Mac or PC - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

The_Dude · 06-28-2003, 12:12 PM

there've been discussions here goin on about new macs being released and how they will compare to pc's and stuff.

so, which one is better for overall purposes ? and why.

i personally think that mac's are a little bit overpriced for what you get. there are not many people out there that build there own mac's, unlike pc's. also, there are a shitload of cool hardware that's made for pc's. that's just my view.

also, if mac gets the dominance, only apple makes them. so, they'll end up just like microsoft, a monopoly.

Jack Ruby · 06-28-2003, 01:18 PM

It's say both, but if I had to choose - PC, of course. Cant' live without my games and pr0nage.

drawerfixer · 06-28-2003, 01:28 PM

Considering 97% of the world or so uses PCs, I'm betting I know who will win the poll.

Either way, I prefer Macs. I have nothing against PCs and when I'm out of college I plan to buy/build one just for games. I grew up around Macs, enjoy their OS, design, and simplicity. For those reasons, I have never made a switch to PCs. Macs do all I need, which doesn't require much.

The lack of games is a little saddening, but most of the good ones are ported and the others I have a xBox for.

As far as the actual computers go, I don't really know or care which is faster. Mine works plenty fast for what I'm concerned with. To each their own.

terit · 06-28-2003, 01:36 PM

First, macs will never gain dominance. They are not designed for everyone. While MacOS has a wonderful interface and is super stable, their pricing is not meant to compete with those who would build their own PCs and low end machines, such as e-machines. Rather, those who can afford macs buy them because they make life easier, don't treat you like an idiot (e.g., Microsoft's ongoing reliance on wizards), don't treat you like a criminal (e.g., Microsoft's rights management for media and insane serial code per machine policies), and don't constantly spy on you (e.g., practically every piece of Microsoft software, especially Windows Media Player). For those reasons, I am happy to pay the few hundred extra bucks to use a mac.

Unlike build-your-own computers, mac hardware (or at least those that come with the machine) is specifically chosen by apple. While the range of hardware mac users have access to is smaller, the primary big players (e.g., ATI NVidia, etc.) are quite available and sometimes even appear on macs before PCs.

The nice thing about limited selection is that Apple know what hardware it's OS will be run on, so it does not need to try to compensate for every little variation out there. This is the true balance of Mac vs. PC: with a mac, you have a controlled environment that is more expensive. With a PC, you have a less controlled (almost chaotic) environment at a lower price. So it really comes down to your personal taste.

The nice thing about a Mac is that it comes out of the box doing pretty much everything a typical Mac user is going to want. Looking to edit your home movies (or professional movies even), get a mac. You'll be much happier because you open the box, plop it on your desk, plug in a couple cables and your camera, and you are ready to edit. No installing, no need to understand hard drive types or drivers for this or that. It just works.

Looking to game or tinker with the components of your computer? Get a PC.

There is a reason why Mac users form such a love for their machines (as annoying as it may seem). Apple takes the time to think about how we think. They treat us like adults. They know that we are willing to pay for quality. From the outside it may seem like we are all a bunch of fanatics, and while that may be true for many of us, there is actually a reason behind it. Because Apple doesn't have a monopoly like Bill's bohenmoth, it has to sell its products by innovating (e.g., Windows Longhorn in 2005 will be touting many features we had in 2001).

And one last point: add up all the luxury cars manufacturers (Lexus, BMW, etc.). Apple has a larger market share of the computer market than they do of the car market combined. Remember, there is a really big difference between quality and quantity.

losfp · 06-28-2003, 02:34 PM

I'm not sure I can answer this question!

Better for what purpose? Gaming? Tweaking? Overclocking? Increased compatibility with the majority of systems? Get a PC. Video/Graphics/Sound? Get a Mac. Anything else? It depends.

While it is true that you will pay a little more for a Mac, you will get that little bit of extra quality as well. Spec out a similar brand-name PC, and I can almost guarantee that the pricing will be similar.

For me it came down to a personal preference thing. I had used PCs for over 15 years before I bought a PowerBook in March. Why? Well, how can I form an informed opinion unless I really do know what I'm talking about? Suffice to say that the Mac is now my main machine, and my PC only gets turned on if I need files off it, or I need to use its DVD burner.

For many people, a PC is a good choice. Their work uses a PC, most people they know use PCs, so it is more familiar. Not everyone is a geek like me

I enjoy the challenge of learning new things, and checking out other computers / OSs etc. I know I'm more productive with my "slower" Mac than many people who use PCs. I also know that in turn many power users on PCs would do more than I do. Why is that? Because (and I say this with monotonous regularity) IMHO the USER is the single biggest factor when determining computer performance (assuming we're not comparing computers built ten years apart or anything).

cheerios · 06-28-2003, 04:41 PM

bad question, The_dude. like the guy above, it all depends on what you're doin'. for me, a student, developer, minor gamer, major multi-tasker, slightly interested in some simple image manipulation, who loves listening to music, my iMac treats me a million times better than the PC did. :shrug: it all depends on what you want. games? PC. multimedia: mac. coding: either, but best to have one of each. internet/mail: tossup, but I prefer mac, because of mail.app, safari, and camino. multi-user capabilities: PC's win, currently, but with Panther, that may change...

The_Dude · 06-28-2003, 04:51 PM

yeah, i changed the question.

it's now which is better 'for overall purposes'

bermuDa · 06-28-2003, 05:28 PM

if you're serious about computers, there's no contest... Macs are pretty, but that's about it. I have a friend who worked for Apple; he quit after a week because of the mind-numbing ineptitude of the other employees. You aren't paying extra for quality, you're paying extra for proprietary design, which means you have to KEEP paying extra, cause there's only one company that sells Mac hardware (Jobs took care of the mac clones back in the 90's)

juanvaldes · 06-28-2003, 05:29 PM

You mean windows?

