they have regular telephone conversations in the most friendliest method discussing the "Big Transition".
It just seems so obvious that Mac is going with Windows as a profitable business decision, not because OSX is no good. I'm sure Jobs sees this as an amazing opportunity for Mac to sell hardware to probably over 50% of the buyers in the future - who the hell cares about keeping an O/S that only gives you a very-hard-to-maintain measly 5%?
Think about it.
It's just that Jobs can't do it right away for fear of being a "traitor" of some sort and that it would kill the marketing stance. And the fact that Macs will be wearing two outfits, OSX and Windows, in the near future will ease this transition, and will steadily earn more, and more, market share.
Let me re-write my earlier quote:And Jobs has his "excuse" to go Windows. Time will create that for him instead of him having to admit some abandoning of OSX too soon.
When Mac goes Windows/OSX in the near future - the mindset is "Mac has more to offer!"
When Mac goes all Windows years from now - the mindset will be "Apple's Mac is the leading PC and has diverse roots in the history of computing from 'Nix, and were even the geniuses behind bringing the world of computing on the legendary OSX into the Windows standard, blah blah blah". The new generation of computer users won't care about OSX being gone, will they? Didn't think so.I hate VHS. I always did.
This is kind of funny -- perhaps you should ask all of my friends running Windows why they've been transitioning to Macs in the past few years? Many of them have cited the ability to run OS X, Linux, and Windows when they need it on the same box without any real modification; in fact, my first "new" Mac was purchased in 2003 and I have a small fleet of them now for various tasks.
Let's look at some of the things that make people buy Macs or keep Mac users sticking with Macs.
1. Software: This is the same reason people stick with Windows; they have years worth of software on one OS and don't feel like switching platforms and replacing a myriad of software. I know at least two people that bought MacBook Pros the day that Boot Camp was announced though because this problem was solved on the Mac end without any user modification -- the real complaint was the OS X wasn't available on generic boxes which is still the primary complaint of would-be OS X users -- average users don't have the patience for OSx86 and a hackintosh, and subsequently don't mind the extra cash for a real Mac. The results of the upcoming Apple/PsyStar lawsuit over their Mac Clone could determine the legality of OSx86 and/or the legality of Apple's EULA. Either A) Apple wins, the OSx86 project is shut down, and the upstart PsyStar is sued into oblivion, or B) PsyStar wins and Apple responds by releasing a "PC Version" of OS X to compete directly with Windows as a result of a court ruling -- the latter would turn the PC world on its head and you can bet the use of OS X would increase almost overnight. The only thing preventing this right now is the fact that Apple's unwilling to treat their OS the way Microsoft does.
2. Brand-loyalty: The person who bought a FORD in the 80s, another in the 90s, and another this year isn't buying it because FORD claims that they're quality is on par with Toyota -- they're buying it because they like FORDs, just like VW loyalists like VWs, and on the computer front Apple and Dell loyalists will always buy Macs and Dells. These are the "cult users" who think OS X has no flaws (sure it does, it gets patched with security updates the same way Windows does,) and refuse to run Firefox because they have Safari. Did I mention I can't stand these people? They're equally as stupid as the Windows user who insists on running IE7 which is equally as bad as Safari and for many of the same reasons. These people would by a tin can with an Apple logo slapped on it if Steve Jobs endorsed it and aren't reflective or normal Mac users.
3. Performance: My brother's girlfriend bought a used G3 from the mid-90s and has a Dell Laptop from 2007 -- the antiquated G3 runs circles around the Dell running a standard Windows configuration. In fact, we figured out that she wound up using the G3 more than the Dell because it was just more reliable as a system. One might argue that it's the PPC architecture, but my brother's MacBook Pro also runs circles around the same Dell which is comparably equipped. The Mac beats the Windows machine every time when it comes to speed/performance as long as the software is comparable -- in fact, this is ultimately why I bought a Mac in the first place.
4. Reliability: The difference between a Hackintosh and a real Mac or even a Dell and a Mac running Windows under Boot Camp is that the Mac Hardware is more reliable. But it's the same as the PC hardware, right? Not quite -- Apple holds their hardware to higher quality standard so fewer defective parts pass into Macs than into other machines, this is why you pay twice as much for a Mac. Think of Audi and VW to use the automobile analogy again -- The VW Passat is nearly identical to a car made by Audi (can't remember the exact model right now,) but the Audi costs about three times as much. Why? Because it's an Audi, the quality control is more rigorous, and it's built in a post-industrialized nation. Likewise, the Mac costs more because it's a Mac, the quality control is more rigorous, and the high-end machines such as the Mac Pro are stamped "Made in USA" while the only machines like the Mac Mini are stamped "Made in China," so the old saying of "you get what you pay for" applies here.
