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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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...

yeah, i changed the question.

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

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)

You mean windows?

no, pc's in general.

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

/me bangs head on desk.

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

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.

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.

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

Pc unless doing editing

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.


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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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!

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

Good! Less for me to worry about then ;)

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.

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. :(

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

nice one

As long as your not a gamer, a Mac can do everything a PC can (Macs can game, no one makes games, thats all). They tend to last longer and require less maintence. they are even competetively priced if you want a laptop. Consider the value it will have versus teh initial price. Apple has a lot of cool applications taht are included in teh initial price.

Mac's - you either hate them or love them.....

I grew up using Macs. In school, I used PC's. In college, I used my own Mac and worked on PC's at work. I was an ITS technician. After working with comps for 16 years, I have to say that the overall experience is definitely better on a Mac. A lot of criticism that the Mac evokes are from its OS9 days. OSX has fixed most, if not all of it. It is the most stable OS (Built on BSD) and is so easy and intuitive, its insane. Also, the suite of software that comes with it is amazing... iTunes for music, iMovie for digital video editing, iPhoto for picture collections and output, and iDVD for out of the box DVD authoring (and seemlessly integrates the previous three so you can use stuff from those apps). Yes apple WAS behind the curve on MHZ, but not anymore. With the G5, we've at LEAST caught up and in some areas surpassed most PC's in the speed area. Yes, for the 'high end' it costs 3000. But, a similarly configured pc is more. (look at the high end Dells and match them to the G5's specs). And Apple only uses high quality components which is why (study after study shows this) Apples last longer and stay more relevant as a usable computer (as OSes evolve... I am running OSX Jaguar SERVER on my 233mhz Original Bondi Blue iMac -the first imac in 98- quite decently). I don't dislike PCs, but I dislike people who use PC's who bash the Mac for no REAL reason-especially since none of them have used one (or used one lately, which is a totally different experience than the Mac of old). If you have problems deciding, go to an Apple store... take a day and just go and enjoy yourself. The stores are quite amazing. Anyway, another thing is the software. Yes there is a huge amount of software available for the PC. But, look at ratios... there HAS to be... its 95% of the market! I look at it this way. I compare the PCs software to the Ocean... its HUGE, but it is full of pollutants... a lot of the software sucks major ass leaving only a few really good programs that you can use. Well, on the Mac, we get those REALLY good programs. We are a *small* yet pure water oasis. All of our programs are usually ports of the best. Microsoft, BY ITS OWN ADMISSION, says that Office for the Mac is better than the windows version. Any real program on the PC you want, either there is a Mac port/version, or there is another program that does the same thing. All this goes for the games. I love games, but on the Mac platform, they aren't like the PC one. I only get the best selling games and the best overall games from the PC side, like Max Payne, Deus Ex, Warcraft 3 (actually EVERY blizzard game made), THPS, all the Sims games, going to get DNF, MP2, etc. We never got 'Paintball extreme' because there was no need. Anyway, these are my observations growing up in both worlds... I ended up staying mostly on the Mac side because I just enjoy it much more. And if there is a game that I absolutely need to play that's not on the Mac, I just go hijack Threeleggedfrog's computer to do it. :) Anyway, good luck and I hope I haven't convoluted your question too much. I just let my mind write.

Oh and if Apple REALLY was as terrible as everyone seems to think, then you wouldn't be using FIREWIRE, you probably wouldn't be using USB (yeah we didn't make this one, but we pushed it so hard that people thought we were crazy for doing so), Apple wouldn't keep winning Technical awards and GRAMMY's for their wizardry! PC magazines wouldn't use them for designing and layout for their mags...Pixar wouldn't be thinking about porting their RENDERMAN program just to the G5... PC reviews *wouldn't* review the G4 laptop as the best laptop in the buisness... etc...

Just thought I'd throw in some controversy now.

*cough* pixar is owned by steve jobs

this poll is pointless.

Interesting how there aren't a bunch of PC fanatics posting here. The poll is being run by the Mac fanatics.