The_Dude · 06-28-2003, 05:31 PM

no, pc's in general.

pc's that run windows, linux etc...

juanvaldes · 06-28-2003, 06:52 PM

/me bangs head on desk.

RaDiAn · 06-28-2003, 07:06 PM

PC is all I know, never had the chance to get behind the wheel of one.

cheerios · 06-28-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
yeah, i changed the question.

it's now which is better 'for overall purposes'

that's what I was referring to as a bad question. you don't use a computer for overall purposes. you use it for a purpose. a particular purpose. and that purpose should choose what box you buy/build. a server doesn't need a graphics card, a gaming box doesn't need a quad processor, someone surfing the internet doesn't need a multiple gigahertz Pentium 4.

terit · 06-28-2003, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bermuDa
if you're serious about computers, there's no contest... Macs are pretty, but that's about it.

Oh god, where to begin.

Men are braindead apes, but that's about it...
Women are bitches but that's about it...
Jews are cheap but that's about it...
Gays can cut hair but that's about it...
Christians are judgemental pricks, but that's about it...

Come on man, really. Would you mind taking at least a shot as seeming to have an informed view? Do you walk around your entire life taking a similarly tiny view of things? It must be an easy life being able to base everything on stereotypes and not having to rely on that troublesome insightful thinking.

Yes, Macs are pretty, but dispite the stereotypes, form and function, brains and beauty can exist in the same entity. The underpinnings of MacOS is built on Unix. That would be Unix. Unix... as in the system that goes back to the 1970s... the one that nearly every large company at one point or another had a major part of their infastructure built upon (including systems owned by Microsoft)... the one that makes the internet actually work... the one that is at least at the root of the software used to run this very site, thus the one that lets you get your porn and put forth completely uninformed opinions such as the one above...

BTW, the hardware in my Macs come from several different companies. The only thing that is propriety are the motherboard. Harddrives, memory, video cards, audio cards, input devices, monitors, PCI cards of many types, even processors are available from a number of companies for the mac.

As for your friend, my guess is that there was no real loss of sleep over him leaving.

bermuDa · 06-28-2003, 11:10 PM

i'm sure they didn't lose any sleep, most of the other repair techs hardly spoke a word of english. Did you know that about 90% of the computers built by Apple don't work on the first boot? They have to be 'fixed' before they're shipped.

Yes i know that osx is built on a unix platform... I just find it funny how Apple had to turn to open source to make a stable operating system. And of course pre-osx programs have to be run through an emulator that still crashes, even though osx doesn't crash you still lose data.

For several years I had to use Macs for digital imaging and 3d classes cause my teacher was an apple-phile. In my senior year, when I took my 3d files home, my 800mhz athlon with half as much memory rendered scenes faster than the dual g4's that required at least 256mb of ram just to OPEN the programs, and ended up crashing twice as much as my PC. I had to do my final project twice and render it at home because the brand new macs at school couldn't handle the hypervoxels in the scene.

I rescind my previous statement: Yes, other companies make mac hardware; but Mac compatibility still costs extra and the quality over a cheaper identical pc card is dubious.

but what do I know, I'm just an uninformed ignoramus floating through life basing all my decisions on stereotypes 9_9

sooz · 06-29-2003, 01:17 AM

Pc unless doing editing

terit · 06-29-2003, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bermuDa
Did you know that about 90% of the computers built by Apple don't work on the first boot? They have to be 'fixed' before they're shipped.

J.D. Powers and Associates just ranked Apple the highest in quality and customer support of all major comupter manufacturers. Dell came in second. I don't think it is such a bad thing that the company that builds my computer takes the time to make sure it works before it ships. Clearly their attention quality has paid off.

Quote:

Yes i know that osx is built on a unix platform... I just find it funny how Apple had to turn to open source to make a stable operating system.

You say "open source" as if it is a bad thing. Weren't you just saying that proprietary is bad? So which is it?

Windows is stable? Are we talking pre-XP here? Keeping in mind that XP and OSX are the current versions of both companies' OS, you need to compare apples to apples. So are you really willing to stake your statements on Windows 95/98/ME? I mean really man, these versions of Windows are far from stable.

Quote:

And of course pre-osx programs have to be run through an emulator that still crashes, even though osx doesn't crash you still lose data.

Again you are comparing new and old versions of software. Classic mode uses an older version of the OS, and when compared to similarly aged Windows OS, it is more stable. Lets say you had a program that only ran in Windows 98. To run the program, you install Virtual PC and Windows 98 on your XP machine. How stable do you really think this configuration would be?

Quote:

In my senior year, when I took my 3d files home, my 800mhz athlon with half as much memory rendered scenes faster than the dual g4's that required at least 256mb of ram just to OPEN the programs, and ended up crashing twice as much as my PC. I had to do my final project twice and render it at home because the brand new macs at school couldn't handle the hypervoxels in the scene.

You offer a story that does not provide enough facts to really support any argument. You do not define the setup, software, or hardware and then expect the reader to trust you in your claims that you knew what you were doing when using the mac. Any OS can have a slight misconfiguration and that will affect how it works.

Quote:

I rescind my previous statement: Yes, other companies make mac hardware; but Mac compatibility still costs extra and the quality over a cheaper identical pc card is dubious.

The price of mac add-ons is a supply and demand issue. As I stated earlier, you don't buy a mac because it is the lowest price. Having a more controlled hardware environment provides better compatibility at a slightly higher price -- one I am willing to pay. So, while the part may be identical to the PC part, not have hundreds of cheap versions of the same thing prevents incompatibilty issues (drivers, hardware affecting other hardware, etc). Again, this is a matter of taste. If you like to tinker with things and have thousands of cheap options, then a PC is the clear better choice.

