What makes a pc better than a mac?

[LCS/drummer]

I have used pc's for 11 years. and I HATED macs. I had friends that had them. I recall using them back in like, 2003/4/5 and just being disgusted. I am a PC/computer NERD. till the end. I love building computers. Its fun.

Want to know what else is fun? Turning something on, and It simply....works

i love to read these arguments cause generally all PC fanboys have never used a mac.

Like i said. I hated macs. and when i would use it. At the last resort;I would. and i was so close minded when i would. anything that i didnt like was Apple's fault. Then in june of 09 when the iPhone 3G was released. I watched the keynote for it. and saw some...interesting..things about macs. I caught myself spending hours learning about them. then for the first time ever, i voluntarily used a mac. at a best buy. I loved it.

The difference? I was open minded. I didnt look at it as something stupid, and lame. I appreciated that it was new innovative technology. I was surprised at how smooth the macbook i was using was running. checked the specs, and they were bout half of the specs of the newest computer I had built.(one that took hours to get working correctly, mind you) OSX has takes advantage of hardware much more than a PC, thats why you dont need 4gb of ram on every machine. and an i7. a mac will work great on whatever you give it. hence one of the reasons they have such a high re-sell rate. even ones that are 4,5, even 6 years old

I ended up borrowing my cousins mac mini whilst he went to boot camp that winter. since then, macs are something I look forward to using. because it just works, and most of the time, much better/seemless than my pc. and for the record; there are lots of 3rd parts apps/utilities for macs i never knew about. its just as easy to find them as it is to find an app for a PC.

QUESTION:

Dear Mac Haters:

How many of you have sat down and used a mac with an open mind. and actually read something about them. learned what they had to offer. cause when you hate and dont research first. you sound like the "idiots" you call us.

(for the record on a regular basis i use ubuntu/windows 7 and OSX)

 

[Drenlin]

QUESTION:

Dear Mac Haters:

How many of you have sat down and used a mac with an open mind. and actually read something about them. learned what they had to offer. cause when you hate and dont research first. you sound like the "idiots" you call us.

(for the record on a regular basis i use ubuntu/windows 7 and OSX)

So is this just a nice way of saying that if you don't like Mac, then you're stupid and don't know anything about it?

I just don't like them. Simple as. Had to use OS X every day when I was in high school...sure it has some interesting features, but I just don't like it. Granted, I'm not exactly an expert on its inner workings, but I don't have to be to know that I don't like using it. I wouldn't really call myself a PC fanboy either, but the only OSes I've genuinely liked using have been Vista/7 and Xubuntu. Slax comes in a close 3rd though.

 

[ganzey]

i dont hate mac, i just like pc better and macs are overpriced

 

[tlarkin]

i dont hate mac, i just like pc better and macs are overpriced

$#*%@ They are not overpriced! Go back in the middle of this thread and then read where I asked anyone to build, spec for spec, part for part an iMac equivalent to the high end i5 one, including monitor since it is an all in one. You won't be able to build it for cheaper, and keep in mind the iMac has an IPS supported display.

Macs, actually, what you are actually paying for, is a bargain.

 

[tlarkin]

So is this just a nice way of saying that if you don't like Mac, then you're stupid and don't know anything about it?

I just don't like them. Simple as. Had to use OS X every day when I was in high school...sure it has some interesting features, but I just don't like it. Granted, I'm not exactly an expert on its inner workings, but I don't have to be to know that I don't like using it. I wouldn't really call myself a PC fanboy either, but the only OSes I've genuinely liked using have been Vista/7 and Xubuntu. Slax comes in a close 3rd though.

Using a manged machine in a professional or academic environment is hardly using it as an end user.

 

[gamerman4]

You know as far as UI features goes, OS X has probably the most. The difference is, their keyboard short cuts and methods they use by keystroke or search to find an application or file are just different than Windows. You are used to windows and you like it, and you admit that is why. Which is what it comes down to as far as end user preferences.

Now the technology under each OS, that is a whole different story. Most people care less though, like you said, they just want it to work, which is another great things Mac does. In fact, if you had never in your life ever touched a computer and I sat you in front of a Mac and a Windows box, I think you would most likely find the Mac more intuitive.

However, here in the USA, that is pretty damn rare, especially these days where there are computers in pretty much every class room. Even when I was in school my school had several old computers and once I hit high school we had labs of computers.

The first school system I worked for had over 10,000 PCs in it. All running Windows and only about 300 or so Macs. So, even as a kid you are more exposed to Windows. However, over the past 7 years or so that has started to change as Linux jumped up a whole percent, and now has about a 2% market share and Apple has just under 10% market share.

