Mine came today, it's lovely!

Quick raise your heatshields!

You'll be jealous when I have a Star Wars soundboard app on it! Perfect for annoying people in meetings!

Not a fan of overpriced Apple products, so no

Not a fan of overpriced Apple products, so no

's funny that I'd expect more Apple fans around here. Apple and FFG are similar in some ways: they both make beautiful, functional, brilliantly well designed stuff, best in their respective fields, and you pay a premium for it.

Nope, I'm not an IDrone. No reason to spend too much money for something I have no use for or have no desire to own.

Not a fan of overpriced Apple products, so no

's funny that I'd expect more Apple fans around here. Apple and FFG are similar in some ways: they both make beautiful, functional, brilliantly well designed stuff, best in their respective fields, and you pay a premium for it.

Definitely gotta disagree with you there. I'm doing computer stuff with my life, and out of everyone I've met in the field, not one of them has preferred Apple.

The only ones I've met who do are people who do lots of music/video work because Apple has proprietary programs for those things, and people who don't know a thing about computers but assume that a high price tag means a great computer.

The latest Macs just use i7 cpu's anyway so your paying more to get the same.

As for the watch I already have a phone that does the same but I don't have to squint.

Samsung has had watches out for years.. just saying...

I had an apple watch once. It had worms, kept terrible time, and was a rotten product altogether.

Samsung has had watches out for years.. just saying...

Let's be honest here; when was the last time Apple did anything really original?

Not a fan of overpriced Apple products, so no

's funny that I'd expect more Apple fans around here. Apple and FFG are similar in some ways: they both make beautiful, functional, brilliantly well designed stuff, best in their respective fields, and you pay a premium for it.

Definitely gotta disagree with you there. I'm doing computer stuff with my life, and out of everyone I've met in the field, not one of them has preferred Apple.

The only ones I've met who do are people who do lots of music/video work because Apple has proprietary programs for those things, and people who don't know a thing about computers but assume that a high price tag means a great computer.

While I think "other people think this" and "here are my qualifications" is a poor argument, I will point out that I also work in IT, and have a degree in computer science, and work with a lot of Apple fans. On the desktop you're basically talking about UNIX with a fantastic GUI, effectively giving you the best of both worlds. GUI for GUI stuff, built in Bash (or whatever the default shell is on OS X), with all the usual *nix gubbins, for the techy work.

In my experience people who prefer Windows are the ones who think OS X is too cool (or pretentious as they'd probably say) and that they'd look less technical if they used it they want to seem smart and superior by pointing out how bad and overpriced it is. Ironically, it seems to be the Apple haters who are the image conscious ones. (I'm not saying that's you, by the way, you've not said anything to make me think so). As for people who prefer Linux, they often seem basically the same, only more so. I prefer Linux over Windows of course, the Windows GUI is just abysmal, and having server grade tools built in is handy (although the huge amount of self configuaration often required even with the best Linux distros is a pain).

I realise I've posted a lot of generalisations above, sorry to anyone that they don't apply to.

The latest Macs just use i7 cpu's anyway so your paying more to get the same.

As for the watch I already have a phone that does the same but I don't have to squint.

Thinking it's all about hardware specs is exactly why everyone else makes such crap products. It's not, it's about hardware and software both being brilliantly designed, and designed for each other. You pay a premium for a Mac because OS X is fantastic to work with, and Windows is crap.

Couple of examples: I have a lot of Windows open at work, I have to. Some stuff for Dev, some stuff for each of several pre-production environments, some stuff for each of two production environments. Much of these Windows have the same name and look pretty much the same as each other.

On OS X I can easily, out of the box, split these across several workspaces, one per environment, and with a single gesture instantly see all those workspaces and switch to the one I want.

In Windows, I have one massive list of windows in the taskbar, I need to go through them all one at a time to find the right one. ****ing ****.

Even on one workspace, finding the window I want from all the ones on that workspace involes either going through all the windows in the taskbar one at a time, or cycling through them with alt-tab or that silly Windows-tab thing.

On OS X one gesture would show me all those windows at once, and I click on the one I want.

The good news is that Windows X is solving both those problems by copying Apple's solution (which to be fair Apple may not have thought of themselves (Compiz springs to mind, although I don't know the timeframe), it's not originality that make Apple products great, it's quality), but it's symptomatic. Apple thinks about usability to a degree nobody else does (or if they do, they're crap at it, cos their solutions suck).

Samsung has had watches out for years.. just saying...

