thephuse

I was pretty much set on buildin myself a nice pc... but a few of my friends have decided to get a mac for college instead of a pc....

what are the pros and cons of each?... Why am i not supposed to like mac again? ....

__________________
b000yahed up your w000pah!!

Joygasm~!!

TheDave87

Im pretty much a mac fan myself. Ive used windows for roughly 10 years now, ever since 1994, and have just recently made the switch to mac OS 10.3 (Panther). Macs are less susceptible to viruses, and spyware, and are incredibly compatible with windows, and their servers are even serving active directory environments. Also, the hardware doesnt need upgraded as often as a PC. As ive said in other posts, my 333mhz laptop with 320 mb of ram is running the latest Mac OS, and is running it faster than it ran older versions of Mac OS like 9.2.2. Also, the whole thing with OS X being based on BSD is pretty cool. The Mac might cost a little more up front, but i think that you get more speed and bang for your buck as well as a machine that doesnt need constant upgrading and OS maintenance.

__________________
Honk if you've never seen an uzi fired from a car window!

SecretMethod70

If youre debate is strictly between Windows on the PC or OSX on the Mac, I'd go with the Mac. Better OS, and the hardware is fine with it as well. Just don't plan on playing a *ton* of games (although they're out there)

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Redjake

PC (With Windows)
Pros: Easy to use, you probably already know how to use it. Easy to do more advanced stuff quicker. WAY more bang for your buck than Macs. I mean WAY more. The above person that mentioned that Macs have more bang for your buck is (not to be rude) sorely mistaken. For the price of a good Mac I could build the best PC in the neighborhood. And it would run so much faster. And you can store more information. It's not Apple's fault, it's just that there are more manufacturers for PC parts, so naturally, they are cheaper. Did I mention they were cheaper? Also, depending on your skill with PCs in general, I've found that you can just do stuff FASTER all around in Windows. Copy files, navigate through folders, move files, all that stuff.

Cons: Susceptable to virii and trojan horses and spyware and all that crap. Not sure what the big deal is though. I've never got a virus, trojan horse, or any major spyware/adware issues. Not as big of a deal as people make it out to be. Maybe it's just me. Worth mentioning: Some say PCs aren't as "stable" as Macs. I've found that it's about the same with both.


Macintosh (running Panther or something)
Pros: Easy to use interface than can be learned in weeks (or less). Simple-yet-effective operating system that makes everything streamline and hassle-free. Aesthetically, definitely top notch. Good designs here. Umm...that's about all the pros.

Cons: EXPENSIVE EXPENSIVE EXPENSIVE. I know I sound like Steve Balmer here but I mean damn, these things are expensive. It's because you can't just make a Mac. The only guys that make it is Apple. So they have to charge the dough. If everyone could make Apple parts and whole computers and all that the prices would go down. But right now they are abominably steep. And college students like me don't have that much to spend on a computer. Second issue: These things don't perform as good as an equivalently-priced PC. I don't care what the Mac fanboys say, they just don't perform as well. Why? Because they aren't as fast! Simple as that. Not as much RAM, not as much processing power, not as much hard drive space. Any other question? The biggest con of all: If you are into advanced stuff or "interesting computing" (ask me via PM if you don't know what I'm talking about) or anything like that you are fucked. It's just the complicated stuff that Macs fall short on. The shit I pull with my PC is light years ahead of what I can do with a Mac. If you are into editting movies and running Photoshop and typing papers and surfing the web, get a Mac. If you are going to do things that aren't always legal (but of course not necessarily illegal, mods) then maybe a PC is the better route. I'll explain in detail, like I said, via PM if you want. That's my two cents

__________________
Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

Locobot

If you're going to major in art (graphic arts, design, etc.) or journalism then I'd recommend a Mac. Otherwise you're probably better off going with a PC. If money's not a problem go Mac.