Actually the tone seems to be much more pleasant than these things usually are. Very little name calling. What's going on??? People who have used both platforms saying which one they like best without insults? Expousing the idea that PC's are probably better for some things and Macs are better at others? Peace in the PC world? Pigs are flying out of my ass.

mac = photoshop, vid editing and the likes
pc = games, gadgets,reboot, games,reboot, software,reboot, games, reboot, overall usage

=)

I'll just say this...I have never seen a mac as a server.

i have! they make great coffee tables :D

and i prefer my PC for photoshop, it helps when your mouse has more than one function.

/me hands bermuda her 5 button Kensington optical offof her iMac. ;) WITH programmable buttons per application. nicely integerated into system preferences. :P

hey Wax Off, I hear some Preperation H can really help with those pigs... ;)

everyone else: thanks for keeping it civil! :) makes life easier for us, not to have to fwap y'all upside the head. :)

muahaha i'll keep my mx700 with 7 buttons and 10 functions, thx for the offer though ;) :D

open your eyes (and your mind)

as used for www.camwhores.com, and many other sites you may know of: Apple Xserve

http://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/9c..._020703_02.jpg

my eyes are open and I see a lcd screen and some cereal.

That's pretty neat....how much does it cost over traditionally servers?

USB apple ? HUH ? USB was invented by compaq, DEC, microsoft, and NEC in 1993. I suppose those PCI slots that are so popular are apple too ;) Firewire was a joint development by texas instruments and apple, initiated by apple, adpoted in windows 98, windows 2000 and OS 8. If anything its the video makers that have brought wide spread firewire usage, sony , matsushita etc, after all the firewire board is practically all video OEMs

Macs are good for audio work they typically have considerably much less latency than PC's, which is why they are popular in studios, though PCs can be made in such a way the software is heavily developed and people don't like to switch especially since a lot of it is rack mounted.

I never said they invented USB... they just made it the standard... with the 98 233 Bondi Blue iMac (from which I currently am typing)

Also, thanks for keeping it civil...

PC.

Woah, that was the most constructive comment I've seen on these boards [/sarcasm]

=)

I've had, over the years, 8 macs and 4 Windows PC's. I first switched to mac after the second PC we got refused to start up. Right now, I have a G4/400 and a P4/1.4 Ghz Laptop. The only time I use the laptop is for games which are not on the mac, and if I need to use Publisher for work. My 4 year old mac is generally snappier (with OS9 =)) than the 1 year old Pentium.

Macs, especially with OSX, are absolutely beaut with anything other than playing the newest games, not because they can't run them, rather because publishers seem to think that 20 MILLION people is a small userbase.

I would never buy an Apple. They have a LONG history of promoting something, and then abandoning it so it becomes useless. the IIGS is a classic example. Buy the IIGS! It's the best of both the Apple 2 and the mac worlds! It'll be REALLY useful! And yeah, it was an awesome computer (for its day), but there was precious little software written for it, so it whey reas largely useless. Mine wound up being nothing more than an overpriced Apple IIe, because most of the programs I had would have run just fine on one of those.

Their interface is miserable. They still rely on single button mice - WTF? you have so much more flexibility with multiple buttons.

You void the warranty if you open the case. Again, WTF? You buy a computer that you can't ever upgrade unless you take it to - you guessed it - Apple and pay them a lot of money to do the install.

They rely too much on whizbang looking cases and fancy little touches (power eject floppy drives) that do nothing to add to the utility of the machine. They figure people will buy their machines not because they're better (they aren't) or have more software (fat chance) but because they look cool (they're ugly.)