Most people that try Mac or Linux switch back to windows with in a few weeks or maybe a month or two. They never actually sit down and learn the platform. To be honest, in my opinion, you will need to sit down with something for at least a year every day to get a full hang of it. It took me several years to even like Macs, as I didn't like the classic OSes and 10.0 and 10.1 really did not impress me all that much. 10.2 I was like, OK, this is getting better and I jumped into using Macs.

As far as security is concerned, I have little experience in that area so I can't argue, I'll take your word for it.

You are misquoting me, I don't like Windows because I am used to it, I like Windows because it works with me better than Mac OS does. For people that know how to use a computer well, being "used to" something isn't an issue. I can pick up any OS and expect certain things to happen when I handle it. Someone may be "used to" GIMP but give them photoshop and I bet they would use that. If the "used to" argument was even valid, Firefox wouldn't be as popular as it is now.

I've used OS7 to OSX (current version) and Windows 95 to Windows 7. My first computer experience was on OS7 and then OS8, later I got my own computer with Win98 on it. At the time I was too young to care about the differences between the 2. I used Win95 in school because they hadn't upgraded to 98 yet. My next computer was an XP machine (used Win2000 in school for previous reason).

During high school my computer lab got an iMac (its a little under a couple years old now so its using a previous version of OSX, 10.4 maybe). I used it constantly because every other computer was so old that I couldn't video edit properly on them because of older hardware and lack of RAM. I even got the Mac setup on our Active Directory so you could login with you own username and password. I used that Mac for about a year and a half almost every day. This Mac was setup like a home computer and had no managment/security software on it, anyone with an admin account could do whatever they wanted with it so I took the time to use it and learn about it more. I know the merits of the UI and its nice use of the F keys (various window management functions) yet nothing stood out so much that I liked it any more than my own Home computer. Even with Vista I still put them on even ground as far as functionality goes. I could get around at about the same speed on both of them other than a few things on Mac that always annoyed me and always slowed me down, and even still do. Windows 7 is so far the only M$ OS that I would nail down in my book as "better without a doubt" because I no longer have to use any 3rd party program to add any functionality that I feel is lacking. Literally everything that I want to have in an OS is in Windows 7. But, this is a brand new OS so I can't use it as an example of why I like Windows.

I wouldn't ever call a Mac any more intuitive, I would call it "simplistic" which is different and not necessarily good.
A person that knows nothing about computer would probably get a better hand at using a Mac, yes. But is that what you really want? A pencil and paper is more "intuitive" (definition: knowable by intuition) than a keyboard because there is a learning curve with a keyboard that isn't as high with a pencil. I agree Windows has a slightly higher learning curve than a Mac simply because it doesn't take you by the hand and coddle you like a Mac does with its dock zooming, huge icons, and other OS "fluff".

I dislike OSX for simple reasons, I couldn't care less about performance, security, etc. I like Windows because of the "cut" function, I like an app to close when no more windows are open, I like the task tray to hide apps that are happy running in the background (trillian and utorrent), I like fullscreen maximized programs, I like the Start Menu. I like Windows because it is Windows and not because I am "used to" it.

 

[tlarkin]

Everything you just mentioned you can do, and a lot of it has been in Mac OS since the classic OSes (1 through 9). Like you want to completely hide an application from the Finder, but keep it running? Just go to that App, and click cmd + H to hide it. Done. The only way to get back to it is cmd + tab and then un-hide it the same way. Cut, copy and paste are fully in almost all Apple OSes since like OS 5.

Sounds to me like you are used to it, since you can do all that with the Mac, but perhaps you just were unaware?

The only thing that Windows really seems more intuitive than OS X to me, is the right click menus from the desktop and task bar. I can access system settings fairly quickly and easily from those right click menus. Apple has a similar method but they don't use right click, and I actually prefer to use right click, but that is not a deal breaker. I learned Apple's method and I can use it just as quick, but I prefer right click. I normally just use keyboard shortcuts but sometimes remote desktop doesn't always like the shortcuts, so having the right click is handy. If I could only even show you the comparisons of MS's remote desktop versus Apple, man it is night and day difference. You see Apple takes a certain approach with their products, and yes, Apple definitely flaunts this. Some people don't like it when Apple flaunts it but I get over it. Apple doesn't just look at doing a task or a job, they look at doing it while enhancing the over all end user experience. I mean, Time Machine for one, makes backing up data actually fun. How many users back up their data? Practically none of them, and I have done data recovery before, and when I do it I charge a premium for it because it is such long, tedious and boring ass work. In all honesty data recovery doesn't take a genius to do, but you do need a bit of basic skills. Time Machine makes it easy, secure and efficient for an end user to back up all their data. Ever try to use Windows built in back up utility? It's rubbish.