TheDave87

Redjake, what was the last Mac OS you used? And as far as the price goes, a Mac will outlast any PC you build. Like I said above, my 333mhz laptop runs the newest OS, and it also runs 85% of the newest applications out there. Lets see a 333mhz PC do that. Also, as far as "interesting computing", OS X is based on Unix, so damn near anything the Unix/Linux guys can do, we can do too (kismet, airsnort and the like). And also, if for some reason you do need to run Windows, just get Virtual PC. Overall, the price of a Mac is more, but you'll build 2 new PCs before you need a new Mac

__________________
Honk if you've never seen an uzi fired from a car window!

Lasereth

This is an urban legend that doesn't exist anymore. PC's run graphical editing programs just as well as Macs. They have a wider selection of art/video/graphic arts programs as well.

I've installed Windows XP on a 166 MHz computer with 64 MB of RAM. That's not a valid argument...my 400 MHz K6-2 runs Windows XP Pro as good as my 1.8 GHz Athlon XP. The only thing that those computers won't run is games, and niether will the Mac you mentioned. The only reason you'd build two PC's before you need a new Mac is if you're a gamer...and that's understandable. It doesn't really matter, since PCs are so much cheaper than Macs that building two would still save ya money.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

brandon11983

As an ex Windows user, I feel the need to chip in. I know this has been said countless times, but with as much money Microsoft "makes" on their product, you would think that it would at least be worth a shit. I call it the Mir space station of OS's. Since I've switched to Mac, I've stopped keeping track of all the security flaws, but I wouldn't be at all shocked to hear its over 100.

With OS X, one need not worry about such things. To me, Panther is just a much "smarter" OS. The thing just works. I like that I can move files in use freely without an interruption. I can move a song thats playing in iTunes from my download directory to my MP3's folder with no interruption of playback or wacky Windows "what the hell do I do" message. I will concede that they are slower, but my 1.25G PowerBook G4 runs Photoshop, Final Cut, iTunes, and many other apps simultaneously with no trouble. I've found a decent enough selection of games. They are more expensive, but well worth it in my opinion.

__________________
Well behaved women rarely make history.

rubicon

There is another thread on this same topic. My two cents...

If you don't need any PC-specific software, and you have the funds, get a Mac.

Mac hardware outlasts PC hardware - an older Mac will boot and run pretty well. Windows XP on a Pentium III 600 mostly sucks, so there is no argument that old PC hardware runs as well.

I've found OS X to be more intuitive and easy. No messing with drivers - it just works and nicely at that.

You can run UNIX commands without having to install Cygwin or load other software to do the same thing under Windows.

If you don't go Mac, go with Linux. However, it's not as easy to maintain a Linux system compared to Windows or Mac. (No need for comments from the Linux users - installing an app under OS X is as simple as dragging in a single .APP file - no "make install" to mess with).

__________________
How you do anything is how you do everything.

Lasereth

What the hell computers are you guys using? My K6-2 400 MHz ran Windows XP as good as my 1.8 GHz Athlon XP. Hell, it ran every program in Windows XP (sans games) just as good as this PC. If you're using a PIII 600 MHz with Windows XP and it's running slow, then something is fucked up. I have XP installed on a 166 MHz PC and it runs fine. Saying that running Windows XP on a 600 MHz PC "mostly sucks" is a biased statement. There's gotta be something wrong with that computer. That POS K6-2 I mentioned has 128 MB of RAM and it's still as fast as my 1.8 GHz with 768 MB of RAM.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

evilbeefchan

Which of the current bunch of "budget priced" desktop pc's would be the best for a graphic design student like myself? As long as it's got at least a 60gb hard-drive, between 512mb-1gb of ram, a nice monitor, and the obligatory cd burner and accessible usb ports for saving projects and assignments, what else would I need?

Off topic: Is there much of a difference in performance between the 1.6ghz and 1.8 ghz 17" imacs?

powerclown

Exactly. Macs are the standard-issue computers in these and other 'creative' work environments. And not much place else.

bendsley

Just what parts exactly, aside from processor/motherboard do you think are really all that different? The parts are the same, memory, hdd, optical drives (aside superdrive), floppy, network, etc..... The thing about apple is that they require a specific processor architecture that isn't x86.