Don't get me wrong, the Mac had it's day. Back in the days of the Mac Plus, Mac SE/SE-30, and Mac Classic 1 and 2, the things were awesome - if you needed them for graphic design / word processing, or other business needs. In those days, I used macs exclusively when writing, and especially laying out, documents. Now, however, the PC has caught up to the mac. Even though there is still a myth out there that macs are better at graphics (not necessarilly, depends on what video card they're up against on the PC side) the PC's have decidedly caught up to and surpassed macs in overall utility. They can edit photos and video with the best of them (I note that AVID uses PC's, not Macs for their video editing systems), they're just as fast (and in some cases faster), they have a lot more software, both games and productivity, AND you can buy that software in stores. The choice is pretty clear to me.



That said I'd love to have a Mac SE-30 just for nostalgia purposes.

Oh geez, here we go... the ol' one button mouse argument. I was wondering when this one would come up. Pretty much any style of a usb mouse that you could buy for windows, you can get for a mac. Yes, mine has 5 buttons and a scroller... and you know what? If I were to have gotten a mouse with two buttons, I still would have left it in the box and purchased a better one.

I mean, have you ever really looked at the quality of mice that come standard with a Windows PC? Yeah, they have two buttons and a scroller, but really, are they of such superb quality that they could become one of your primary reasons for buying the computer? I mean, really, honestly, how many skilled computer users actually use the mouse that their computer came with?

The reason that Apples still come with a one button mouse is because their OS interface is designed to be used with a one button mouse, and they see it as proving a point. Granted, I don't like using a one-button mouse, but for the basic users, research done by Apple tends towards making the interaction with the computer easier. And again, lets face it, an advanced user would buy a different mouse no matter what his computer came with.

And to be even more specific, as of OS X, left and right buttons and scroller wheels are supported as part of the OS without the need for additional software. Additional buttons and special options are accessed through extentions from the mouse manufacturer.

As for your claim of opening the case voiding the warranty, you are just plain wrong. In fact, I have a copy of an Apple warranty right here. Here is the important lines for you:

That would be "damage cause by", so, yes, if you open up your machine and force a card in backwards and it breaks something, the warranty doesn't cover it. Did you really think it would? Jesus, man, Apples have a latch on the side that you pull on and they flip right open. Anyone can do it... even when they are running. Look, I'll do it right now.... see, I'm still writing this post and I can feel how hot my ram is at the same time. No warranties voided here! The simple latches were introduced in 1999... but since you don't have data past the 1980s to draw on, I can see how you would miss that one.

And FYI, there are Mac versions of Avid software, not that you would ever want to use it over Apple's Final Cut Pro. Perhaps no one has informed you yet that for the vast majority of video production companies, Avid's are way way too expensive, especially given that very competitive software editing systems have come so far in the last few years... again, these are changes to technology in the RECENT past (say 3 years), so I would not expect you to have a clue about it. I know many many video companies that are selling their Avid systems to move to Final Cut and other more reasonably priced options... we're talking thousands vs. tens of thousands of dollars.

I buy my software at CompUSA... that would be a store, a national chain even. Of course, I don't think they were around in the 1980s, so you will have probably never heard of them. And here's another news flash for you: Apple itself has stores all over the country!

Really, man, if you wouldn't mind, get your facts right before your vomit crap out of your mouth.

Oh yes I have to get a mac because how nice and informative Mac users like Terit are.

The thing with mac pretty cases...they aren't unique. They still come off an assembly line.

Plus you get mocked for bringing a mac to a lan party :)

All in all mac has it's uses, but as long as their's super rabid mac users...I'm not going there.

OK, Terit, first off I never said you couldn't get a multi-button mouse for the mac. Second, Final Cut is not under any circumstances for any reason better than Avid. FC is a great video editor, but it's chief competitor is Premiere, NOT Avid because Avid isn't even in the same ballpark as those two play in. There is a version of AVID for mac, yes I know that, but the system of choice for Avid Media Composer is a win2000 machine. Regarding Avid vs FC, here's a small example. 56 movie trailers have been nominated for the Key Art Awards. 42 of them were edited on Avid. Only 14 were on FC. Just a small example of the simple fact that the editor of choice in the industry is Avid.

