eh.. Mac? PC?
 

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? :p ....

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.

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)

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 :)

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.

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

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

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.

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).

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

People are very quick to attack Mac. Arguments like:
1. No games
2. no software in general
3. no one uses them
4. They aren't compatable with PCs
5. You can't modify them
6. They aren't as fast
7. Difficult to use

When I ask for examples, suddenly the conversation ends. Did you notice how Boco didn't respond to my post with the G5 tower fitting 10 hard drives? He was sure that Macs couldn't be modified, but I showed him an example. This is how most of my conversations go.

I think this summs it up quite nicely. Macs can be modified. Macs have plenty of games and various software. Macs do have a rising market share. Macs are highly compatable with Windows. Macs are quite fast. Mac's interface is user friendly and simple.

On the other side of the fence, PCs are not all unstable.

1. No games

Say, where can I pick up a version of BF1942 or Doom 3 for Macintosh?

2. no software in general

When things like new P2P apps come out, it's pretty much invariably on Windows or Linux. I have NEVER encountered a cool new program and then said "aww crap, that sucks, it only runs on Mac!"

3. no one uses them

According to http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1745930,00.asp Macs have 2.7% of the market as measured by online usage. That's behind Linux at 3.1%. So yeah, essentially no one uses them.

4. They aren't compatable with PCs

When I make a website I need to see how my pages render in IE since it has ~90% market share. Whoops! Can't do it. Nor can I drop a random Windows CD in and install whatever I want. Sure there are emulators, but they don't have the same performance as a natively-run program.

5. You can't modify them

- Apple maintains a stranglehold on hardware and software (not that this is necessarily a bad thing, since the idea is to ensure consistent & reliable operation) which limits the number of available products.

-They have a very low market share, which means there are less companies interested in supporting them in the first place.

-Among the people who DO buy Macs, a very large amount of them them just want a cute conversation piece.

Those 3 things make it much more difficult and impractical to modify a Mac.

6. They aren't as fast

Sure there are fast Macintoshes, but in most all cases a PC at the same price point will be faster.

7. Difficult to use

This one's too subjective. I'm sure I'd have a hard time finding my way around a Mac for a while, just like a Mac user would be put off by Windows or Linux at first.

Great, another chance to prove someone wrong. I take no pleasure in this.
www.apple.com store has BF1942 (Secret Weapons and Delux). I played Doom 3. I'd rather keep it off Mac. Even though, I watched the trrailer for the Mac version at the Mac Expo in San Francisco. It's on it's way. Halo on Mac is a lot of fun, too. Will:1

I'm downloading Tears of the Sun from Acquisition right now. Limewire is also a very famous Mac p2p. The idea is not that Mac has stuff that PCs don't it is simply that everything you do on a PC you can do on a Mac. Will:2

Apple's market share is bigger than BMW's or Mercedes's or Porsche's in the automotive market. What's wrong with being BMW or Mercedes? 2.7% also takes into account computer sales en masse. If no one uses them, Mac would be out of buisness. Apple's market is at about 5% in the U.S. and 3% worldwide. no score

Why can't you see how your pagers render in IE? Mac has had IE for years. You can drop in an installer CD with an emulator, because it does not require gobs of processing power. The only time emulators run into trouble is with complicated apps like games. Will:1

Number 3 is disqualified because of it's subjective, disrespectful nature. It only takes one company making parts for Mac in order for you to modify your Mac. I modified my Mac with an aftermarket part from ATI. You can modify them. Will:1

Did I mention price? The G5 modified can keep up with an Alienware tower. I'll find you the site if you need, but if you know Macs, you won't need it. Will:1

Why not try? If you go to an Apple store and put your hand to the mouse, you'll be able to figure it out for yourself.

www.apple.com store has BF1942 (Secret Weapons and Delux). I played Doom 3. I'd rather keep it off Mac. Even though, I watched the trrailer for the Mac version at the Mac Expo in San Francisco. It's on it's way. Halo on Mac is a lot of fun, too. Will:1

Well that's cool, I didn't know BF1942 was available. But Doom 3 is one of the most popular games our there and "I'd rather keep it off Mac" is not even close to a valid justification for it not being supported.