I don't mind if you prefer the PC. For many people the PC is a perfectly fine choice. If you read the other posts here, there are a couple running themes: "the right tool for the right job" and "it is a matter of personal taste" and "each has their own strengths". Clearly these statements approach the world in wanting to learn more or at least consider the options at hand. This is far superior to making up your mind and then sticking to it no matter what changes or what other facts come up.

bermuDa · 06-29-2003, 12:42 PM

I think it's an inefficient way to build computers when you have one assembly line to make them and another to fix the majority of them; I'd rather have a competent staff that builds the computers right the FIRST time around.

i never said anything about windows or compared windows stability to any mac OS. I think it was a good business move for Apple to go to open source, standing on the shoulders of others to make a profit (that's how Bill Gates got where he is); But I'd rather run a *nix OS on a PC that's faster than any Mac available and still costs less.

NT based Windows operating systems have a compatibility mode for those few programs that actually require a different version of windows; but in the years I've used 2000 and XP, I haven't had to enable compatibility mode once, even when using ancient software.

As for the story, they were 800mhz dual g4's with 256mb of SDRAM, graphite colored if that makes a difference... compared to my 800mhz athlon on an abit kt7-r with 128mb of SDRAM. My computer costed me about 700$ including the monitor and peripherals, while the school bought 30 of those macs for about $2500 a pop, sans monitor. My computer cost less than a third as much as the macs, and still outperformed them (and they had multi-threading enabled in the rendering options)... what misconfiguration were you referring to? I assume my Apple loving hippy teacher had the macs tweaked, maybe he forgot to uncheck the "crash-happy" setting. Or maybe it was my mistake when I tried to use advanced particle systems on a machine that couldn't possibly render them.

I don't mind if you prefer macs: you're willing to pay extra for ease of use; I don't think anything Apple has to offer warrants the price tag. I also don't mind having to do a little work to make my computer function. to each his own.

terit · 06-29-2003, 01:09 PM

If you machines were running OS9 when they had the problem, then it could be something as simple as their memory setting was set too low. This memory setting is one of the most stupid things that OS9 had and was a legacy setting that went pretty far back.

If you were running OSX, 256mb of ram simply is not enough and it would have been most likely chewing on virtual memory the entire time you were using it. I run my OSX macs with a gig of ram. 512mb is really the minimum I suggest for anyone and more if you are doing heavy graphics work. Yes, this is a lot of memory, but memory is cheap, and the macs don't require anything special when it comes to the type of memory they use.

The crashing of an application is most likely an issue with that application, not the OS or the hardware, at least when it comes to that modern of a mac running OS X. If you were running that app in classic mode, then the chances go up even higher.

In the early days of NT, there were a lot more problems with incompatibilty with various programs. The same is true with the early days of OSX. I don't think that that is a fact that will surprise anyone. When you have something that replaces something else, sometimes you need a period of transition. I can't remember the last time I have had to use OS9 for anything, not even in classic mode.

I believe the original dicussion asked what OS was best for overall purposes. Perhaps it was a bit general of a question, but I don't think it can be answered with a "they suck" attitude. If you like *nix OS's then why not post why you like them? This would seem like an approach that would seem a lot more productive.

I know several *nix users that specifically have chosen to buy a mac in addition to the *nix machines. What they like is that they have access to a wider range of applications and can still pull up a unix terminal anytime they wish. Plus, they don't have to use a windows machine along with all the extra baggage that comes along with it (serial validation, built in anti-priracy, spyware from the OS designers, etc.). One of the largest groups of "switchers" to macs is the *nix crowd, though I would not really call them switchers since they most likely are not giving up their older machines.

Conclamo Ludus · 06-29-2003, 01:15 PM

I've always wanted a MAC. Great design and a great OS. For most of my needs I choose the PC though. I work with them so I know them well. I just haven't had enough exposure to MACs. I used to edit video on the Media 100 in college on a MAC though. Nice machines just too much $$$ for me.

bermuDa · 06-29-2003, 01:51 PM

they were os9, this was back in high school, before osx was announced. Now that i think about it, They shipped with 128mb of ram but we couldn't run any 3d applications for weeks because we had to wait for 256mb upgrades... so they actually ran 384mb... not that it made any difference.

you're right though, most crashes are application and not OS issues.

I wouldn't say I'm approaching the issue with a "they suck" attitude, but so far I have yet to see anything that would make me consider buying a mac

The_Dude · 06-29-2003, 04:34 PM

ok, our school just bought a whole lot of new mac's for a lab. they ran up about 2000 apiece (this was for the journalism lab).

the next month, they decide to replace all the pc's in the comp sci lab. and they did for about 1000 bucks. (w/ lcd's!!!). i dont remember the spec's of these pc's, but i know they were p4's.

anyway, our school could have bought 1 extra pc / mac if they had gone w/ pc's all the way. (there are other labs running old equipment)

MacGnG · 06-29-2003, 07:55 PM

well for overall purposes it's really upto the person to get thatever they want but for beginners mac osx isn't that difficult. i got an emac, it's good for college students etc.. for over all purposes any computer you can afford, but i'm a mac guy so im gonna say mac cause with the new macs they are well rounded and can be used for everything.

spectre · 06-29-2003, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by juanvaldes
You mean windows?

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
no, pc's in general.

pc's that run windows, linux etc...

I believe that juan means that PC refers to Personal Computer. That means that a Mac qualifies as a PC. Therefore, your question isn't worded quite right.

terit · 06-29-2003, 08:07 PM

Are you sure of the numbers on what the school paid. I know that educational prices vary from the prices that apply to regular customers. Often, for example, Apple will give deep discounts or even free stuff to schools. In fact, that is how they originally got into schools so much more than other types of computers (we're talking the 1980s here).