The plain and simple fact is that macs, while they're good machines, are designed for ease-of-use first and utilization-of-their-full-power second. Frankly, I think that's great. Makes my life a lot easier when computer novices are on macs 'cause I don't have to provide as much tech support. Once you gain more knowledge and start wanting more choices in software (yes I know that the reason there's so much software for the PC is because there are more PC users. That's obvious.) then the PC is the way to go.

Regarding the warranty. Yeah, and if you upgrade it and something breaks, you don't think they'll blame the upgrade? Been there, done that.


"I buy my software at CompUSA... that would be a store, a national chain even. Of course, I don't think they were around in the 1980s, so you will have probably never heard of them."

Sure I've heard of them. I'm quite underwhelmed by them. Not much of a selection, and their prices are sky high compared to other retailers.

"And here's another news flash for you: Apple itself has stores all over the country!"

Wow! Really? Yeah, I knew that too. Gateway has stores too. Yugos had dealerships. Doesn't mean I'd buy a Gateway or a Yugo either. Apple can have all the stores it wants, but with far fewer titles being WRITTEN for the Mac, it doesnt' matter because they can't SELL software that doesn't exist.

BTW, where do you get this idea that I'm living in the 80's? Or are you just being rude?

"And again, lets face it, an advanced user would buy a different mouse no matter what his computer came with."

An advanced user would build his own machine with the parts HE specifies to best suit him. Therefore, his computer would come with the best mouse for him. BTW, you can get perfectly good mice with prebuilt PC's.

"The reason that Apples still come with a one button mouse is because their OS interface is designed to be used with a one button mouse, "

Yes, and that's a handicap. It's designed for the lowest common denominator. That's like saying "well my car only has 25 horsepower because it's designed to be used by beginning drivers as well as advanced. If you want to become an advanced driver, put a new engine in the car." I wouldn't buy a Mac because I don't want a computer that's designed to cater to the less computer-savvy people at the expense of utility for the power users.

You never did address Apple's abandonment of technology at the expense of their customer base. Apple has a long history of ignoring what its customers really want in favor of the technology THEY want to make. The IIgs example I gave is a perfect case-in-point. Most home users wanted the Apple II family to continue - it had all the games and was the computer of choice for a family machine at the time. Apple chose to ignore this fact and instead promote the Mac. This permanently pissed off legions of Apple II users and led to the Apple taking a significant back seat to the PC in the home computer market - a downfall from which the company still has not recovered. I find it interesting that the best selling peripheral for the Macintosh LC was the Apple IIe card. Surely a company who listens to and is responsive to their customers desires would have had the sense to see that their customers wanted Apple II's. Apple is clearly not such a company. I prefer to buy products from companies that care about what their customers want rather than forcing what they think the customers should have down the customers' collective throats.

keep it civil boys, or i lock it...

You're original claim was that there were NO stores. That is completely false. Fewer stores would have been accurate.

My point about editing systems is that many people find FCP to be a perfectly acceptible option given that it is tens of thousands of dollars less expensive. Again, the Avid example you gave was a broad generality. I do not argue that FCP is better or even equal to something that is tens of thousands of dollars more expensive. There are many more exclusive software packages that run on all sorts of OS's. It seems to me that pulling out one example from one small type of software that is far out of the range of budget for the vast majority of video production companies cannot be considered relavent proof for anything. There are a whole list of professional software applications that I could list on the mac that do not exist on windows. Does that mean mac is better because of them? Well, just like everything else, it really depends upon your need.

The mouse argument is an old one that comes up every time the mac vs. pc thing is brought up. It is tiring. I know many basic mac users that are perfectly happy with a one button mouse. I wasn't, so I got a different one. It just seems like such a non-reason to base the decision of what computer you would like to buy. Your comparison to the size of engine you get is poorly chosen. The mouse is not the engine to the computer. This is more like getting the option of leather or buttons for your radio on the steering wheel -- important to some people, but not to others.

Again, your claim about the warranty was simply completely false. If you open the case, you do not void the warranty. Don't make stuff up and then expect people to not call you out on it.