I'm downloading Tears of the Sun from Acquisition right now. Limewire is also a very famous Mac p2p. The idea is not that Mac has stuff that PCs don't it is simply that everything you do on a PC you can do on a Mac. Will:2

Limewire's been out for like 4 years, runs on Java if I remember correctly (meaning it's one of the relatively few programs that are universal by nature), and sucks ass compared to other apps I've used. I'm sure you can do most everything you can in a Mac--it's just that you don't get the same kind of extensive software development and widespread support on a platform that holds less than 3% of the market, which means Macs get less new, cool stuff.

Bad analogy. First, being uncommon doesn't necessarily mean it's any good: "Apple's market share is bigger than Yugo's or Daewoo's was in the automotive market. What's wrong with being Yugo or Daewoo?"

Second, BMW and Mercedes run on the same gasoline and roads that any other car does. You don't have special BMW roads and run it on special BMW gasoline. There's nothing wrong with a specialty passenger car only having a small market share because it's just as versatile as any other car since it uses the same infrastructure. Macs aren't.

Why can't you see how your pagers render in IE? Mac has had IE for years. You can drop in an installer CD with an emulator, because it does not require gobs of processing power. The only time emulators run into trouble is with complicated apps like games. Will:1

Yeah, IE5. Verson 6 has been out for years. And if the idea is that Mac is good enough to stand on its own merits and does everything a PC can, etc., etc., it wouldn't need emulators.

Number 3 is disqualified because of it's subjective, disrespectful nature. It only takes one company making parts for Mac in order for you to modify your Mac. I modified my Mac with an aftermarket part from ATI. You can modify them. Will:1

If I'm being "disrespectful" then so is Apple, considering they blatantly market to those types (for instance: the "Switch" commercials). And considering Apple provides you with the capability of swapping out the video card and ATI makes cards for them, that's no more impressive than me saying I modified my car with a Purolator oil filter.

Furthermore I never claimed you can't modify a Mac, just that it's more difficult and impractical since there is far less aftermarket support.

Did I mention price? The G5 modified can keep up with an Alienware tower. I'll find you the site if you need, but if you know Macs, you won't need it. Will:1

Why wouldn't price factor into the equation? Comparing the performance of a Taurus vs. an Accord is valid, since they're the same basic type of car and in the same price range. A Taurus vs. a Ferrari.. well, duh. And BTW, Alienware is like Apple in that you pay a premium to have a stylish computer.

Like I said, I just saw the trailer for the Mac release. It's on it's way. Patience.

Can you be more specific than "sucks ass"? And what about Acquisition? It has the best iTunes integration I've ever seen. I suggest you check it out. There are several other Mac p2p apps like Poisoned.

I wasn't suggesting it was good, I was suggesting that marketshare is relative. A marketshare of 2%-5% does not mean it is doing poorly.Fuel is a poor analogy, actually it'd be better to say it has a differently designed tranny or engine. It's a one time purchase for the OS. So long as your mechanic supports your tranny or engine, it doesn't matter.

What in IE6 do you need that isn't in 5 specifically for your web design? The emulators are there for people who need to use things like IE6, but you should be able to do your work on another browser.

You said "Among the people who DO buy Macs, a very large amount of them them just want a cute conversation piece" that not only disrespects those who own Macs (like myself), it is completly untrue of almost all Mac owners. The ATI X800 is aftermarket (and it's a shitload of a lot faster than the 9200 that my comp comes with). It is a modification using an aftermarket part to improve the performance of my system. I could have just as easily used a gforce. If you were to upgrade your processor from the stock Athlon to a new thunderbird, would that mean it doesn't count?


Macs are more expensive, I was only talking about speed. Price does not factor into speed alone. I was talking purely about computer performance compared to other computers. If you were to compare ford to ferrari, you'd compare the gt500 to the enzo, the two fastest cars from each company. I was cvomparing the fastest from each side, Macs was a modified G5 and PCs is arguabally an Alienware comp.