When you talk about cost, you need to consider total cost of use. For example, Linux is free, but the setup (in theory) requires someone with a little more skill to set up, thus the cost of time and expertise needs to be factored in. Even then, when it comes to servers and networking, linux is a cheaper option than windows.

While the basic Windows setup may be a little faster and require less expertise, you must pay for the OS and a simple install will most likely be very insecure.

Additionally, Windows servers and networks require significantly more maintainance, including restarts and monitoring of sinister programs, such as spyware and viruses. I have several clients on Windows systems that have gotten their networks hit by viruses and it has cost them thousands of dollars to clean up. Also, Microsoft programs are notorious for needing crucial updates. The updating process, while simple for a home user, should be done with by a skilled person in an institution or business. Any conflicts caused by these updates can result in hours of very costly time spent by a technician.

While more costly in hardware, Mac networks are fairly easy to set up. They come with stuff you'd find common on Linux (apache, php, etc.) and their roots in *nix make them more stable than Windows. Because they don't get harmed by the same viruses and similar programs that are common on windows machines, they have a much lower ongoing cost. I have read in several places that use of macs in a business or institutional setting can be far less expensive because of the reduced need for skilled technician. I don't have firsthand experience with this when it comes to a client, but I can say that the several Macs I have in my office offer a far lower occurance of problems than the Windows or mixed networks of my clients.

There are several other reasons your school may pick one or the other for any one lab. For example, Macs are very common in the print industry, making it more important for a journalism student to be familiar with them. Also consider that a student is far less likely to bring in his own software from home and install it on a mac than a pc, keeping the systems a little more clean and easier to manage.

cpugamerbb · 06-29-2003, 09:32 PM

If you are into Gaming, Moderate editing, Building your own box, tinkering with almost anything I'd say PC. Never EVER EVER liked pre-OSX. LOVE OSX though, great for listening to music and burning, Love the FREE software you get when you buy a mac, and the Music program actually lets you rip music in MP3 format. My view of the bottom line. Mac=Too pricey for my pocket, but good software included, and Unix, Oh shit good move. PC=good price, fun to troubleshoot when building your own, Excellent availability on almost all programs/games. NT in XP GREAT move.

LNCPapa · 06-29-2003, 10:57 PM

I have 5 Macs and 13 PCs and I'd have to say PCs all the way. Don't get me wrong, I love my macs (only if running OS X or Linux PPC) but I can live without one - unlike my PCs - (btw, I have one SUN box as well - PoS Ultra 30) I do a bit of photo/video/audio and to be completely honest I prefer doing it on a PC. I like doing quick stuff on a Mac - but things that I want to be really picky about I will do on a PC. Plus I'm not a huge fan of DVD-R(W) and prefer +R(W) so all that work goes on my PCs. I do like many, many things about OS X - but those just don't cut it for me. You say Macs are faster for PHOTOSHOP - I say "It ain't true." I use Photoshop on a Dual 1.42 Mac and on many PCs ranging from a Dual P!!! 933 to a Dual 2.8 Xeon - Dollar for Dollar I'll bet on my x86 gear. Hell, Feels like PShop is faster even on a single P4 2.66 than Dual 1.25 Mac. The windows side just needs some apps that compare to iTunes, iMovie (WMM is close), Konfabulator (Litestep is getting better), Final Cut Pro, and iDVD.

BTW - Apple needs to price agressively - wtf they're doing now I don't know - but for the hardware I got I felt cheated.

losfp · 06-30-2003, 01:17 AM

actually it's funny. I hated OS9 era macs - but something about OS X.... It feels a little sluggish compared to my Win XP machine, but I seem to get things done just as quick if not quicker. I think the quality of the free apps you get with it (and the shareware in general) is outstanding. Less choice, but you can usually find what you need.

drawerfixer · 06-30-2003, 12:02 PM

This is sorta off topic, but it was mentioned in someone's post...

Are Macs better prepared against viruses, or are most viruses out there not capable of harming them? If there were as many viruese that affected Macs out there, would it be as big a problem as with PCs?

terit · 06-30-2003, 01:55 PM

Ok, I did a bit of looking around because I knew I had read an article on this subject. It turns out that the article was on attacks in general, which include viruses as well as other types of attacks. I would be expected, Windows is the most vulnerable while Macs are the least with other OS's falling in the middle. Here are a quote from the article:

Quote:

Most of the known software vulnerabilities announced in 2002 affected Microsoft Windows (44%) followed by Linux (19%), BSD (9%) and Sun Solaris (7%). By comparison only 0.5% of the vulnerabilities announced in 2002 affected SCO Unix, and 1.9% affected Mac OS and Compaq Tru64 systems respectively.

This pattern is mirrored by the overt digital attack data collected for 2002, which demonstrates this has been the worst year on record with 57,977 attacks having already taken place. The most attacked operating system in 2002 has been Microsoft Windows with 31,431 attacks (54%) followed by Linux with 17,218 attacks (30%), BSD (6%) and Solaris (5%). Apple Mac's OS suffered only 31 overt digital attacks, i.e., 0.05% of all attacks in 2002 although Apple Mac has roughly 3% of the world's computer market share. SCO Unix suffered 165 digital attacks (0.2%) and Compaq Tru64 suffered 10 attacks (0.02%).

The firm estimates lost productivity from direct attacks to be as much as US$40 billion, with most of that damage occurring to Windows networks.

Here is a link to the report: mi2g

Additionally, I found a website that reports that a total of only about 40 viruses even exist that affect the Mac. There are ones that are a result of them affecting Microsoft Office programs in general (which is on Mac and Windows both).