__________________
"You hear the one about the fella who died, went to the pearly gates? St. Peter let him in. Sees a guy in a suit making a closing argument. Says, "Who's that?" St. Peter says, "Oh, that's God. Thinks he's Denny Crane."

Pragma

It honestly depends on cost (how much you're willing to spend) and how many new games you want to play. Anything else is negotiable.

he_haha

If you want an annoying computer that will not open 2 programs within one hour then I'd recommend a Mac. Otherwise, go with a PC

I use both Macs and PCs on a daily basis. PC wins hands down. Remember XP isnt the only operating system that can be used on a PC.

Bossnass

I have recently looked into it and as a student with my limited budget, if I was to buy a new computer tomorrow, it would be a PC system. I can get a pretty decent system while being unable to afford an entry level mac. It fits my needs and budget.

This is why I wanted to chime in. Since my laptop died, my primary computer is a PIII-600 running XP. I initally put XP on it (up from 98) for ease of networking, although I don't see a reason to switch back. The only performance problem I have is a printer spooling delay. I run Firefox, a couple coding developments, most Office applications, etc, without delay. Photoshop takes a few seconds to load, but it also does on a 3.4 ghz machine with a gig of ram. Well, sometimes Maple makes it think for a few seconds, but I think that will happen on any system.

Willravel

This was begging for a Mac/PC war. I appreciate those who didn't let the war get the best of them. The bottom line is what do you want the computer to do?

Do you like gaming? You probably should go with a quick PC. You like graphics, cgi, internet? Go with a Mac. Do you want to do programming? PC. Do you want it to look really good? Mac. Do you want to spend a small amount of money? PC. Do you want to edit or create video or audio? Mac. Do you have plenty of money to throw at it? Toss up. Do you require the most stable OS? Mac. Do you want the most common OS? PC. Do you want a fast computer? PCs and Macs have models that can go faster than most people will ever need. There is no "faster computer". I've seen a modified G5 tower keep up with the best Alienware has to offer.

Commom myths:
Macs don't have any games.
PCs are all cheap.
Macs aren't as fast.
PCs are just for gamers.
Macs are all expensive (see the minimac thread).
You have to chose one side or the other.
Mac will go out of buisness.

AngelicVampire

The minimac is expensive, once you upgrade it to semi-decent levels it gets really quite expensive.

For general usage a PC or a Mac will both do what you want, for artsy stuff Macs are traditionally better however PCs have all of the same software nowadays and it runs well. Basically it comes down to what you want to do, PCs are generally cheaper especially if you are willing to do a little custom work and build stuff from components. Macs are good machines and are supposedly better looking, personally I dislike the Mac look however its personal preference.

At the end of the day I would say PC for flexibility, you can run windows for games and things like photoshop and switch to a linux or unix distribution for really low level stuff. In additiona upgrading a PC takes a few component swaps, generally upgrading a Mac replaces the computer.

I have XP home running on a 500Mhz PIII and it runs fine, runs photoshop and image editing stuff well. Ok games are not going to run on this machine terribly well if modern however it runs a lot of older stuff and acts for image editing fine. Of course a faster machine would be faster but its pretty irrelavent. A Mac running at 1.25Ghz will be roughly equivalent to what a 2Ghz P4, however you can get much faster...

Basically its a free choice, both are good however I would tend to side with a PC.

mwscircle

Both is awesome I recommend having a PC desktop and a Mac laptop because G5 is just insane in $$ haha

__________________
Case closed ®

brandon11983

I always love a good ol' Mac/PC holy war. Mac people will never see the PC viewpoint, and vice versa. I as a Mac user, will never understand why the PC people cling to those antiquated machines. I could care less what a Mac costs in comparision to a PC. I use Mac because they work the way I want, I can move files around faster than what can be done on PC, and any software I would need to use on PC is available on Mac. It just makes sense.

__________________
Well behaved women rarely make history.

Coppertop

And I use a PC because I game. It just makes sense.