5. Vista's a disaster: I've yet to meet more than two people who actually like Windows Vista. One large corporation recently upgraded their IBM Thinkpads running Win2k to Lenovo Thinkpads running Vista: the IT department hates everything about the machines and the employees hate everything about them as well. It doesn't help that the company also purchased the new MS Office and the DOX format has gone over about as well as the WPS format. These people did one of two things, A) Wipe their PCs and install WinXP knowing that this is only a temporary solution, or B) Switched to a Mac and dual-booted WinXP to transition to OS X and use Windows as needed. Even Microsoft can see Vista is a mess hence the rush to get Windows 7 out quickly; they know Vista is the new ME... and so does Apple.
As for OS X/Windows and Jobs/Gates being businessmen first, a couple of things have to be realized. First, Gates and Jobs, while ultimately on the same side (what's best for each of their businesses,) are aiming at two different audiences. Microsoft is targeting general-purpose users while Apple is targeting highly niche markets. Both models are making money, but they're fundamentally different. Second, Jobs and the Apple market don't want to run Windows as their primary OS -- they're looking for an alternative to it, or they're looking to use it as a secondary (or in some cases tertiary) OS to supplement what they're using OS X for, and usually they're people running Windows to play games. Third, Apple can't drop the Mac OS even if it wants to for the same reason Coke and Pepsi can't merge -- it'd create a monopoly that'd violate US anti-trust laws; Microsoft would have to lose a laughable number of users to Linux for Apple to sell Macs with Windows as their primary OS, and that'd defeat the entire purpose of selling Windows as Apple's primary OS.
I could see an option to "include Windows" with future Macs as dual-booting becomes more popular, but the die-hards won't run Windows (they'll switch to linux,) even if Jobs approves of it, and Jobs won't approve of it unless he's standing over the Microsoft design team; as long as Jobs thinks his way is the best (and he always does,) then Windows won't come pre-installed on a Mac unless it's at an additional cost to OS X or whatever it's successor is.
Also what if PsyStar wins their lawsuit against Apple and the court orders Apple to allow the creation of Mac Clones? First, it'd make more sense for Jobs to unleash OS X on the PC world where companies like Dell which distribute both Windows and Linux boxes could add OS X to their OS offers as a result of this. Second, this would actually be best for us because it'd create price wars, competition, and economic stimulation, not to mention a need for better software. Third, it'd create jobs in upstart companies trying to compete with the people behind the Windows machines, and it'd confirm what we already know -- OS X isn't going anywhere; Windows on a Mac was done because it made good business sense to have the option of Windows, not because Jobs wants it there, and not because Mac users want it, but because it brings in new Mac users who transition away from Windows. Right now Microsoft is falling into the same rut Apple fell into during the mid-90s, and the Mac is gaining popularity rather than losing it so it makes no sense to kill off the OS that's feeding said popularity, if anything when it comes time to update it again, Apple will create a new OS. Let's not forget that up until Mac OS X 10.1, Apple was using the same Mac OS they'd had for years -- OS X was future-proofed when it was designed while Vista is designed to be obsolete within a few years, again the business method is different.
Finally, let's talk Mac machines and then misconceptions, we'll start with the former:
- Macbook: Don't let the "budget line" aspect fool you; this is a really powerful laptop. Like every laptop it has some proprietary parts, but for the quality of the machine, you're getting your money's worth. In the iBook days this was designed for people who couldn't afford a PowerBook, and the MacBook serves the same budget function, but you don't feel like you're using a budget computer.
- MacBook Pro: The PowerBook's successor is one of the most popular laptops available today because unlike most Windows-laptops, it's small, powerful, versatile, and ultimately it runs better than most machines out there. College students like it because it looks cool, functions well, and is suitable for a dorm and classroom environment, and companies like it because it's more powerful than most laptops. Apple puts a lot of R&D into this line and it shows. The MacBook Pro is the Porsche of laptops; most people buying it aren't concerned with the high price tag so long as the quality is what's expected.
- MacBook Air: My take on this is that it's really an experimental laptop that Steve Jobs probably oversaw quite personally. You'll note that it has no optical drive -- that's because Jobs hates optical drive technology and wants to do away with it the same way he did away with the floppy in the first iMacs. The real question is if the world is ready for this type of machine. Look at what Jobs envisions, a centralized server (Mac Pro) for the family, connected to multiple terminals (MacBook Air) that are highly portable and centralized into a single system. Apple has the ability to provide all of these things now, and the MacBook Air looks like an experiment in future technologies that'll go to other Macs as well as future versions of the MacBook Air. I really see this laptop as a "testbed" for Apple's business model -- think of it as being the "public beta version" of a piece of hardware. It's really cool to have and to try out, but it's not something you'd want to use everyday until it's more refined. This really is targeted at the Apple-lover, and more importantly, at the CEO who wants to control his employees use of the company's machines and prevent said employees from goofing off on company time. It's a good first step, but it's really aimed at a very niche group.