So, Apple takes an approach that is way different than most computer users are used to. Microsoft innovates in different ways. The whole modern server/client technology (which MS stole from Novell) is pretty much the standard innovations of back end. MS Exchange is powerful and a great product, probably one of Microsoft's best.

Only now with Windows 7 do you really see Microsoft try to not only get the job done, but also expand on the whole end user experience. Apple has had that mindset since the beginning. I admit I was not fond of the classic OSes, but all the features you claim (minus the start menu, but that can be added!) OS X lacks, actually it has.

When you toss out performance and security you are tossing out some of the biggest features OS X offers.

You say you love Windows 7 because it feels "complete," and well you can thank Apple for creating competition to drive MS to add those features to directly compete with OS X.

Like I said, most people don't learn all the differences. There is really little that either OS can't do that the other one can. The way it does it is what separates the two. This heavily comes down to opinion, but I do still firmly believe that once you learn how to use the OS (and all of it's features) you form a better opinion.

XP was a solid OS, probably the most tried and tested OS Microsoft has ever made and their most stable (to date) but XP lacked any awing end user experiences. Vista changed so much under the hood, and started to adopt the POSIX structure of Unix into the OS. Windows 7 is just a refinement of Vista, and may turn out to the be the next best OS they put out. I would say it is a bit early to claim such things because I still read of the horror stories that happen to some users. Then again I also take that with a grain of salt since everyone's mileage will always vary.

 

[gamerman4]

Everything you just mentioned you can do, and a lot of it has been in Mac OS since the classic OSes (1 through 9). Like you want to completely hide an application from the Finder, but keep it running? Just go to that App, and click cmd + H to hide it. Done. The only way to get back to it is cmd + tab and then un-hide it the same way. Cut, copy and paste are fully in almost all Apple OSes since like OS 5.

Sounds to me like you are used to it, since you can do all that with the Mac, but perhaps you just were unaware?

The only thing that Windows really seems more intuitive than OS X to me, is the right click menus from the desktop and task bar. I can access system settings fairly quickly and easily from those right click menus. Apple has a similar method but they don't use right click, and I actually prefer to use right click, but that is not a deal breaker. I learned Apple's method and I can use it just as quick, but I prefer right click. I normally just use keyboard shortcuts but sometimes remote desktop doesn't always like the shortcuts, so having the right click is handy. If I could only even show you the comparisons of MS's remote desktop versus Apple, man it is night and day difference. You see Apple takes a certain approach with their products, and yes, Apple definitely flaunts this. Some people don't like it when Apple flaunts it but I get over it. Apple doesn't just look at doing a task or a job, they look at doing it while enhancing the over all end user experience. I mean, Time Machine for one, makes backing up data actually fun. How many users back up their data? Practically none of them, and I have done data recovery before, and when I do it I charge a premium for it because it is such long, tedious and boring ass work. In all honesty data recovery doesn't take a genius to do, but you do need a bit of basic skills. Time Machine makes it easy, secure and efficient for an end user to back up all their data. Ever try to use Windows built in back up utility? It's rubbish.

So, Apple takes an approach that is way different than most computer users are used to. Microsoft innovates in different ways. The whole modern server/client technology (which MS stole from Novell) is pretty much the standard innovations of back end. MS Exchange is powerful and a great product, probably one of Microsoft's best.

Only now with Windows 7 do you really see Microsoft try to not only get the job done, but also expand on the whole end user experience. Apple has had that mindset since the beginning. I admit I was not fond of the classic OSes, but all the features you claim (minus the start menu, but that can be added!) OS X lacks, actually it has.

When you toss out performance and security you are tossing out some of the biggest features OS X offers.

You say you love Windows 7 because it feels "complete," and well you can thank Apple for creating competition to drive MS to add those features to directly compete with OS X.

Like I said, most people don't learn all the differences. There is really little that either OS can't do that the other one can. The way it does it is what separates the two. This heavily comes down to opinion, but I do still firmly believe that once you learn how to use the OS (and all of it's features) you form a better opinion.