As for your argument of them abandoning technology, you are referring to a computer that was out from 1986 - 1992. In technology years, that is ancient history. You know what I was using then? An Amiga -- a computer that, for its day was a wonderful machine. Commadore went out of business, but that doesn't mean that I am jaded because a computer I loved 13 years ago is no longer around.

Again, I don't think your reasoning holds up in today's world. Windows 3.x wasn't even around when the IIGS came out. How can you think that such an example could be used to compare macs to windows? It is common knowledge that Apple went through some pretty tough times in the 90s. The things they are coming out now with are built under completely new leadership, on completely new technology, and in a completely different time. There is simply no parallels that can be drawn from your example to provide any useful commentary on the current state of Apple.

Macs are not the right choice for everyone. They are not the right choice for you. But don't think that you can write clearly inaccurate statements and FUD and not be called out on it.

it's been always been a pissing contest... I've been bill gates' whore since m$ dos... not that i ever paid for any operating systems.

It's what I'm used to and it's what I'm happy with... I think we can all say that about our favorite computing platform. But I do love arguments like these, just remember duels are for gentlemen :)

This is one reason why I wouldn't buy a mac over a pc

http://news.com.com/2100-1046_3-1023167.html?tag=fd_top

Actually, when the apple II family was cut, Steve Jobs and Woz were in charge. Guess who's running apple now? Yep. Jobs is back.

if you wanna talk current examples of Mac vs PC, let's look at the layout of the operating systems. The mac has colored balls in the corner of the window which you press to close, minimize, maximize windows. That's great, until you get a color blind guy using it. Now he's screwed. Hit the red ball? Which one's the red ball? Windows on the other hand uses symbols - something few people couldn't interpret. X means close. the maximize icon looks like a maximized window. the minimize icon looks like a minimized window. Minimize something and it goes to the task bar. Not to the dropdown system menu, but the task bar. Click on the desk top and your application doesn't just disappear so you have to go pull it out of the system menu again. It stays right where it belongs. Don't get me wrong. Macs used to have it all over the PC in user interface (although I'm crotchety enough that I still like a good old fashioned command prompt). Win 3.11 was a vast improvement in PC interface over the previous ones, but it still sucked. Win 95 finally brought the interface up to the level of a mac (and this was met with a lot of derision amongst the PC crowd who still liked dos!) but its stability issues are well known. Now with Win2k, I'll put the OS up against the Mac OS any day of the week. As you pointed out, that's just my opinion.

Please note that I never said Macs are bad computers. The worst accusation I made was that Apple has been known to abandon technology suddenly and without warning. I simply said they cater to a different computer buyer than I, and frankly the majority of computer buyers, are.

Fact 1: Mac's are crap
Fact 2: PC's are far better in every single aspect

That is all.

PC. For all the obvious reasons everyone knows.

I know a guy who had an older iMac. He needed to upgrade it because the video card it had just wasn't cutting it. Lucky for him, he couldn't upgrade the card in the iMac he had, so he was forced to get a new computer.

He looked at the new iMacs, and then looked at PCs. He built a PC bout twice as fast as the iMac he would have bought, and it was about 3/4ths the cost.

PCs are cheaper, more customizable, and once you buy it, you don't have to spend hundreds of more dollars to get what you want (Floppy drive, new mouse, etc...).

Honestly I can't say a whole lot to argue the point of Mac vs PC, because I honestly do not know a whole lot about Macs. All I know is that every time I've touched one I've wanted to run for my life. I'm a PC user through and through and will never consider using a Mac for any purpose, because I know that anything a Mac can do a PC can do at least just as well, no matter what people claim, because I have seen the numbers.

"the mac god" I wasn't intending to suggest you were implying apple invented it, just pointing out that microsoft did (partly).

From what i can see the 98 233 Bondi Blue iMac came out in august 98, Windows 98 came out in july 98, perhaps I'm missing something, but why is it the iMac made the USB standard (especially since apple werent a founding member, and microsoft were and w98 was out before )?