1. No games
There are games but most of the them are ports of PC games.

2. no software in general
There's plenty just not as much.

3. no one uses them
Designers, filmmakers, etc..etc..

4. They aren't compatable with PCs
You can share files but no programs.

5. You can't modify them
Sure you can. Just takes more effort.

6. They aren't as fast
Dual G5 are pretty damn fast.

7. Difficult to use
The gui is so easy it's not funny. It takes no effort to transition from windows to mac os. Mac to PC is another story.

I know I'm coming into this late but can't you (willravel) just cool your jets and concede that PC users (like myself) are happy with their choice, and Mac users (like you and a few others) are happy with your choice.

It's been stated (and overlooked TWICE) by Pragma that the only REAL TANGIBLE difference is the fact that if you want to game, go with a PC. Everything else is negotiable.

There's no need to start a totally pointless back and forth.

I would never say anything ill about PCs, but I am loyal to Macs so I am dissapointed when people say that "Macs suck". I am totally fine with people buying PCs (I've owned a few myself). I never incite the argument, but I usually end it. People constently question why I love Macs, so I have to tell them. Usually they tell me things like Macs have no games and such, and I have to explain to them that isn't true anymore. This is an extension of that conversation. I'd like to be able to tell people I use a Mac without them questioning my sexuality or saying I wasted my money. I am very happy with my investment. The thing is, the original poster asked which he should get and the pros/cons of each. Then people (I'm sure you an figure out which) come in with the outdated info. I don't want the outdated myths to spread, so I post to prevent Mac-ignorance.

Im going to have to agree with Ace_O_Spades here and say that it comes down to personal choice.

However, just as a point to ponder and I dont want to flare up an entirely different argument (Although I probably will). Perhaps if Macs were indeed as versatile and effective as PC's they would command a similar market share as PC's. I dont claim to know, I only thought of that while my mind wandered.

I have to agree that it all comes down to personal choice. And let's face it, the Mac and PC competing with each other is good because it keeps both platforms innovating, which is good for all of us. :D

Homie_V, it could be as simple as the market taking a long time to shift. For a time, Macs were innefective and poorly manufactured. After Windows came out, and buisnesses started investing in buying them (because Windows supporting computers were cheaper than Macs, thus beginning the price bridge), and Mac suddenly couldn't keep up. They struggled for about 7 or 8 years. Then Steve Jobs returned as CEO and the iMac came out. The idea was that Mac was too late to try and compete in the professional market, so they decided to try and tackle the personal home/creative professional market. In those markets they currently have a 10% and 50% market share respectively (thanks to the iMac, Powerbook, iBook, and espically the iPod). The Mac servers that came out are growing in popularity, but they will need something totally new and innovative that makes them better, and cheaper than PC servers to compete directly with companies like Dell. I predict that Macs will take a long tim (if ever) to come back to the marketshare they enjoyed in the late 80s.

If the current trend continues (stock rising, popularity slowly growing, prices of hardware slowly dropping, marketshare slowly growing), we might see Mac get up to a 10% marketshare overall in about 25-30 years.

I was a windows user that recently switched to a Mac and I have to say that I would NEVER think of going back. Mainly, profession would prevent it (Theatrical Designer). Simply put, a lot of sound editing applications DO NOT run on windows. Lighting Design Industry Standards, don't even look. The ones that do run on a windows machine (I have tried damn near all of them) are quite frankly inferior. There are one or two that will get you to near the same level of effectiveness as their mac counterparts, but the price and resource usage are just mind-boggling.

To answer the speed debate, yes, the macs have lower numbers, but Mhz and Ghz are subjective numbers in themselves. My 1.25 Powerbook runs much faster than my 1.8 p4 ever did. Yes information is infact moving slower, but the pipeline is bigger. It is roughly akin to comparing a garden hose and a fire hose. More info to the destination at any one time.