XP was a solid OS, probably the most tried and tested OS Microsoft has ever made and their most stable (to date) but XP lacked any awing end user experiences. Vista changed so much under the hood, and started to adopt the POSIX structure of Unix into the OS. Windows 7 is just a refinement of Vista, and may turn out to the be the next best OS they put out. I would say it is a bit early to claim such things because I still read of the horror stories that happen to some users. Then again I also take that with a grain of salt since everyone's mileage will always vary.

I'm tossing out performance because it is subjective and I have seen both systems run slow, hang, crash, fail, corrupt data, turn off unexpectedly, etc.
I am not arguing security because I have no experience with the inner working of how security works so I have no place in arguing that. I also don't care if anyone stole features from anyone else because if they are there, they are there.

What's more intuitive? Manually hiding an app when you want it to run in the background or telling the OS that this app should run in the background so when you close or minimize it, it automatically just hides in the background. You can't answer that because they are both equally viable options to the same problem. One way is the "Mac way" and one is the "Windows way". You have to realize that not all people think like you. What appeals to one person may not appeal so someone else.

When you close all windows, OSX tends to leave the app open with a little marker under the app, to close it I have to actually tell it to close, I don't like this. Other people might enjoy the fact that they can leave the app open without any windows in order to bypass loading time later. I just minimize it if I may need it later, if I close a program, I am done with it and don't want it loaded into RAM.

Cut and paste in the file system, to my knowledge, still isn't in OSX.

Maximize is not actually maximizing to full screen, it grows the window to an arbitrary size OSX "thinks" this app should need. If I wanted a window to be an arbitrary size, I would resize it. I like working fullscreen because it removes distractions and helps me focus. Some people might like that OSX resizes the window to the "optimum" size for viewing. I don't care if I'm working in notepad, I want fullscreen if that is all I'm doing. Again, if I wanted any size but fullscreen, i can resize it myself.

There are a few of nitpicky things that I also like about Windows:
I can delete a file with only the delete key.
I can resize a window from any edge or corner
I can run a program with the enter key (OSX renames stuff with that key)
Blindly shoving my mouse to the top right corner of the screen when in a maximized window will always highlight the "close" button so I don't even need to see my cursor to close a maximized window.

You are suggesting that the only reason anyone would ever use Windows is that they are used to it and bow under the will of Microsoft. You suggest that they have no choice in the matter and that is simply not true. Windows is a fine OS with it's own merits. Both OSs can do pretty much the same thing but they do it in different ways, some people may like one way and some people may like the other. You think that given the chance and enough time with it, anyone would switch to OSX which is completely bogus. OSX is not a superior OS, they are both just as usable depending on who is using it.

 

[tlarkin]

I'm tossing out performance because it is subjective and I have seen both systems run slow, hang, crash, fail, corrupt data, turn off unexpectedly, etc.
I am not arguing security because I have no experience with the inner working of how security works so I have no place in arguing that. I also don't care if anyone stole features from anyone else because if they are there, they are there.

I know, they all fail. MS has the blue screen of death and Apple has the beach ball of death. It seems that the OSes do have the word 'death' in common when a crash occurs. To make a small note of that, OS X does log almost everything to the system log in /var/log/system.log. Where when trying to troubleshoot a Windows error message you need to Google, Fx00000a0000100 exception occurred....yeah what? These are features some people find useful. Of course I am not really trying to discredit anything you are saying, just pointing out.

What's more intuitive? Manually hiding an app when you want it to run in the background or telling the OS that this app should run in the background so when you close or minimize it, it automatically just hides in the background. You can't answer that because they are both equally viable options to the same problem. One way is the "Mac way" and one is the "Windows way". You have to realize that not all people think like you. What appeals to one person may not appeal so someone else.

If there is one thing I have learned using a Mac over all the years that I have, is that Apple does seem to have a master plan to make all their features coalesce into an over all state of efficiency. Just like Windows there are third party apps that let you remap and tweak every drop menu you want. You aren't 'forced' to use a Mac the "apple way," out of the box. Apple just recommends you do. Most Applications you can set the preference to auto hide, if the developer puts that function in. Is that a fault of Apple? Nope, not really per se, it is more of the application developer not adding in that feature. Plenty of Applications in OS X will start hidden, or use menu items instead of icons, or what not. Apple provides the full API in xcode for the developer to do just this. If it is not available, the end user can do it via keyboard commands or finder preferences.

When you close all windows, OSX tends to leave the app open with a little marker under the app, to close it I have to actually tell it to close, I don't like this. Other people might enjoy the fact that they can leave the app open without any windows in order to bypass loading time later. I just minimize it if I may need it later, if I close a program, I am done with it and don't want it loaded into RAM.