BoCo

Not only can you build a PC to your specific needs, you can very easily upgrade them without having to buy a brand-new one. You can't just pop open a Mac and toss in a new mobo and CPU and be done with it. Keep in mind that once the initial expense of building the PC is over with, they're extremely easy and cheap to upgrade any individual component to whatever you please. Want a 32x quadruple-layer, blue laser DVD burner or a 128-bit, 5GHz CPU? The day they come out, you can buy one and pop it in in a few minutes. Try that with a Mac!

__________________
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

Willravel

My Mac (eMac, 1GHz G4, 1Gb RAM) has a custom graphics card (ATI X800, w/ 16 pipelines!!!). It took me more than a few minutes, but my comp can easily handle what the average gamer plays.

You can modify any computer on the market right now. You may only know how to mod a PC, but that doesn't mean it's the only computer to mod. I'm typing on your busted myth.

BoCo

Double your CPU speed tomorrow morning. Betcha can't! Nor can you overclock your current CPU, switch motherboards, toss in 3 more hard drives, etc. You may be able to mod them, but it's nothing like what you can do to a PC.

__________________
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

merkerguitars

Yeah but a mac mobo and processor will last way longer than any normal off the shelf pc parts.

__________________
Donate now! Ask me How!

Please use the search function it is your friend.

Look at my mustang please feel free to comment!

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=26985

Willravel

Don't need to replace my CPU or overclock it. It's never hit anywhere near it's max. Motherboard switching is unnecessary, it's the best motherboard. I can toss in a hard drive in a matter of minutes. I can switch the motherboard or the CPU if I wanted to, but I don't really need to. It'd take me a day and a half to do the CPU upgrade from g4 to g5. Macs come ready for most stuff, though. Modification to a Mac is different than modification to a PC beacuse it is usually not as necessary.

Pragma

Not to add fuel to the flames, but exactly what proof of that do you have? I have the same motherboard and CPU in my PC I've been using for the past five years - runs flawlessly.

Either way, the only difference in whether you should go with a Mac or a PC is how many new games you want to play. Everything else (yes, everything) is negotiable.

BoCo

I didn't say "a" hard drive, I said 3. I could easily run 10 hard drives in my case if I was crazy enough to want to, as I'm not limited by my mobo or my case's internal configuration.

__________________
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

Willravel

So what about a Mac tower? You can add video cards and hard drives to your hearts content. You are only as limited as your case. The G5 tower is plenty large enough to make modifications simple. How many hard drives can you fit in your tower versus a G5 tower? I'd imagine they're just about even. http://macmod.com/content/view/171/2/ shows the G5 tower with 10 hard drives, same as you mentioned (myth busted beyond repair). Four hard drives in front of the main processor fans, two above the opticaldrive, two in the hard drive bay, and two in the PCI slot area.

It is a common myth that Macs cannot be modified. No matter how common a myth is, that still doesn't change the fact that it's still a myth.

brandon11983

PC modding is a type of small man syndrome gone wrong. Most people will never even come close to using all their precious clock speed anyway. Higher demands aren't really being placed on the system. Aside from your precious games of course... We Mac people don't really get too fussy about upgrading our systems because we don't really have a need to. If its necessary, it can be done without any trouble at all. Pick up any Mac magazine and you'll find a plethora of available upgrades in the back.

__________________
Well behaved women rarely make history.

irseg

Here's my analogy of Mac/PC people:

PC enthusiasts are like Camaro/Mustang guys. The underpinnings are often low-tech, the cars are generally considered rather unattractive, but given the proper modifications they can blow the doors off most other cars out there. And such mods are popular, cheap, and pretty easy to implement. They tend to not care as much as how their cars look, in fact some of them are proud of tearing up the streets in some 15 year old primer-covered monstrosity. Given a $3000 budget, they'd most lilkely spend it on a supercharger.

Mac enthusiasts come across as the Honda-driving ricer types. They brag that their cars are more modern, reliable, and make all their power through superior technology. It doesn't matter that they're only putting out 130hp, the point is it's accomplished with the help of variable valve timing and such. And that's beside the point anyway, because they're primarily concerned with how cool it looks, which they try to accomplish through things like neon underbody lights, giant wings, stickers all over the place, etc. Superficial appearance far more important than how fast it'll go--they'd spend $3000 on a body kit to make their '92 Civic look like a Supra.