Don't compare to alienware: expensive and over-rated. A custom built machine will generally be cheaper and => the alienware machine.

Thats the nice thing about PCs... cheap and easy to custom build saving assembly money.

AngelicVampire true, but most people do not wish/have time to build their own (I do)

Now as someone that uses both pcs and macs (and once my father's old neXT box...but that's a different story) I must say this...I love them both. Macs can and will run most major OSS apps around (hint: lookup fink). and I personally love the design and the interface. Windows is well meh. I guess for games it's fine.
pc (or mac) with linux is awesome too though :P

A Mazda RX-8 has a differently-designed engine (rotary). A Ford 500 has a differently designed tranny (CVT, no gears). And both of them compose a miniscule percentage of all the cars out there. But they'll still go on the same roads any other car will go. You don't have to stick to driving the Mazda on rotary-compatible roads or else install a "piston engine emulator" that kills a third of your horsepower to go where 95% of cars can travel. That's what I was getting at with the Mac/BMW analogy.

I don't design pages specifically for IE6, but I certainly want to see if I made any mistakes that would affect how it renders under that browser considering that the vast majority of people out there use it. Fortunately anything that renders well under Firefox or previous IE versions will probably be just fine, but it would be rather embarrassing in the event that was not the case.

I used to work in tech support, I've talked to more than enough typical computer owners. I have no problem saying the majority of people who buy PCs got one (and usually the cheapest piece of shit they could find) so they could see what this newfangled "Internet" thing is their kids/grandkids keep talking about, or they need to have one for school/work, or they feel obligated because everyone else has one, etc. That's no insult to the countless people who are knowledgeable about PCs, that's just the truth. Just like how Apple specifically markets to people who think PCs are too complicated, and who want a cool-looking trendy computer that they can show off to their friends. Nothing against you and the many other genuine computer enthusiasts who happen to prefer Macs, it's reality.

The Mac/Windows war will never end, but geez, you've got to admit that Macs have some significant weaknesses. I'm a huge fan of Linux for server applications, whereas everyone else at the company I work for thinks Windows/ASP.NET is the best thing ever.

So I know how it is to be in the minority and frustrated about other peoples' misconceptions. And I enjoy showing off how much traffic even a crappy Linux server can handle, and how everything just friggin' works, and that 99% of the time you can find an free open-source solution to do something that either costs a crapload of money or simply can't be done under Windows. But I'll readily admit that a Linux server is much more of a pain in the ass to set up from scratch compared to a Windows machine with no prior experience, or that it's pretty sad that ACL's are JUST NOW kind of coming into the mainstream under Linux whereas Windows has supported them for years, or that MySQL can't do things like views, stored procedures, etc. that MSSQL has been doing for over half a decade. Every platform has its ups and downs.

I'm sitting here and laughing at how absoltely absurd this thread has become. I mentioned that many people have outdated information about Macs (aka, misinformed) and one of the very next messages mentions you can't buy a game that has been available for the Mac.

In the end, this whole thing comes down to personal preference, your quest for value, and your pocket book. This discussion will never end if people keep coming up the same three comments (you can't expand a Mac, you can't find software X, and there's no games).

Whatever you peeps want to argue about, at least get the facts straight before you start typing.

No disrespect, but really now...

P.S.
I run Azereus on Mandrake and Mac. I run Gimp on Mandrake and Mac. I run Photoshop on Windows and Mac. I run MS Office on Mac, Windows and OpenOffice on Mandrake. I can run Quicken/Quickbooks on Mac.

For the love of god, what obscure pieces of software are the majority of Windows people using that won't run on the Mac. PLEASE - DON'T ANSWER! It's only my inner dialogue trying to find peace. :)

I sold computers to pay my way through highschool and into college (I worked at Radioshack[ugh], Circut City, Fry's, CompUSA, and a few other places). Out of the possibly thousands of Macs I sold, I'd say maybe a dozen were to elderly people. The average person who bought a Mac was a student (late highschool to college). They wanted a machine that was had a simple interface, and could easily cover work, school, and play easily. They did want something that didn't look boring, but it was not as important as capability. I'm sure you didn't recieve help calls from the students because they simply didn't need any help.