Yeah, and I bet they were great...

Don't worry though, if history is any indicator, I'm sure their next one will be a lot better. It will probably involve using a new application of an old one-dimensional input device to avoid the need to use pinch-to-zoom on a screen clearly too small for it, for example.

Let's be honest here; when was the last time Apple did anything really original?

Nobody ever said Apple's strength was inventing new kinds of computer.

There were Tablets before the iPad. They were crap.

There were Smart Phones before the iPhone. They were crap.

There were MP3 players before the iPod. They were crap.

There were GUI based operating system before the Mac. They were crap.

See the pattern? And that's not just me saying that, it's clearly something a lot,of people believe, including other manufacturers, as you can see by looking at competing products before and after Apple launched theirs.

Two bad arguments about Apple: they don't invent new product categories (who claimed they did?), they're style over substance (no, thats just a preconception cos no other company's products have both).

Apple's web services on the other hand, are crap.

I also like how apple first criticized the BIG samsung phones then starts making their own..lol I also hear the apple watch needs to be recharged daily.. i have a cuckoo clock that gets better mileage!!! lol

I also like how apple first criticized the BIG samsung phones then starts making their own..lol I also hear the apple watch needs to be recharged daily.. i have a cuckoo clock that gets better mileage!!! lol

Indeed it does need charging every day. But then, I charge everything every day - phone, tablet, 3DS, Vita (I'd keep my toothbrush on the charger all the time if there was a socket in my bathroom). Surprisingly, I get very little use out computers while I'm asleep, so a day long charge is perfect. Definitely not for you if you use computers in your sleep though.

I also like how apple first criticized the BIG samsung phones then starts making their own..lol I also hear the apple watch needs to be recharged daily.. i have a cuckoo clock that gets better mileage!!! lol

I like how Samsung made adverts mocking the iPhone 6 for bending, when their latest phone fares even worse..lol ( http://www.androidauthority.com/video-galaxy-s6-edge-one-m9-bend-test-598528/ )

Indeed it does need charging every day. But then, I charge everything every day - phone, tablet, 3DS, Vita (I'd keep my toothbrush on the charger all the time if there was a socket in my bathroom). Surprisingly, I get very little use out computers while I'm asleep, so a day long charge is perfect. Definitely not for you if you use computers in your sleep though.

This part, I can definitely agree with; battery life matters, but isn't a good comparison point. I've never had a phone last more than a day unless I simply didn't use it all day. I charge my Surface as often as my roommate does his iPad. Who doesn't leave their phone on the charger at night?

Not a fan of overpriced Apple products, so no

's funny that I'd expect more Apple fans around here. Apple and FFG are similar in some ways: they both make beautiful, functional, brilliantly well designed stuff, best in their respective fields, and you pay a premium for it.

Definitely gotta disagree with you there. I'm doing computer stuff with my life, and out of everyone I've met in the field, not one of them has preferred Apple.

The only ones I've met who do are people who do lots of music/video work because Apple has proprietary programs for those things, and people who don't know a thing about computers but assume that a high price tag means a great computer.

While I think "other people think this" and "here are my qualifications" is a poor argument, I will point out that I also work in IT, and have a degree in computer science, and work with a lot of Apple fans. On the desktop you're basically talking about UNIX with a fantastic GUI, effectively giving you the best of both worlds. GUI for GUI stuff, built in Bash (or whatever the default shell is on OS X), with all the usual *nix gubbins, for the techy work.

In my experience people who prefer Windows are the ones who think OS X is too cool (or pretentious as they'd probably say) and that they'd look less technical if they used it they want to seem smart and superior by pointing out how bad and overpriced it is. Ironically, it seems to be the Apple haters who are the image conscious ones. (I'm not saying that's you, by the way, you've not said anything to make me think so). As for people who prefer Linux, they often seem basically the same, only more so. I prefer Linux over Windows of course, the Windows GUI is just abysmal, and having server grade tools built in is handy (although the huge amount of self configuaration often required even with the best Linux distros is a pain).

I realise I've posted a lot of generalisations above, sorry to anyone that they don't apply to.

Never said it was a great argument

The main point I want to get across is, and perhaps I didn't state it well originally, that the different OS's are good for different things. As mentioned, music/video people use Macs because that's what they're good for. For what I use computers for, and in the field I'm going into, Macs aren't great. UNIX dominates in IT, and have you ever tried gaming on a Mac? Lol.