Here's another fairly extensive link: Viruses and the Mac FAQ

Note that neither of these articles take the effort to break down the threats between OS9 and OSX, so the numbers could actually be lower depending upon the version you use.

losfp · 06-30-2003, 03:23 PM

It comes with being a smaller target. People wanting to maliciously inflict the most damage aren't going to target the OS with a smaller market share!

The_Dude · 06-30-2003, 05:37 PM

no offense, but i dont think hackers want to attack mac's!

losfp · 06-30-2003, 05:53 PM

Good! Less for me to worry about then

spectre · 06-30-2003, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
no offense, but i dont think hackers want to attack mac's!

It's not that they don't want to, it's about which OS has the biggest market share and is the easiest to exploit. Bigger market share means more people using the OS which means a higher likelihood that someone, somewhere has little to no protection for their system.

drawerfixer · 06-30-2003, 07:09 PM

Alright, so that sorta answers it. Thanks for the info.

However, I was more interested in individual computer responses... Is it easier to create a virus for a PC than a Mac?

If a hacker was to make similar viruses for a PC and a Mac, which computer would be worse off? Does the Mac have a better OS with less holes, or would it be just as easy to exploit?

I realize viruses for Macs are rarely made, I'm just curious. Sorry for the threadjacking.

cheerios · 06-30-2003, 07:17 PM

hmm... theoretically, It would be difficult to create a mac virus, because not as many coders are familiar w/ the mac OS's. It is easier, w/ OS X, 'cuz *nix virii should work. I get the empirical feeling that, properly configured, both systems are similarly proficient at repelling virus's. out of box, though, i think OS X beats XP. if nothing else, it has Outlook and IE.

spectre · 06-30-2003, 07:18 PM

I can't speak as to the vulnerability of macs, but there are generally more people trying to exploit Windows machines. Since more people are trying to exploit it, that makes it more likely that someone will find an exploit for a Windows machine.

I think the windows PC would be worse off, not as to the damage done, but as to the number of infected machines since Windows holds a larger market share.

MacGnG · 06-30-2003, 11:03 PM

now that os x is so virsatile and stuff, soon mac and pcs will be, i'd go as far as saying, the same.
unforunately apple looses most of the time cause macs cost more and pcs dont.
thought thats not far to say pcs are better but thats just what has happend
now if pcs and macs were the same price and hardware, etc was comparable, definately mac.

bob32 · 07-01-2003, 09:33 AM

Those new Macs can be $2000+. They may be fast. But if you can't play games, there's no point in having them be fast.

With viruses and exploits, there are more for Windows because more people use Windows. People aren't gonna write viruses for software that's not as popular. You could always get a pc and put linux on it.

bermuDa · 07-01-2003, 11:06 AM

viruses for macs are rarely made cause the malignant hackers figure the mac owners have suffered enough already

View Poll Results: Which is better
PC	47	58.75%
Mac	31	38.75%
Neither / No Comment	2	2.50%
Voters: 80. You may not vote on this poll

06-28-2003, 12:12 PM	#1 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	Mac or PC there've been discussions here goin on about new macs being released and how they will compare to pc's and stuff. so, which one is better for overall purposes ? and why. i personally think that mac's are a little bit overpriced for what you get. there are not many people out there that build there own mac's, unlike pc's. also, there are a shitload of cool hardware that's made for pc's. that's just my view. also, if mac gets the dominance, only apple makes them. so, they'll end up just like microsoft, a monopoly. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal Last edited by The_Dude; 06-28-2003 at 03:59 PM..

06-28-2003, 01:18 PM	#2 (permalink)
Jack Ruby Psycho Location: Belgium	It's say both, but if I had to choose - PC, of course. Cant' live without my games and pr0nage. __________________ You don't know what you don't know.

06-28-2003, 01:28 PM	#3 (permalink)
drawerfixer Stonerific Location: Colorado	Considering 97% of the world or so uses PCs, I'm betting I know who will win the poll. Either way, I prefer Macs. I have nothing against PCs and when I'm out of college I plan to buy/build one just for games. I grew up around Macs, enjoy their OS, design, and simplicity. For those reasons, I have never made a switch to PCs. Macs do all I need, which doesn't require much. The lack of games is a little saddening, but most of the good ones are ported and the others I have a xBox for. As far as the actual computers go, I don't really know or care which is faster. Mine works plenty fast for what I'm concerned with. To each their own. __________________ They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

06-28-2003, 02:34 PM	#5 (permalink)
losfp Tilted Location: Sydney, Australia	I'm not sure I can answer this question! Better for what purpose? Gaming? Tweaking? Overclocking? Increased compatibility with the majority of systems? Get a PC. Video/Graphics/Sound? Get a Mac. Anything else? It depends. While it is true that you will pay a little more for a Mac, you will get that little bit of extra quality as well. Spec out a similar brand-name PC, and I can almost guarantee that the pricing will be similar. For me it came down to a personal preference thing. I had used PCs for over 15 years before I bought a PowerBook in March. Why? Well, how can I form an informed opinion unless I really do know what I'm talking about? Suffice to say that the Mac is now my main machine, and my PC only gets turned on if I need files off it, or I need to use its DVD burner. For many people, a PC is a good choice. Their work uses a PC, most people they know use PCs, so it is more familiar. Not everyone is a geek like me I enjoy the challenge of learning new things, and checking out other computers / OSs etc. I know I'm more productive with my "slower" Mac than many people who use PCs. I also know that in turn many power users on PCs would do more than I do. Why is that? Because (and I say this with monotonous regularity) IMHO the USER is the single biggest factor when determining computer performance (assuming we're not comparing computers built ten years apart or anything). __________________ Grrr... Argh....