Mac's weaknesses come from marketing in the mid 90s and price. Mac can't control who makes software fro them, but they try their best to have their own version that is just as good. The problem I have is that the average person perceives weaknesses where there aren't any. Macs can be modified. I can't tell people that enough. And I always have to prove it to them. It's annoying. Macs do have games. I've been playing Unreal on my comp for years. You yourself were surprised to learn that BF was available on MacOS. It's when others come to me complaining about Mac when I have to bring up the reality.

Give it a few years, I'll bet Mac is able to make something groundbreaking that blows ACL out of the water. It's happened before.

Yeah but even still... Alienware is still a shitty comparison even choosing companies that pre-build PC's

I think a better comparison would be Dell, Gateway, or *shudder* HP

Another thing about games:

Mac may *eventually* have their version of the same games but how long does it take? So they have a version of Doom3 coming out, big deal it's February now. I beat that game back in September. You'll never be able to keep up with the LATEST in computer gaming if you have a Mac. A six month lag is pretty large.

Not every computer user is buying their computer to play games. I own a number of games for Windows and don't play often - too busy with other things. Most of my post-college friends and collegaues don't play games either. And we've got the Console vs. PC platform war. But that's another thread.

Judging a computer by its time-to-market for the latest version of Doom isn't a "litmus test" of its merits and capabilities. It would be interesting to have a moderated discussion of computer platforms _wihout_ the topic of gaming.

I've got some friends at NASA's JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) and they're running UNIX, Mac, and WIndows boxes. Playing games never factors into it. A post-grad at CalTech tells me most of the students run with PowerBooks.

I'm sure we can all find a case for using one platform over another, but in the end, a computer was designed to perform repetitive tasks and crunch numbers. Go ahead and buy a Windows computer to play the latest game. Buy a Mac to get everything else done. :)

Unless gaming happens to be important to you. If you own a computer solely for gaming, nothing else matters. To each his own. No one person can say what's best for another.

I have both a PC (3.0 GHZ, 1gb RAM, 128 ATI) and a Mac (iBook G3 700 for my wife, and most recently a iBook G4 1.2 for myself). I like both platforms a great deal.
My PC blows my iBooks away in terms of speed, responsiveness and my "power needs". I use my PC for some gaming (WoW, Half-Life2), DVD authoring, editing, burning, and some photo editing. I know that my iBook could do photo editing very well, but its hard drive isn't big enough, and I'd really need a G5 to get the speed that I get with my PC. I've found that the superdrives on Macs are rather slow (usually rebadged Sony's = Lite-Ons). I've found it much easier and faster to do DVD stuff on PC without spending a fortune. Sure, I could go pick up Final Cut Pro and the like, but I've found great software for free on the PC side.

My mood is happier when I use my Mac. Its just easier for me to navigate. Weird things don't happen on my Mac that I can't explain like on my PC. I use my iBook for writing papers, reports, general web browsing, music composition and mp3s, and most of my email. I love the clean look and stability of Mac OSX. I know I'm not pushing my iBooks to there limits in terms of power, but I've never had either crash on me. I also really like how OSX handles multitasking. Expose is absolutely awesome. I miss it when I'm on my PC. I'm also a Garage Band junkie. I'm sure there are similar programs for the PC that I haven't tried, but its the easiest music composition software I've used.

In sum, whenever I'm on my Mac, there are things that I miss about my PC, whenever I'm on my PC there are things I miss on my Mac. You can't beat the PC in terms of availability of software, modification support, and affordability. But I'd argue that you can't beat Macs in terms of stability, functionality of OS (e.g. multitasking), style, and bundled applications. It would be hard for me to give up either platform at this point. I don't think that I'd ever buy a Mac Desktop (other than maybe a Mac Mini) because I think they are a hard sell. But, I think the Apple Laptops are among the best on the market.