Willravel

Your analogy started off so well. I was noddding my head all through the American muscle section relating to PCs. I wouldn't change a thing about the first paragraph. Well done.

As far as the second paragraph...You can relate Mac enthusiasts better to strudel rocket drivers (German made cars). Why? Well expense for one. A great deal of what defines Macs image has to deal with price. Obviously, Mac is pretty expensive. So is Mercedes or BMW. When someone says, "I bought a new BMW", or "I just bought a new Mac", usually you might think this person has a lot of money to invest. Market share for two. Mac has a total of about 2% of the market overall (including buisness and such, not just home PCs). Mercedes and BMW have very similar market shares. Third we have style. I know not everyoner likes how Macs look, but you get the impression that they put more effort into looking really good than other computer companies. They also usually lead the market in inovative style. Recently, we've seen Asian and American cars take a stylistic turn towards European style engineering. The Ford Focus and the Chevy Cobalt are evidence enough of that. Fourth, is an arguable point. Quality. General consensus on the higher quality of Macs vs. other computers or quality of BMWs vs. other cars is debatable. I would dare to say that they strive for excelence more than just average. Mercedes and BMW are designed for the Autobahn, the world renowned highway system in Germany. The Autobahn requires a higher qhailty in order to allow the higher speeds and performance. BMW and Mercedes have to design to that. Mac is the same thing. They have an OS that is unique to it's own company. That's a really big deal. Dell would or could nevewr do something like that. They are as much a slave to Windows as you or me. Even the lower end Macs do perform pretty well. The upper end Macs qualitfy as supercomputers.

Now there are exceptions to every rule. There are plenty of great American cars. The Vette and Viper are really amazing machines. They can keep up with Porsches, upper end Mercedes, and upper end BMWs for the most part. So what's the difference? More German cars are of higher quality and price. Of all the German car companies - Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Opel, Porsche, Volkswagen - even the cheapest cars are more expensive and of a higher quality than the bottom of America's barrel.

You can't compare Macs to pocket rockets because you don't see very many people modifying Macs with vesigal parts. There is no Mac equivilant to the cheap body kit or ground efffects. German cars are the least likely (besides Italian cars) to be modified. Macs are the least likely computers to be modified.

I rest my case.

Jesus Pimp

Well they're both PCs but whatever. I own and enjoy using both. I have a nice AMD based system for my design and web production work and games. I also own a 12" powerbook for leisure web surfing, email, presentations to clients etc.

PC pros: Cheaper, more hardware and software choices, games. Better multitasking. Adobe and Macromedia apps run better on PCs.

PC cons: PC laptops might have higher specs but they are fucking heavy and ugly.

Mac pros: Easy and fun to use, stylish, great for editing video and music, unix based. Nice laptops.

Mac pros: Overpriced for what you get, limited hardware and software choices, shitty file management system.

__________________
Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

killeena

My 500MHZ imac ran like butt with OSX 10.2. OS 9.1 was much faster. I got so sick of it, I got rid of it, and installled Linux. Now it runs like a top.

Personally, I am a fan of PC. Not only is it cheaper, but it is also cheaper to upgrade. As far as I know, you can't just order a new cpu/mobo/RAM combo for the Mac.

__________________
Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices. - Theodor Adorno

Willravel

I think I helped to scare thephuse away. Sorry man. I didn't mean to threadjack. What programs and uses will you need your computer to address? You said your friends are all starting college, are you joining them? What is your major? It might be best if you were specific about your needs.

merlin

yea, what happened to the thread starter? haha

I got in a little late, but here's my spare change:
I like macs because they look really nice. Apple does a great job on every design to make it minimalistic but functional. Just look at the ipod. Also, Apple is able to do amazing stuff with their hardware, like sqeezing them into tiny enclosures (think, Mac Mini)
However, i must side with the pc when it comes to most other things. First off, they are more popular, more companies make them, and therefore they are cheaper. And because they are more popular, more companies write software for them. Upgrading is also easier, because pc innards are in pretty much standard configurations. That is also a downside, because companies aren't as able to play around with shapes and miniturization. It's tough to have the best of both worlds.