On top of that USB first appeared in windows 95 in September 1996, two years before the release of the bondi iMac.

Unless I misunderstood what you were saying, or the release time of the bondi Imac.

darn angle brackets..

What matters in the end is personal preference. I actually don't give a shit if some guy gets a few extra fps in quake. As long as I prefer using a Mac, that's what I'll use. If you haven't used a recent version of both PC and Macs, or even NEVER owned or extensively used both platforms, then IMHO you're in no position to objectively comment. People are naturally defensive about their choices - if their choices are attacked, so are they by extension.

Who cares anyway? Arguing about PCs vs Macs is like arguing religion. Neither side will admit defeat (and even usually even refuse to coexist). I'll continue to use both my PC and my Mac and the rest of ya can do whatever the hell you like too ;)

I must be the only one I know who has actualy "switched" a rabid mac user to pc. I just sat next too him at our college while he was using a mac laptop and I was using a windows one. He was always complaining about microsoft and pc:s and I wasn't realy botherd since it was a apple using school and I heard this every day. We had some projects togheter and I could always find the programs we needed for my comp and when he couldn't he'd have to work on mine, I guess that's what got him off the fear of the "horribly hard to work with" windows interface. After the winter holidays he came back with a compaq laptop and asked if he could borrow my softwarediscs.

His only comment to his 'switch' was: "Macs are for children and people who aren't realy intressted in computers." Although those aren't my words I can see how he's thinking.

So his complaint was that he couldn't find enough warez for Macs? :D Just didn't know where to look.... ;)

horses for courses though. Your friend's support base (ie: you) used windows. If the people around you use windows, it'll be easier to find people who can help you out on that system.

I've had just about the opposite experience. Everything I could do on my PC, I found an equivalent or better app on the Mac - particularly on the A/V side of things. Better is perhaps too harsh a word. I just like them better.

Oh, and I'll challenge your friend's comment too.. I'm not a child, and I'm pretty sure I'm interested in computers, given that I'm working in web design, and spend almost every waking hour on my home computer. Actually maybe I didn't want to admit that.

Right. I'm stopping now. I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this debate. Y'all use what you want, you hear?

interesting...I guess I'm the only person who would be sad if Adobe left my platform.

It's not like they're dumping a majorly needed product. When you think that an average port costs upwards of $20000, you can see why they don't want to do it. And it's not like anyone pays for anything windows, anyway. Hell, my friend (who is a PC user) has had his computer for 3 years and only bought one game out of like 50 he has. Me, I've bough every single one I play.

As of 7/9/03 the poll has PC at 60% and Mac at 36%. Interesting numbers considering that Apple only has 3-4% market share.

I use a PC for everyday work and play. It can be a real pain in the ass sometimes, but so can the Mac. I'm growing weary of Microsoft's attempts to control everything happening on my machine. Apple seems to give you choices. I like the fact that OSX is UNIX _and_ can run all the great graphics and video applications from Adobe, etc. Linux can't.

I'm selling off a bunch of PC equipment to buy a laptop and I think I'll go with a PowerBook. Windows and Mac are relatively interoperable at this point (I have a G4 at home which plays nicely with 2000 Server and XP). Macs might cost a bit more but you know the compatibility will be there.

Anyway, use whatever gets the job done but I'd like to see Microsoft take more hits from Linux and Mac to keep MS on their toes.

Macs are overpriced, incapable, incompatible pieces of shit. Sure you can go and buy a digital cam for your Mac and know it will work... but what if the 2 that are compatible with Macs don't have the features you want/need? As a PC user, I know I can get all the features I need out of a piece of hardware, and not have to make sacrifices so it's compatible with my system.l

And which features are those? I've yet to find a Mac compatible camera that can't do what I want it to do. I'm not claiming to be a guru or anything, but if you're going to call something an overprices blah blah piece of shit, explain it in detail so you have a base to stand on.