If you haven't already checked it out, Anandtech.com has a three part series about a hardcore PC users reactions to a Mac. Very interesting reading!

Section 1
Section 2
Section 3

I see Mac as a fun toy to own and PC more as a tool. Truthfully I've never been into Mac though, I haven't used one in the last 2 years but I'm so familiar with PC that it would be hard for me to make the switch, I also think you get much more versatility with PC especially when you compare the prices. I wouldn't mind owning a Mac if I wanted a fancy interface and didn't do 80% of the things I use my PC for.

I am of the opposite opinion here. I see the PC as the potential toy of the bunch and Mac as the tool. If you want to play your little games and such, have a PC, when you need to get something done, Mac. I still don't know what you people are doing on a PC that you claim cannot be done on Mac.

Without being entirely subjective, what about the alternate? What are you people doing on a Mac that you claim cannot be done on a PC? Either way, I use my PCs for gaming, and I use FreeBSD & OpenBSD on x86 hardware on all of my non-gaming rigs. I don't see the use of a Mac for my purposes, though I know a lot of people who own them and are perfectly happy with them. Not for me, I do too much gaming and it's not worth replacing any of my other systems with OSX.

Can you legally use an OSX emulator on your non-Mac computer (x86)?

Yes.. you can legally use emulators, such as I think PearPC lets you emulate a PowerPC on x86 hardware. I'm not entirely sure, though. I've never needed or wanted to emulate an OSX machine.

Yes... why would it be illegal? Dunno if one actually exists however if it does then it would be a legal option. However there is far less need for a PC <- Mac emulator than a PC->Mac emulator as PC holds far more market share.

Basically now adays though both sides can pretty much do what the other side can do... its all down to the small things now.

Remember that comparing to Alienware is silly (Selling a name), purchasing a machine from a big company like Dell would be far better, or even somewhere like mesh... you can basically tell them what you want and they put it in the box for you, its like custom building but slightly more expensive.

That I feel is the killer for Mac, you cannot custom build a machine to you needs (or budget)... just pricing a PC at £3000, similar price to that G5 mentioned in the article so I will see what is put together...

Ok, compared to the stock Dual G5 (2.0GHz) with 512Mb of main memory and a 9600 we are looking at a 4GHz Athlon 64 with 2Gb of Main memory and a 6800 Gt, both with 23" monitors, the PC has a 300GB hard disk and is generally higher speced (not sure how duals compare to single proc systems).

You cannot legally use PearPC just as you cannot legally use Kazaa. It is independantly produced software, and does not pay any money to Apple. The user who copies the MacOS ROM and installs Mac OS X on a non-Apple-branded computer is committing a violation of law. By enabling users to violate the End User License Agreement, PearPC violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Sorry, but Mac emulators are illegal. PC emulators for Mac [ like VirtualPC or Dave) actually do pay money to Windows, so they are legal. As of yet, there are no legal Mac emulators for x86 hardware.

Blah blah buy a Mac if you want it to look cool and buy a PC if you want it cheaper. Let's go argue about AMD vs Intel!

-Lasereth

Quite possibly, because there is no reason for there to be legal Mac emulators. While they do exist, its more likely that they were created simply for the purpose of proving that it could be done, or seeing how difficult it would be. If Im wrong, feel free to correct me. There is no reason to emulate MacOS on an X86 computer since there isnt any applications on a Mac that dont have a PC counter-part, or at least, none that people on a PC would use.

This is incorrect. An emulator, in and of itself, is not illegal. The process of creating the emulator may be illegal (stealing trade secrets or more recently breaking DMCA-protected encryption) and the process of using an emulator may be illegal (using a pirated copy of OSX or Windows is just as illegal whether you do it on an emulator or hardware). You can download an emulator, and buy an OS for it (or legally download older OSes... this used to be possible with Mac OS 7, I think? You could also run FreeDOS or Linux or something on a PC emulator).

