Is it just me, or is EVERYONE college-aged getting a mac nowadays?

Student Lounge College Life
61

<p>Well, to avoid confusion, the term “PC” is commonly used to refer to “Windows based PC”. Would it make you happier if I replaced the word “PC” with “Windows based PC”? But yeah, I agree, a Mac is technically a personal computer. Let’s not argue semantics though…</p>

62

<p>To me, a laptop is a laptop…sort of like a car is a car. If it runs, and does what I need it to at a price I can afford, it’s good enough for me.</p>

63

<p>Microsoft calls a Windows-based PC a “PC.”</p>

<p>[PC</a> vs Mac: The PC has Blu-ray capability, more software choices, and more!](<a href=“http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare/pc-vs-mac.aspx]PC”>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare/pc-vs-mac.aspx)</p>

<p>Apple calls a Windows-based PC a “PC.”</p>

<p>[Apple</a> - Why You?ll Love a Mac - Get answers to your questions.](<a href=“http://www.apple.com/why-mac/faq/]Apple”>http://www.apple.com/why-mac/faq/)</p>

<p>Technically correct? Maybe not. But PC has become the standard term to refer to an x86-based computer running a Windows OS. If someone wants to indicate a PC running Linux, they generally say that (“Linux PC,” “PC running Linux”). Windows is so pervasive, it’s become part of the standard definition of a PC.</p>

<p>Words evolve, and sometimes don’t match their original definitions.</p>

64

<p>this is stupid. Stop being a jerk and psycho-analyzing everyone’s words. “Technically… blah blah”. We know what you mean.</p>

<p>Honest question here: how frequent are Mac hardware failures? I always hear of PC failures but I never hear of Macs…</p>

65

<p>That’s why I said not to argue semantics… it’s just stupid and everyone starts to form their opinion.</p>

<p>Mac hardware is no different from PC hardware… so mac hardware failure is just as same as pc hardware failure. The reason why you hear of PC failures because 90% of the world uses PCs and 7% uses Macs, so you get more people complaining about PC hardware issues than people complaining about mac hardware issues.</p>

66

<p>Try asking one of these guys: [Apple</a> - Support - Discussions - Using your MacBook Pro](<a href=“http://discussions.info.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1149]Apple”>http://discussions.info.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1149)</p>

67

<p>u look high class with a mac.</p>

68

<p>Crazy, that is choosing a laptop for the wrong reasons, as well as an assumption.</p>

69

<p>Agreed. If you ever purchase anything in order to appear high class, you’re not. That doesn’t mean high class people don’t buy high end cars and watches, it just means that they don’t buy them for the same of image. And high class is not the same as rich.</p>

70

<p>

</p>

<p>Completely reminds me of guys who get BMWs/Mercedes and girls who wear Gucci and Prada. The sad part is is that they always get the lowest-end models of those brands, which just scream “crap” to me. Funny reminder, really.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh, no. You look high class based on how you dress, carry yourself, speak, and treat other people. I’m not sure where you learned “class” from, but I’d ask them for a refund.</p>

71

<p>So people are buying computers for looks? I thought computers are tools.</p>

72

<p>One reason I prefer Macs is because of their design, but design is not the same as looks. Design is how it works. However, a lot of people do buy practical products (including Macs) because of looks alone, and this is a bad approach.</p>

<p>Here’s a video that explains why I value design. Others may not share this perspective, but it is one thing I look for. </p>

<p>(Sorry for the Spanish subtitles; I couldn’t find a version without them.)
[url=&lt;a href=“Objectified Dieter Rams, Jonathan Paul Ive sub español - YouTube”&gt;Objectified Dieter Rams, Jonathan Paul Ive sub español - YouTube]YouTube</a> - Objectified Dieter Rams, Jonathan Paul Ive sub espa</p>

73

<p>I hate Macs with a passion. They’re hipster fodder. （　´_ゝ`）</p>

74

<p>I like Macs. They’re user-friendly and neat looking. </p>

<p>Their fanbase, not so much. I’ve been the victim of many a proselytizing effort because I defend Windows.</p>

75

<p>^I agree; they are computers, not your family for pete’s sake! Don’t worry, Steve Jobs is much too busy swimming in his pile of money and trying to plan his next step to worry about critics:p
My frustration with Macs is that, for the roughly $1000 one would spend on the “cheapest” one (if you get the student discount, it is closer to $900), one could buy a far superior, but more obscure, PC.
The name brand and perception that Macs are the best because of their price tag is what misleads consumers.</p>

76

<p>

</p>

<p>I wish more people understood this. Of course there aren’t many viruses for Macs. Collectively speaking, hardly anyone uses them! So regardless of why you like Macs - and you’re welcome to like or dislike them - please consider the facts.</p>

77

<p>When more people start using Macs, they will start getting viruses because people will actually bother writing viruses for Macs.</p>

78

<p>

</p>

<p>[Broken</a> Windows](<a href=“http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/broken_windows]Broken”>Daring Fireball: Broken Windows)</p>

<p>Obviously an opinion piece from a pro-Mac blogger, but it makes some reasonable points, no?</p>

<p>There have been a few Mac OS X viruses, but they’ve been the sort you have to manually download, click on, type your administrator password, and install. Even these are rare. The automated worms that have plagued Windows are nonexistent on the Mac.</p>

79

<p>I still say as long as the list says:</p>

<p>Affordable? Check
Functioning? Check
Does what I need it to do (i.e. can be used to create and store documents, and go online)? Check</p>

<p>…then that’s all that really matters, regardless of brand or “type.”</p>

80

<p>

</p>

<p>To an extent. There is definitely some questionable logic.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course. The people who write and install those kinds of bugs are trying to target a lot of people. They are not trying to target all kinds of people proportionately. Why would you put any energy into targeting only 7% of the world’s market? You wouldn’t - you would target the other 90%. People who are writing those kinds of viruses, et al. aren’t going to bother with Mac (until recently anyway). As a result, there are disproportionately fewer viruses. I’m not saying that’s not GREAT if you’re a Mac user, I’m just saying that logically, the numberof viruses, et al. wouldn’t be proportionate.</p>

<p>I mean, let’s say I’m in charge of the marketing at a huge, global company (the computer market). We ran a survey and have three segments - 90%, 3%, and 7%. We only have so much time and effort to accomplish what we want to accomplish. Wouldn’t you disproportionately dedicate your resources to the 90% group?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t see why that’s a bad argument. The difference is that as the Mac market grows, so do its vulnerabilities - people thinking that Macs are invincible or the tiny portion of Macs market that uses antivirus software compared to the vast and effective solutions for Windows PCs, for example. So I can’t say it will be significantly more secure than Windows, but I can see the logic behind that argument, definitely.</p>