I'm a huge fan of windows. Probably because that's what I've been using since Dad and I built our first computer together, but throughout the different iterations of Windows I've never really liked anything better (though my UNIX experience so far has been limited to a couple months of RedHat. We'll give that one some more time before making any judgments).

As for the window selectiony thing, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but a simple WinKey+Tab cycles through your open windows. Least, it does in Win7. Still figuring out Win8 stuff. Just in time for 10 to come out...

In short, it's all about what you want your computer to do and how much you wanna pay for it to do that. People will use what they're familiar with.

Never said it was a great argument

The main point I want to get across is, and perhaps I didn't state it well originally, that the different OS's are good for different things. As mentioned, music/video people use Macs because that's what they're good for. For what I use computers for, and in the field I'm going into, Macs aren't great. UNIX dominates in IT, and have you ever tried gaming on a Mac? Lol.

I'm a huge fan of windows. Probably because that's what I've been using since Dad and I built our first computer together, but throughout the different iterations of Windows I've never really liked anything better (though my UNIX experience so far has been limited to a couple months of RedHat. We'll give that one some more time before making any judgments).

As for the window selectiony thing, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but a simple WinKey+Tab cycles through your open windows. Least, it does in Win7. Still figuring out Win8 stuff. Just in time for 10 to come out...

In short, it's all about what you want your computer to do and how much you wanna pay for it to do that. People will use what they're familiar with.

I agree with you to an extent - if the software you need to use exists only on Windows (or is only up to date on Windows, like with games) then yeah, Windows is the only choice, but if you have the choice I can't think of a good UX reason to pick Windows. A very stretched analogy - it's like choosing between a Ford Transit and a Bentley - if you need to do things that only a van can do then the Transit's better, if not then everything you do in it will be a more pleasant experience in the Bentley. (I said it was a very stretched analogy!)

Yeah, I know about Win-Tab, but that's a linear, manual cycling through windows one at a time, nowhere near as practical and useful as seeing all the relevant windows spread out before you, especially when you can, as on OS X and Linux, set multiple workspaces dedicated to a given subject, so each one has far fewer windows for you to pick from. Win-Tab through twenty+ windows is a terrible solution, in my opinion.

Certainly, that comes back to the It's Good For What You Need It For thing, but when the GUI fails just because you have a lot of windows open, that's a bad GUI in my book (especially for an operating system called Windows!).

Again though, that's just one example. The OS X GUI is full of thoughtful details like that that the other UI designers just don't bother to put the effort in to get right. Another example - say somebody uses some jargon you're not familiar with in an email - on OS X or iOS you just select the word and it'll look it up for you in a little pop-up window right there (it's even done with just a single hard press on the latest trackpads) so you can see the dictionary definition or wikipedia page. What I'm getting is, it's all the little details, they add up to a better experience, and I honestly think most people if they were willing to spend the time adapting to a new system, who had the choice cos they're not restricted to Windows specific applications, would come to agree. I did (didn't use a Mac for the first time till about 3 years after finishing uni, used to stick up for Windows in arguments like these).

Microsoft have certainly done an impressive job getting their software stable on such a wide variety of hardware though, can't deny that (and building your own computers is fun). And yeah, gaming on Mac is [smelly poo icon], that's why I have a Windows PC in the living room, although it boots straight into Big Picture mode in Steam to minimise interaction with the Windows UI. Hoping to move to Steam OS soon, provided the necessary publishers get on board - I don't want it to be a second class platform like OS X and current Linux distros - need my games on release!

Speaking of PC gaming - I'm planning on upgrading for The Witcher 3 - I already have a quad core processor and 16GB RAM (I think the CPU is in the mid 2ghz range), do you think it's worth upgrading those, as well as the graphics card, or should I pump all my money into a new really really good graphics card? I'm inclining towards the latter.

I'm rocking a FitBit that tracks my heartrate right now but I'll wait till the iWatch S comes out in a year or two with more features. I bang my watch around quite a bit at work so I'd rather not cream a $400 piece of electronics.

Never said it was a great argument

The main point I want to get across is, and perhaps I didn't state it well originally, that the different OS's are good for different things. As mentioned, music/video people use Macs because that's what they're good for. For what I use computers for, and in the field I'm going into, Macs aren't great. UNIX dominates in IT, and have you ever tried gaming on a Mac? Lol.

I'm a huge fan of windows. Probably because that's what I've been using since Dad and I built our first computer together, but throughout the different iterations of Windows I've never really liked anything better (though my UNIX experience so far has been limited to a couple months of RedHat. We'll give that one some more time before making any judgments).