The only dangerous area is that emulators will require some form of ROM to run. Most emulators I have seen do not distribute the ROM files, as they are (all, I think?) copyrighted software and that would be illegal. You can (I believe) legally extract a ROM from a machine you own and use that to run your emulator, but obviously most users do not do this, they download an illegal copy of the ROM and use that. But again, this has nothing to do with the legality of emulation.

Bingle

There isn't a single law on earth preventing you from using Kazaa. Now, if you use Kazaa for the purposes of copyright infringement, you can be sued. Entirely different from being illegal to use Kazaa.

I think the original poster is gone, but just in case, I have another thought to add to the discussion.

You said you were going to college - you should take into account that you're going to make new friends there and they're all going to run Windows. You're going to want to run the same software, play the same games on the LAN, and be able to loan your computer to people (read: girls) who want to write their papers at the last minute and stay up all night in your room.

Depending on what you're studying, too, there might be specialized software that you'll need to be able to run. I had a friend in college who majored in CS and was a Mac fanatic. I felt really sorry for him (although that was mostly before OSX, which probably levelled the playing field a bit). If you get the wrong machine for your subject, you're going to have to spend all your time in the lab anyway. This goes both ways, though - if you're majoring in film or art, most of your fellow students will probably have Macs, too, and some software might even require that.

Honestly, I think you're better off getting a cheap Windows box, and saving the money. Unless you play games now, don't even bother getting a good Windows box -save the money and buy upgrades when you know what you want to do with your machine. Maybe you'll be a gamer and could use a great graphics card, or maybe you'll decide to archive every piece of porn you ever encounter and you'll need some big HDDs. But people change their computer usage habits a lot in college, is one thing I learned :-)

Bingle

Like I said,
It's very simple. The user violates the End User License Agreement, and the emulator gets in trouble for enabling the license agreement, as it is illegal in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf). I don't know how else I can word this.

[QUOTE=bingle]The only dangerous area is that emulators will require some form of ROM to run. Most emulators I have seen do not distribute the ROM files, as they are (all, I think?) copyrighted software and that would be illegal. You can (I believe) legally extract a ROM from a machine you own and use that to run your emulator, but obviously most users do not do this, they download an illegal copy of the ROM and use that. But again, this has nothing to do with the legality of emulation.
Bingle[/QUOTE!

I don't know what you're seeing, but all 3 emulators I've used require the ROM. Both Mac emulators (I only know of 2 currently) require the ROM, so they are breaking the law.

It's the same thing. Enabling certian illegal computer acts is illegal in and of itself. Kazaa and other p2p networks are enabeling illegal copyright acts to be carried out. A Los Angeles federal judge ruled that record companies and movie studios can proceed with a lawsuit against the parent company of Kazaa. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-980274.html?tag=fd_top

I missspoke (or mistyped if you will) when I said it was illegal to use Kazaa. If there was a p2p that happened to only have illegal materials, then the comparison would be apt. I assumed that all the materials on Kazaa were illegal. I suppose it's possible that at least one file on Kazaa is not copywritten or registered legally.

So, the Macintosh will interfere with his ability to get girls? :D Somehow I predict just the opposite. And the mac word processors function much like the windows versions.

Actually, my MS Office X is completely compatible with the Windows version (funny how that works when they're both made by MS). Your point about LAN-gaming, I cannot comment on. Gaming's not my thing.

I understand you're basing your opinions on Macs of the past. It's nice that you admit it.

Err. I think you have a gross misunderstanding of the law, actually. Emulators are not illegal. Using one CAN be illegal, but luckily the US hasn't gone so far as to outlaw anything that can be used illegally.

In fact, this was tested in court a little while ago - When Bleem came out with their PlayStation emulator for Dreamcast and PC, Sony sued. Bleem won in the end, but spent so much money that they went bankrupt... But anyway, it's legal to reverse-engineer a hardware platform for emulation.