This has to do with the "Apple way," as mentioned previously. If you don't like this feature there is not much I can do to argue against it or for it, other than put some logical thought into why it is there. It is there so users don't accidentally close apps when doing work. You must quit the app. It also allows for on the fly memory allocation when multi tasking. OS X is HUGE on multi tasking.

Cut and paste in the file system, to my knowledge, still isn't in OSX.

Ah, I see, you meant with in the OS X file system itself. I believe you are correct, but I also believe you can turn it on if you wish. Cut and paste to clip boards in Applications itself does exist. Of course, cut and paste can lead to lots of problems. You cut data, then copy/cut again by accident, ooops data gone. This is totally a personal opinion thing.

Maximize is not actually maximizing to full screen, it grows the window to an arbitrary size OSX "thinks" this app should need. If I wanted a window to be an arbitrary size, I would resize it. I like working fullscreen because it removes distractions and helps me focus. Some people might like that OSX resizes the window to the "optimum" size for viewing. I don't care if I'm working in notepad, I want fullscreen if that is all I'm doing. Again, if I wanted any size but fullscreen, i can resize it myself.

This is also accomplished via a keyboard command built into the OS. Yeah it bugs me sometimes too, but I don't consider it a deal breaker for myself.

There are a few of nitpicky things that I also like about Windows:
I can delete a file with only the delete key.
I can resize a window from any edge or corner
I can run a program with the enter key (OSX renames stuff with that key)
Blindly shoving my mouse to the top right corner of the screen when in a maximized window will always highlight the "close" button so I don't even need to see my cursor to close a maximized window.

Again, this is all possible, just different. In OS X it is cmd + O (not zero, bu o) to open up an Application. It has been this way since OS 1, and why should Apple change it? That is their product. Apple built it's original OS with the functionality of a mouse cut out. Back them mice weren't a big deal at all. So, Apple built keyboard commands for everything. There is a mouse/gui control for everything too, but I just learned the keyboard short cuts for everything, so I can't counter point it with out googling it first.

You are suggesting that the only reason anyone would ever use Windows is that they are used to it and bow under the will of Microsoft. You suggest that they have no choice in the matter and that is simply not true. Windows is a fine OS with it's own merits. Both OSs can do pretty much the same thing but they do it in different ways, some people may like one way and some people may like the other. You think that given the chance and enough time with it, anyone would switch to OSX which is completely bogus. OSX is not a superior OS, they are both just as usable depending on who is using it.

I think your post on this whole thread is one of the more level headed ones. However, I think that while your opinion is yours and very valid, not to mention you are entitled to it; I still think people just are used to a certain way of computing and don't take the time to learn the minor and major differences. OS X is a superior OS by the numbers, but not by opinion. It takes less hardware to run, is optimized for the Apple platform, has Unix security and command line under the hood (this is a benefit to any and all users), has zero known viruses in the wild, has every feature and ability built in native (no downloading a codec to play a DVD or a third party media player), plus many more reasons.

I am not a Windows hater, I am typing this from my Windows box. I use Windows, but I also use Linux and OS X, with Linux being the least used OS of mine. Windows excels in video game support, video game hardware and more third party support. Pound for pound on paper and feature for feature taking in to regard everything each OS has to offer, Apple comes out on top. Of course this an "on paper comparison," so opinions can weigh in and vary things.

When I fully switched to Mac at work, my productivity went up at least 200% since OS X is so stream lined with multi-tasking and handling resources. I am running a 10.6 system in my office now, to just play with it. Only has 1 gig of RAM in it and a C2D 2.4Ghz process and it runs 10.6 screaming fast. Windows 7 could not run that fast at all. However, that is the nature of the business model.

If you have a second just look at the OS X keyboard command list, it is quite impressive and intuitive. Add in multi touch laptop track pads and you have the most user friendly multi tasking mobile solution on the market. No other product can touch it. This of course is my opinion, and I validate it by also having used and supported every other brand of laptop in existence for the most part.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1343

It's been fun discussing this

 

[gamerman4]