06-28-2003, 01:36 PM	#4 (permalink)
terit Upright	First, macs will never gain dominance. They are not designed for everyone. While MacOS has a wonderful interface and is super stable, their pricing is not meant to compete with those who would build their own PCs and low end machines, such as e-machines. Rather, those who can afford macs buy them because they make life easier, don't treat you like an idiot (e.g., Microsoft's ongoing reliance on wizards), don't treat you like a criminal (e.g., Microsoft's rights management for media and insane serial code per machine policies), and don't constantly spy on you (e.g., practically every piece of Microsoft software, especially Windows Media Player). For those reasons, I am happy to pay the few hundred extra bucks to use a mac. Unlike build-your-own computers, mac hardware (or at least those that come with the machine) is specifically chosen by apple. While the range of hardware mac users have access to is smaller, the primary big players (e.g., ATI NVidia, etc.) are quite available and sometimes even appear on macs before PCs. The nice thing about limited selection is that Apple know what hardware it's OS will be run on, so it does not need to try to compensate for every little variation out there. This is the true balance of Mac vs. PC: with a mac, you have a controlled environment that is more expensive. With a PC, you have a less controlled (almost chaotic) environment at a lower price. So it really comes down to your personal taste. The nice thing about a Mac is that it comes out of the box doing pretty much everything a typical Mac user is going to want. Looking to edit your home movies (or professional movies even), get a mac. You'll be much happier because you open the box, plop it on your desk, plug in a couple cables and your camera, and you are ready to edit. No installing, no need to understand hard drive types or drivers for this or that. It just works. Looking to game or tinker with the components of your computer? Get a PC. There is a reason why Mac users form such a love for their machines (as annoying as it may seem). Apple takes the time to think about how we think. They treat us like adults. They know that we are willing to pay for quality. From the outside it may seem like we are all a bunch of fanatics, and while that may be true for many of us, there is actually a reason behind it. Because Apple doesn't have a monopoly like Bill's bohenmoth, it has to sell its products by innovating (e.g., Windows Longhorn in 2005 will be touting many features we had in 2001). And one last point: add up all the luxury cars manufacturers (Lexus, BMW, etc.). Apple has a larger market share of the computer market than they do of the car market combined. Remember, there is a really big difference between quality and quantity.

06-28-2003, 04:41 PM	#6 (permalink)
cheerios Banned Location: 'bout 2 feet from my iMac	bad question, The_dude. like the guy above, it all depends on what you're doin'. for me, a student, developer, minor gamer, major multi-tasker, slightly interested in some simple image manipulation, who loves listening to music, my iMac treats me a million times better than the PC did. :shrug: it all depends on what you want. games? PC. multimedia: mac. coding: either, but best to have one of each. internet/mail: tossup, but I prefer mac, because of mail.app, safari, and camino. multi-user capabilities: PC's win, currently, but with Panther, that may change...

06-28-2003, 04:51 PM	#7 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	yeah, i changed the question. it's now which is better 'for overall purposes' __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-28-2003, 05:28 PM	#8 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	if you're serious about computers, there's no contest... Macs are pretty, but that's about it. I have a friend who worked for Apple; he quit after a week because of the mind-numbing ineptitude of the other employees. You aren't paying extra for quality, you're paying extra for proprietary design, which means you have to KEEP paying extra, cause there's only one company that sells Mac hardware (Jobs took care of the mac clones back in the 90's) __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

06-28-2003, 05:29 PM	#9 (permalink)
juanvaldes Banned Location: shittown, CA	You mean windows?

06-28-2003, 05:31 PM	#10 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	no, pc's in general. pc's that run windows, linux etc... __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-28-2003, 06:52 PM	#11 (permalink)
juanvaldes Banned Location: shittown, CA	/me bangs head on desk.

06-28-2003, 07:06 PM	#12 (permalink)
RaDiAn Addict	PC is all I know, never had the chance to get behind the wheel of one.

06-28-2003, 11:10 PM	#15 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	i'm sure they didn't lose any sleep, most of the other repair techs hardly spoke a word of english. Did you know that about 90% of the computers built by Apple don't work on the first boot? They have to be 'fixed' before they're shipped. Yes i know that osx is built on a unix platform... I just find it funny how Apple had to turn to open source to make a stable operating system. And of course pre-osx programs have to be run through an emulator that still crashes, even though osx doesn't crash you still lose data. For several years I had to use Macs for digital imaging and 3d classes cause my teacher was an apple-phile. In my senior year, when I took my 3d files home, my 800mhz athlon with half as much memory rendered scenes faster than the dual g4's that required at least 256mb of ram just to OPEN the programs, and ended up crashing twice as much as my PC. I had to do my final project twice and render it at home because the brand new macs at school couldn't handle the hypervoxels in the scene. I rescind my previous statement: Yes, other companies make mac hardware; but Mac compatibility still costs extra and the quality over a cheaper identical pc card is dubious. but what do I know, I'm just an uninformed ignoramus floating through life basing all my decisions on stereotypes 9_9 __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

06-29-2003, 01:17 AM	#16 (permalink)
sooz Crazy Location: Somewhere in the middle	Pc unless doing editing __________________ -sooz

06-29-2003, 12:42 PM	#18 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	I think it's an inefficient way to build computers when you have one assembly line to make them and another to fix the majority of them; I'd rather have a competent staff that builds the computers right the FIRST time around. i never said anything about windows or compared windows stability to any mac OS. I think it was a good business move for Apple to go to open source, standing on the shoulders of others to make a profit (that's how Bill Gates got where he is); But I'd rather run a *nix OS on a PC that's faster than any Mac available and still costs less. NT based Windows operating systems have a compatibility mode for those few programs that actually require a different version of windows; but in the years I've used 2000 and XP, I haven't had to enable compatibility mode once, even when using ancient software. As for the story, they were 800mhz dual g4's with 256mb of SDRAM, graphite colored if that makes a difference... compared to my 800mhz athlon on an abit kt7-r with 128mb of SDRAM. My computer costed me about 700$ including the monitor and peripherals, while the school bought 30 of those macs for about $2500 a pop, sans monitor. My computer cost less than a third as much as the macs, and still outperformed them (and they had multi-threading enabled in the rendering options)... what misconfiguration were you referring to? I assume my Apple loving hippy teacher had the macs tweaked, maybe he forgot to uncheck the "crash-happy" setting. Or maybe it was my mistake when I tried to use advanced particle systems on a machine that couldn't possibly render them. I don't mind if you prefer macs: you're willing to pay extra for ease of use; I don't think anything Apple has to offer warrants the price tag. I also don't mind having to do a little work to make my computer function. to each his own. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