As for the window selectiony thing, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but a simple WinKey+Tab cycles through your open windows. Least, it does in Win7. Still figuring out Win8 stuff. Just in time for 10 to come out...

In short, it's all about what you want your computer to do and how much you wanna pay for it to do that. People will use what they're familiar with.

I agree with you to an extent - if the software you need to use exists only on Windows (or is only up to date on Windows, like with games) then yeah, Windows is the only choice, but if you have the choice I can't think of a good UX reason to pick Windows. A very stretched analogy - it's like choosing between a Ford Transit and a Bentley - if you need to do things that only a van can do then the Transit's better, if not then everything you do in it will be a more pleasant experience in the Bentley. (I said it was a very stretched analogy!)

Yeah, I know about Win-Tab, but that's a linear, manual cycling through windows one at a time, nowhere near as practical and useful as seeing all the relevant windows spread out before you, especially when you can, as on OS X and Linux, set multiple workspaces dedicated to a given subject, so each one has far fewer windows for you to pick from. Win-Tab through twenty+ windows is a terrible solution, in my opinion.

Certainly, that comes back to the It's Good For What You Need It For thing, but when the GUI fails just because you have a lot of windows open, that's a bad GUI in my book (especially for an operating system called Windows!).

Again though, that's just one example. The OS X GUI is full of thoughtful details like that that the other UI designers just don't bother to put the effort in to get right. Another example - say somebody uses some jargon you're not familiar with in an email - on OS X or iOS you just select the word and it'll look it up for you in a little pop-up window right there (it's even done with just a single hard press on the latest trackpads) so you can see the dictionary definition or wikipedia page. What I'm getting is, it's all the little details, they add up to a better experience, and I honestly think most people if they were willing to spend the time adapting to a new system, who had the choice cos they're not restricted to Windows specific applications, would come to agree. I did (didn't use a Mac for the first time till about 3 years after finishing uni, used to stick up for Windows in arguments like these).

Microsoft have certainly done an impressive job getting their software stable on such a wide variety of hardware though, can't deny that (and building your own computers is fun). And yeah, gaming on Mac is [smelly poo icon], that's why I have a Windows PC in the living room, although it boots straight into Big Picture mode in Steam to minimise interaction with the Windows UI. Hoping to move to Steam OS soon, provided the necessary publishers get on board - I don't want it to be a second class platform like OS X and current Linux distros - need my games on release!

Speaking of PC gaming - I'm planning on upgrading for The Witcher 3 - I already have a quad core processor and 16GB RAM (I think the CPU is in the mid 2ghz range), do you think it's worth upgrading those, as well as the graphics card, or should I pump all my money into a new really really good graphics card? I'm inclining towards the latter.

16 gigs is plenty. Nowadays 8 is enough for just about anything. From a glance at the specs, minimum CPU is in the 3GHz range, so that'll need a boost.

16 gigs is plenty. Nowadays 8 is enough for just about anything. From a glance at the specs, minimum CPU is in the 3GHz range, so that'll need a boost.

Bugger, just checked and its 2.8 ghz, so I will be need a new CPU and therefore motherboard. Also, I was wrong, only got 8GB RAM. Plenty it may be, but if I'm going to have to upgrade the CPU, and hence the motherboard, might as well future proof the RAM a bit as well. RAM's pretty cheap anyway.

What's the game need so much CPU power for anyway? **** greedy Geralt.

Oh well, at least updating the motherboard means I can get one with whats-it-called, Usomething, that lets you boot from SSD connected over PCIe. Not gonna buy an SSD just yet, not with all those other costs, but handy for the future.

In a few more years ssd will be great but now it's still too low on space to replace the standard drives that have served me so well.

In a few more years ssd will be great but now it's still too low on space to replace the standard drives that have served me so well.

That's what I'm thinking. Yeah, you can put the OS on the SSD for quick boot up, but that's more a gimmick than a serious improvement. Faster load times would be nice, but that means having enough SSD space for any games you play often, otherwise you're forever swapping games over (and all that writing is using up your SSD's lifespan).

I'm rocking a FitBit that tracks my heartrate right now but I'll wait till the iWatch S comes out in a year or two with more features. I bang my watch around quite a bit at work so I'd rather not cream a $400 piece of electronics.

Yeah, I'd have waited for the 2nd gen myself, but I was writing an app and I thought it would be perfect for Apple Watch, so...