It all really comes down to personal preference. Whichever you are most use to is probably the way you want to go (unless you feel adventurous). Either way, both types of machines will be able to perform the tasks you want it to do.

rubicon

I stopped using Windows and switched over to Mac full-time. I've since nuked my XP install and installed Mandrake 10 running as a server.

I'm a full-time IT consultant and all of my clients run Windows networks. I also manage web development projects, mostly Linux based. In either case, I found that *NIX-based network management and development tools are consistent and already in the OS. This applies to Mac as well as any Linux distro.

As for Windows, I got tired of installing a myriad of third-party apps to do the same thing I could already do with a *NIX box. Here's what I found in my saga of Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows.

From an application point of view, Mac has as much software as Windows. Commercial software such as Quicken, Office, Adobe products, etc. There isn't a single piece of software (even for my Palm) that doesn't have a corresponding Mac version. OK, I'm sure someone will point out a piece of software but I think you get the point.

Linux on the other hand...well you've got Gimp, OpenOffice, and a nice array of built-in software. I've found most of it kicks ass, however you're learning all over again. Unless you want to mess around with WINE or CrossoverOffice, Linux isn't a seamless transition from Windows nor does it support any of the commercial software.

Windows has games galore. Although I'm finding many a new game on the Mac platform as well as Windows. It's pointless bashing on Windows, it does that well enough on its own. It works and most people get it because it comes bundled with every x86 compatible box.

Hardware upgrading is largely a myth. Well, not a myth exactly but it's what we say to convince ourselves that we can somehow eek out another generation of use from our computers. Sure, I could pop out my Athlon XP 2000+ and install the latest Athlon XP chip. However, my mobo won't support a 64-bit Athlon chip. The FSB is only 333, not 400. Sure, I could rip out the mobo and deal with re-installing XP but that's not "upgrading" it's called a "ground up restoration." Seldom are restorations an inexpensive or time-saving project once you've bought that new $300 video card, two new SATA hard drives running in a RAID, your new 1 GB of FSB 800 RAM, or whatever else you fancy.

In all, I found the Mac to be hassle-free, based on a familiar *NIX OS, and compatible with everything I need to do.

Who cares if you can build a screaming PC for $2000 and the equivalent Mac costs $3000? Some people can afford it, others can't, or choose to save that extra $1000. Whatever. It doesn't matter to anyone but your own wallet and feelings of self-importance. (no offense)

As a PC-to-Mac/Linux convert, I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about.

__________________
How you do anything is how you do everything.

Willravel

Good post, Rubicon. I'd still like to know what happened to the poor soul who started this. I'd probably be hiding somewhere. Of course, it's possible that he wanted to start a Mac/Windows rumble the likes o which we've never seen. Either way, I'm curious to see what he thinks.

brandon11983

I would venture to say this is largely unfounded. Clock speed is not apples to apples when you are talking G4 vs x86 processors. There is just as much hardware available for Mac as there is for PC, you just might not know it. Same with software. And the OS X file management system is light years ahead of NTFS or (gasp!) FAT32.

__________________
Well behaved women rarely make history.

rubicon

One of my clients provided some interesting insight from a PC user perspective. He told me that Mac software is harder to find but couldn't provide any examples. Then he mentioned that Mac software was more expensive, again no examples.

I gave him some examples of common software available on both platforms and the identical price. Then he said what he was really thinking about... He said he can't just "download software for free" for the Mac, as compared to Windows.

I learned two things from this:

1) His knowledge about Macs was out of date (rewind the clock about 5-10 years and he might have been correct); I venture to guess many people's knowledge about Macs is based on old information

2) Pirating commercial software was a reason for using Windows

In odd contrast, he felt that using a Mac is easier than Windows. For some, Mac vs. PC is an issue of value. For others it's strictly financial.

__________________
How you do anything is how you do everything.