06-29-2003, 01:09 PM	#19 (permalink)
terit Upright	If you machines were running OS9 when they had the problem, then it could be something as simple as their memory setting was set too low. This memory setting is one of the most stupid things that OS9 had and was a legacy setting that went pretty far back. If you were running OSX, 256mb of ram simply is not enough and it would have been most likely chewing on virtual memory the entire time you were using it. I run my OSX macs with a gig of ram. 512mb is really the minimum I suggest for anyone and more if you are doing heavy graphics work. Yes, this is a lot of memory, but memory is cheap, and the macs don't require anything special when it comes to the type of memory they use. The crashing of an application is most likely an issue with that application, not the OS or the hardware, at least when it comes to that modern of a mac running OS X. If you were running that app in classic mode, then the chances go up even higher. In the early days of NT, there were a lot more problems with incompatibilty with various programs. The same is true with the early days of OSX. I don't think that that is a fact that will surprise anyone. When you have something that replaces something else, sometimes you need a period of transition. I can't remember the last time I have had to use OS9 for anything, not even in classic mode. I believe the original dicussion asked what OS was best for overall purposes. Perhaps it was a bit general of a question, but I don't think it can be answered with a "they suck" attitude. If you like nix OS's then why not post why you like them? This would seem like an approach that would seem a lot more productive. I know several nix users that specifically have chosen to buy a mac in addition to the nix machines. What they like is that they have access to a wider range of applications and can still pull up a unix terminal anytime they wish. Plus, they don't have to use a windows machine along with all the extra baggage that comes along with it (serial validation, built in anti-priracy, spyware from the OS designers, etc.). One of the largest groups of "switchers" to macs is the nix crowd, though I would not really call them switchers since they most likely are not giving up their older machines.

06-29-2003, 01:15 PM	#20 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	I've always wanted a MAC. Great design and a great OS. For most of my needs I choose the PC though. I work with them so I know them well. I just haven't had enough exposure to MACs. I used to edit video on the Media 100 in college on a MAC though. Nice machines just too much $$$ for me. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

06-29-2003, 01:51 PM	#21 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	they were os9, this was back in high school, before osx was announced. Now that i think about it, They shipped with 128mb of ram but we couldn't run any 3d applications for weeks because we had to wait for 256mb upgrades... so they actually ran 384mb... not that it made any difference. you're right though, most crashes are application and not OS issues. I wouldn't say I'm approaching the issue with a "they suck" attitude, but so far I have yet to see anything that would make me consider buying a mac __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman. Last edited by bermuDa; 06-29-2003 at 01:56 PM..

06-29-2003, 04:34 PM	#22 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	ok, our school just bought a whole lot of new mac's for a lab. they ran up about 2000 apiece (this was for the journalism lab). the next month, they decide to replace all the pc's in the comp sci lab. and they did for about 1000 bucks. (w/ lcd's!!!). i dont remember the spec's of these pc's, but i know they were p4's. anyway, our school could have bought 1 extra pc / mac if they had gone w/ pc's all the way. (there are other labs running old equipment) __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-29-2003, 07:55 PM	#23 (permalink)
MacGnG Know Where!	well for overall purposes it's really upto the person to get thatever they want but for beginners mac osx isn't that difficult. i got an emac, it's good for college students etc.. for over all purposes any computer you can afford, but i'm a mac guy so im gonna say mac cause with the new macs they are well rounded and can be used for everything.

06-29-2003, 08:07 PM	#25 (permalink)
terit Upright	Are you sure of the numbers on what the school paid. I know that educational prices vary from the prices that apply to regular customers. Often, for example, Apple will give deep discounts or even free stuff to schools. In fact, that is how they originally got into schools so much more than other types of computers (we're talking the 1980s here). When you talk about cost, you need to consider total cost of use. For example, Linux is free, but the setup (in theory) requires someone with a little more skill to set up, thus the cost of time and expertise needs to be factored in. Even then, when it comes to servers and networking, linux is a cheaper option than windows. While the basic Windows setup may be a little faster and require less expertise, you must pay for the OS and a simple install will most likely be very insecure. Additionally, Windows servers and networks require significantly more maintainance, including restarts and monitoring of sinister programs, such as spyware and viruses. I have several clients on Windows systems that have gotten their networks hit by viruses and it has cost them thousands of dollars to clean up. Also, Microsoft programs are notorious for needing crucial updates. The updating process, while simple for a home user, should be done with by a skilled person in an institution or business. Any conflicts caused by these updates can result in hours of very costly time spent by a technician. While more costly in hardware, Mac networks are fairly easy to set up. They come with stuff you'd find common on Linux (apache, php, etc.) and their roots in *nix make them more stable than Windows. Because they don't get harmed by the same viruses and similar programs that are common on windows machines, they have a much lower ongoing cost. I have read in several places that use of macs in a business or institutional setting can be far less expensive because of the reduced need for skilled technician. I don't have firsthand experience with this when it comes to a client, but I can say that the several Macs I have in my office offer a far lower occurance of problems than the Windows or mixed networks of my clients. There are several other reasons your school may pick one or the other for any one lab. For example, Macs are very common in the print industry, making it more important for a journalism student to be familiar with them. Also consider that a student is far less likely to bring in his own software from home and install it on a mac than a pc, keeping the systems a little more clean and easier to manage.