- Mac Mini: Also aimed at a niche group; this is the "poor mans Mac" and it shows. However, it's not as bad as people here make it out to be. I've cut multiple professional-quality videos using a Mac Mini and obsolete PC parts and the reason I bought it originally was that my Windows machine died and I got sick of fixing it. The Mini is really aimed at the e-mail/amazon/ebay crowd, but it can do more. I think it's actually a very good machine for audio recording because of how quiet it is in comparison to other desktops and it's more powerful than people give it credit for. It works just fine for filming on a budget too, but it's not going to perform like higher-priced machines, this is like taking the budget level Lenovo and asking why a high-end Dell performs better -- it's an unfair comparison.
- iMac: Don't let the All-in-One design fool you, this is also a very powerful machine. What sells the iMac is that most users DON'T upgrade their PCs beyond adding RAM and occasionally a new hard drive or optical drive -- occasionally. RAM upgrades on the iMac are easily performed by the user, and anyone with a little technical know-how can upgrade the hard drive or optical drive, both of which are standard off-the-shelf parts. The iMac is aimed at people who use their computer regularly and generally don't tinker with it -- this is most Mac users hence why it's the primary machine in the consumer line.
- Mac Pro: The Mac Pro is quite possibly the best computer currently on the market as long as you can afford one. The real market here is niche users who need a high-end machine, hence why the Mac Pro is categorized as a workstation rather than a desktop. It uses standard parts for the most part, (your Dells and Sonys all have similar proprietary parts,) and outperforms most PCs. It's won multiple awards from Windows-based publications, and out of all the computers I've used, it's easily my favorite. The Mac Pro is comparable to similar machines, and because of it's professional nature, it's targeted to the science and entertainment industries which require more computing power than most other industries.
There seems to be a misconception that the standard Mac user is a luddite clinging to the glory days of Apple's past which is totally untrue. To put the standard Mac user in perspective we need to look at the standard Windows user. The standard Windows user is an anybody who may or may not have a college education, likely works in a very generic field as far as computers go, or majors in a discipline related to such a field, and really doesn't need a lot of processing power unless said user is a gamer in which case they need as much as they can get and heavily customized machines. Mac users on the other hand are usually college students or college educated-post-graduate degree holding individuals who work in either a professional field (e.g. Doctors, Lawyers etc.,etc.) and can afford a high-end computer, and if we look at psychographics, they're generally a little bit to the left of the political spectrum and modestly wealthy, but not filthy rich. The second group Apple targets is the science community which falls under that whole psychographic of post-grad holding individuals with a high IQ who need a lot of processing power and not a lot of excess. Scientists generally like Macs because of their speed when it comes to handling intense equations that most machines would choke on. The third group is the entertainment industry. Anyone whose serious about professional video will tell you to get a Mac not because they're a Mac loyalist, but because Macs are better for the field of video production. Major studios use them, small studios use them, and they handle video better than PCs. With Avid becoming less and less of a serious video competitor, the real competition in the field of video now is between Apple and Adobe and Apple seems to cater to filmmakers and creators of dramatic television while Premiere Pro from Adobe is better suited to newsrooms and low-budget reality TV in terms of capabilities. This is probably the largest growing field of Mac users and I've admittedly seen people switch for the sole fact that it takes a fraction of the time to render HD video on a Mac that it does to the same thing on a PC because OS X isn't sucking up valuable resources. For corporations hackintosh boxes are out of the question, and individuals in this field are going to spend their time working on audio/video -- not toying with their hardware.
Not everyone's needs are the same -- if your a gamer and part of your life is a customized rig than you're not going to buy a Mac -- you'll probably build your machine or customize a stock model. If you're in the science or video field though, you're more likely to need a Mac or to at least want one. Sure it's more expensive initially but that's a trade off for less time waiting for a video to render. As for the price -- you can buy a stock Mac Pro beefing up only the processor and expand your Mac for about a third of what Apple Charges for their BTO options.
I personally have switched to a Mac and I find it's much better than a Windows machine for my needs. My girlfriend switched on my recommendation because she's not tech-savvy when it comes to troubleshooting -- she hasn't had a problem with her iBook and she runs it into the ground -- her friends with PCs have gone through two or three laptops. My best friend would've had a Mac if she didn't need to purchase an emergency laptop replacement during finals week and her goal is to purchase one within the space of a year. My brother's girlfriend already purchased a used Mac as I mentioned before, and I have two other friends who've switched because they work with video or they got sick of fixing their computers, and I know two more people who are switching later this year. Generally I'm seeing a lot of college students going with Macs these days so clearly Apple has a younger demographic than Microsoft does now.