I think OSX has the potential to run faster than Windows because it is optimized for a limited hardware range whereas Windows has to support all of the hundreds and thousands of possible hardware combinations that Windows can be installed on. This performance boost may be present but it isn't obvious. I have used Boot Camp with Windows XP and it was quite snappy running on the same hardware that OSX was running, I didn't see much of a difference in loading times or any other aspect but I really wasn't looking, I expect OSX to be faster for the sheer fact that Windows XP is ancient compared to OSX 10.4+. I have used an ibook with a 1.3Ghz PowerPC CPU, it could barely view low-res youtube videos, an old desktop with an 800mhz Duron could load and view them just fine. I've seen many numbers, some numbers show Windows being faster and some showing OSX being faster. Performance is subject to so many variables that there is no possible way that OSX could definitively be "faster" than Windows. My mom has a $300 custom built computer that loads apps faster than my own custom built gaming computer because there are very few things installed on her computer and nothing is running in the background (it is using Win7) while my own computer has plenty of background apps and many things using resources all the time. Once you start actually running programs, any intrinsic performance an OS has to begin with is immediately lost and the only factor is the raw hardware performance.


Anyways, as a closing statement, I would be more inclined to use both Mac and Windows equally if I could justify spending $1700 on a laptop. Not saying it's overpriced but for the one I want (15" macbook pro) it has way too many features that I am paying for that I will never use.

Anyways, you are welcome to reply but I am done discussing this. I'm glad I can actually have a legitimate discussion though because most people are fanboys for their OS. Until next time (and you know there will be)!

 

[tlarkin]

hardware is nothing with out software and software is nothing with out hardware, however, hardware is limited to how the software controls/interacts with it at an end user level.

Windows has come a long way since windows 95, but Microsoft did not get the market share because they made the superior OS. They marketed it that way. Their business model was the most aggressive and their business practices were some of the best in corporate America, probably ever. Microsoft could have been replaced by any other tech company out there that was developing computers at the time. Hell, Xerox could be running the market right now.

I am starting to digress though. Pure, hardware performance is directly dictated by software, be it drivers, operating system, applications, and so forth. How an OS is coded to handle resources is very important, and crucial to the performance of the system.

Windows 7 has adopted many Apple-like features. Why is that?

 

[TrainTrackHack]

Windows 7 has adopted many Apple-like features. Why is that?

"Spiffy... but I got something better, mate."

 

[Drenlin]

Using a manged machine in a professional or academic environment is hardly using it as an end user.

Managed? Lol. I live in rural Arkansas. The network was barely more complicated than my curent home network.

Even so, I still used it enough to know that I don't like the interface. It looks cool, sure, and I know it works well...I just don't like it.

 

[tlarkin]

Managed? Lol. I live in rural Arkansas. The network was barely more complicated than my curent home network.

Even so, I still used it enough to know that I don't like the interface. It looks cool, sure, and I know it works well...I just don't like it.

That is another reason you may not like the Mac. I doubt any of you know of Mike Bombich (www.bombich.com) but he is an Apple Systems Engineer and he heard so many complaints of how Macs suck at schools. He was actually at JCCC (a community college in the Kansas City Metro area) when he heard a student say this to him. So he decided to take a look at the Mac labs, and sure enough they were managed horribly, which took away from the end user experience. He then sat down and wrote a program called "Netrestore" which allowed IT people to easily managed log in hooks, imaging, and other basics to keep a machine managed and managed properly.

Apple server products really lacked the tools at the time to do such things, so many Mac labs in academia were horrid. The poor IT guy had to run from machine to machine constantly fixing the smallest of issues and never had time to sit down and actually improve the end user experience or help update and maintain the Macs.

A lot has changed since then, and enterprise support for Apple computers is a lot better. Microsoft has this sort of stuff down. With their server products, AD, WDS, SMS and so forth. Apple still has a bit to develop on that end to be on par with Microsoft. They are close, and they are really close with third party support.

So many people out there that have used a Mac at a school system probably never really experienced a Mac how it was meant to be. At my last job I supported and ran 300 Macs with one other guy. We also had 10,000 Windows PCs. We had zero Mac servers and the Macs were spread out across, 10 buildings or so. We were constantly hacking the Unix parts and running around trying to keep up with updates, and fixing issues because there was no centralized management system. In fact, those Macs kind of sucked. I have since moved on from that job and now I manage a lot more, with many server side tools and centralized management which help the end user experience exponentially.

However, a Mac in my network is pretty managed when it comes to certain things, and we don't allow anyone admin rights.

 

[Drenlin]

You don't get what I'm trying to tell you. I don't like the interface on it. Meaning, I don't like how the OS is laid out. I don't like how it flows when you're using it. Some people do, I don't. I'm not speaking solely from my experience at the high school.

That sounds like an interesting line of work, though. I've recently applied to a similar job, but on a smaller scale. No Macs though...it's all Dell Optiplex and Dimension machines...all running XP, unfortunately.