06-29-2003, 09:32 PM	#26 (permalink)
cpugamerbb Possible StuD Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico	If you are into Gaming, Moderate editing, Building your own box, tinkering with almost anything I'd say PC. Never EVER EVER liked pre-OSX. LOVE OSX though, great for listening to music and burning, Love the FREE software you get when you buy a mac, and the Music program actually lets you rip music in MP3 format. My view of the bottom line. Mac=Too pricey for my pocket, but good software included, and Unix, Oh shit good move. PC=good price, fun to troubleshoot when building your own, Excellent availability on almost all programs/games. NT in XP GREAT move.

06-29-2003, 10:57 PM	#27 (permalink)
LNCPapa Crazy Location: Notre Dame	I have 5 Macs and 13 PCs and I'd have to say PCs all the way. Don't get me wrong, I love my macs (only if running OS X or Linux PPC) but I can live without one - unlike my PCs - (btw, I have one SUN box as well - PoS Ultra 30) I do a bit of photo/video/audio and to be completely honest I prefer doing it on a PC. I like doing quick stuff on a Mac - but things that I want to be really picky about I will do on a PC. Plus I'm not a huge fan of DVD-R(W) and prefer +R(W) so all that work goes on my PCs. I do like many, many things about OS X - but those just don't cut it for me. You say Macs are faster for PHOTOSHOP - I say "It ain't true." I use Photoshop on a Dual 1.42 Mac and on many PCs ranging from a Dual P!!! 933 to a Dual 2.8 Xeon - Dollar for Dollar I'll bet on my x86 gear. Hell, Feels like PShop is faster even on a single P4 2.66 than Dual 1.25 Mac. The windows side just needs some apps that compare to iTunes, iMovie (WMM is close), Konfabulator (Litestep is getting better), Final Cut Pro, and iDVD. BTW - Apple needs to price agressively - wtf they're doing now I don't know - but for the hardware I got I felt cheated. __________________ No mercy for the bandwidth impaired

06-30-2003, 01:17 AM	#28 (permalink)
losfp Tilted Location: Sydney, Australia	actually it's funny. I hated OS9 era macs - but something about OS X.... It feels a little sluggish compared to my Win XP machine, but I seem to get things done just as quick if not quicker. I think the quality of the free apps you get with it (and the shareware in general) is outstanding. Less choice, but you can usually find what you need. __________________ Grrr... Argh....

06-30-2003, 12:02 PM	#29 (permalink)
drawerfixer Stonerific Location: Colorado	This is sorta off topic, but it was mentioned in someone's post... Are Macs better prepared against viruses, or are most viruses out there not capable of harming them? If there were as many viruese that affected Macs out there, would it be as big a problem as with PCs? __________________ They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

06-30-2003, 03:23 PM	#31 (permalink)
losfp Tilted Location: Sydney, Australia	It comes with being a smaller target. People wanting to maliciously inflict the most damage aren't going to target the OS with a smaller market share! __________________ Grrr... Argh....

06-30-2003, 05:37 PM	#32 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	no offense, but i dont think hackers want to attack mac's! __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-30-2003, 05:53 PM	#33 (permalink)
losfp Tilted Location: Sydney, Australia	Good! Less for me to worry about then __________________ Grrr... Argh....

06-30-2003, 07:09 PM	#35 (permalink)
drawerfixer Stonerific Location: Colorado	Alright, so that sorta answers it. Thanks for the info. However, I was more interested in individual computer responses... Is it easier to create a virus for a PC than a Mac? If a hacker was to make similar viruses for a PC and a Mac, which computer would be worse off? Does the Mac have a better OS with less holes, or would it be just as easy to exploit? I realize viruses for Macs are rarely made, I'm just curious. Sorry for the threadjacking. __________________ They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

06-30-2003, 07:17 PM	#36 (permalink)
cheerios Banned Location: 'bout 2 feet from my iMac	hmm... theoretically, It would be difficult to create a mac virus, because not as many coders are familiar w/ the mac OS's. It is easier, w/ OS X, 'cuz *nix virii should work. I get the empirical feeling that, properly configured, both systems are similarly proficient at repelling virus's. out of box, though, i think OS X beats XP. if nothing else, it has Outlook and IE.

06-30-2003, 07:18 PM	#37 (permalink)
spectre Junkie	I can't speak as to the vulnerability of macs, but there are generally more people trying to exploit Windows machines. Since more people are trying to exploit it, that makes it more likely that someone will find an exploit for a Windows machine. I think the windows PC would be worse off, not as to the damage done, but as to the number of infected machines since Windows holds a larger market share. __________________ "Fuck these chains No goddamn slave I will be different" ~ Machine Head

06-30-2003, 11:03 PM	#38 (permalink)
MacGnG Know Where!	now that os x is so virsatile and stuff, soon mac and pcs will be, i'd go as far as saying, the same. unforunately apple looses most of the time cause macs cost more and pcs dont. thought thats not far to say pcs are better but thats just what has happend now if pcs and macs were the same price and hardware, etc was comparable, definately mac.

07-01-2003, 09:33 AM	#39 (permalink)
bob32 Crazy	Those new Macs can be $2000+. They may be fast. But if you can't play games, there's no point in having them be fast. With viruses and exploits, there are more for Windows because more people use Windows. People aren't gonna write viruses for software that's not as popular. You could always get a pc and put linux on it.

07-01-2003, 11:06 AM	#40 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	viruses for macs are rarely made cause the malignant hackers figure the mac owners have suffered enough already __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.