I don't believe most Mac owners are luddites, but every Mac owner I have had to deal with falls into one of three categories ;
Zealot - This has been the majority, and the choice is based purely on dogma. There is no way to have a rational conversation with them about computers, because if it isn't a Mac, it's an insult. I have had a parent complain that one of our technicians was anti-Mac because he dared to say that Macs even Macs had problems, and couldn't run all the software that a Windows box could (he has both Macs and Windows boxes in his stable at home).
Old School - Mostly art teachers who grew up in the glory days of Macs. I don't consider these luddites, as they upgrade and progress, they just have a hard time working outside their comfort zone.
The Easily Led - These are the ones who believe the ridiculous and blatantly false propaganda that Apple are so good are producing under the guise of advertising. They simply have put no thought into their purchase, and bought one because the TV told them to, and because it looked nice. In most cases, this group probably don't need anything else anyway.
Personally, I simply cannot do the things I need to do, or want to do, with a Mac. The software I use daily on a PC simply has no equivalent on any other platform. I also find the Mac cumbersome to work with. I understand that this is in part because I don't use them daily, but also because they do try to hide a lot from the user.
I have also had my fair share of problems with the few Macs we have. TCO for our Macs, on average, is 10 times that of our Windows PCs. Hardware quality assurance seems very poor, with many hardware issues experienced (thankfully we lease, so was extended warranty coverage) and lots of down time. We have yet to go Leopard because we have seen too many issues on the laptops running it. Perhaps 1.5.2 fixes it (funny how Leopard and Vista have come out around the same time, suffered many of the same types of issues, both released huge service packs/updates at around the same time to fix them, yet on Vista gets lambasted in the press - Job's leads a charmed life when it comes to journos), however 10.4 has had it's fair share of woes as well - with apps suddenly seeing the wrong OS version when it when to 10.4.10 - pretty basic stuff. But our TCO is also high because when anything does go wrong, it costs two - three times as much to get someone out to look at the problem. The campaign may say it just works, but in the real world, things do go wrong. And that is without figuring in the cost ore purchase/lease, which is also far higher (25 - 30% on average) than the equivalent Windows box.
Most of the security related arguments are furphies and proven to be so. It's just another part of the propaganda. Safari's release on the Windows platform really put paid to that. Within 24 hours it was shown to have it's fair share of security holes, most of which were in the shared code base, and not specific to the Windows implementation. That is putting to one side the fact that it is, like IE, a horrible browser to use.
I can see a place for Macs, and there are people that are better suited to using them than others. But I can also so see why Macs are only 7.4% of the desktop market and unlikely to top 10% in the next 5 years. Which is still far better than Linux, who can't quite top the three quarters of one percent mark yet.
As for Macs being better suited for video or graphics work - simply not true. I edit and work with large images and video under Windows just as quickly and easily as our Mac users can with a Mac, and with a far wider tool set. Apple has done well with the iLife suite, which is a nicely integrated consumer suite that does does canned template outputs with more aplomb that many of the consumer tools for Windows. But even that raises a couple of questions. Did Apple do this because o-one else was interested ? And if Microsoft produced a similar suite of apps, and gave them away free (as Apple does), would the EU sue them and force them off the market ?
Apple have the war won when it comes to design and advertising. Nobody does it better, and certainly very few hardware vendors can come up with something that matches the look. Of course, the price premium is something you have to factor into the equation, with it being a minimum of 25 - 30 %, and the basic spec, and getting up to 50% for the higher spec. Tha Mac Book, for instance, retails over here for around AU$1700 for the basic model, and has a hardware equivalence of an AU$1100 HP or Toshiba. You pay AU$600 for the black or white case.
Ultimately, each to their own. Hell, there will always be people who buy Lada cars as well.
But I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why Macs are better windows PCs, or why Windows PCs are better than Macs. They are simply different. Buy what you want, pay what you have to, and don't call me when it breaks.Read my blog here.
the convincing argument is they(macs) work with less hassle and allow you to actually get work done instead of having to call the IT department or deal with driver hassles and don't even get me started on the malware, virus situation that exists on pcs..it is also well documented that macs are cheaper in the long run and there is a quicker ROI..yes, macs are more expensive the day you purchase them but most users fail to see the long term cost..i know several people that have switched from pcs to macs and they all had 1 big complaint, that they didn't make the switch SOONER...