Think about it. Apple is one of the most litigous companies around. PearPC is hosted on SourceForge, with the blessing of OSDN. The developers' names and contact information are somewhat freely available. If there were ANY legal standing for suing them, Apple would be all over it. They sue everyone they possibly can :-)

Bingle

Read the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Article 11 of the WCT states:
Article 18 of the WPPT contains nearly identical language:
To summerize, you cannot produce, have, or market a divice or service that circumvents legal ownership. PearPC has broken all three.

I understand exactly what this means. Do you?

I don't think there are any laws that would apply to Kazaa for "enabling certain illegal computer acts". I sure hope not, anyway. The article you mentioned was about California being ruled a valid jurisdiction to carry out a lawsuit against Kazaa. Anybody can sue anybody for pretty much whatever they want, it doesn't mean there's any validity to the case or that the defendant actually did anything wrong.

If such laws existed then by the same logic they would apply to keyboard and mouse manufacturers (enabling the installation of Kazaa and search/download of copyrighted content), hard drive companies (storage of said content), modems, and so on.

The decision means that the lawsuits against Kazaa look valid under California (and national and international) law. Read my post above for the specific laws about producing, having, or markeing a divice or service that circumvents legal ownership.

No. The divice or service must directly circumvent legal owndership laws. Kazaa markets itself as a p2p network where you can download songs and video files and such. It is primarily used to circumvent the law. It is illegal because of this. The people who use the p2p networks to traffic in pirated files are also guilty, as they have broken copyright laws. The lawsuit is not frivelous.

No, Kazaa is legally safe as it cannot control the content on its network, Napster was illegal as it indexed the stuff and kept a central file store. Kazaa users are being hit not Kazaa...

Emulators do not circumvent ownership, they allow you to run SOFTWARE YOU OWN on a different hardware configuration. It is legal to use them as you have a right to use software you own, you do not legally need to own the device or it may have broken down at some point.

Most of this kind of stuff flows from the Xerox rulings (basically saying that Xerox were not responsible for what their clients do with the photocopiers as they could not control it and do have legal uses) and the Sony BetaMax stuff (saying that it is legal to record freely available content and store it for replay at a later time without breaching copyright(time shifting)). Companies and suchlike are normally only guilty when they provide a service which can only be used to break the law, Kazaa has good points - and cannot control what is on the network, Napster could not control what was on the network however could have not listed copyrighted materials... subtle differences that make the Napster network responsible and Sharmin merely an annoyance (dunno exactly how this all applies under US law but under British law Kazaa is not responsible).

Also remember that different countries laws apply, even if emulation was illegal in the US it may be legal where the poster is.

Yes. PearPC does not circumvent ownership of a copywritable work. Apple owns their operating system - PearPC does NOT provide illegal copies of the Mac OS. It simply emulates a hardware platform that can run Mac OS. They have not broken any law. The DMCA would apply if PearPC broke Apple's digital protection on their OS, but that is not the case. The PearPC website will tell you you need to have a valid Mac OS CD in order to install any operating system.

You seem to have a bit of confusion over what emulators do - You mentioned up above that PC emulators "pay money to windows". That's incorrect. Microsoft (which I think is what you meant when you said 'windows') does not own the PC hardware architecture. They only produce software for that hardware platform - many companies do. Linux is another operating system that runs on x86 hardware - they have nothing to do with Microsoft.

What the emulator coders do is make a piece of software that interprets machine instructions just like the original hardware. Again, no one can own the rights to these machines - they can own their implementation of it. Otherwise, AMD would be in a lot of trouble for producing x86 (invented by Intel) chips. So emulator writers, through trial and error and freely available knowledge, try to make something that acts exactly the same as the original hardware. They never succeed 100%, but they can come close enough for usability. These emulators are entirely legal. In fact, there's a huge market for emulators of all sorts of machines - if you are developing software for hand-held devices, for instance, you'll use an emulator to run it for most of your development cycle.

There are also some OS emulators, which are slightly different - things like WINE for Linux, or FreeDOS. These do the same thing but instead of replicating the machine codes, they replicate the OS API calls. They're also perfectly legal, provided they don't use any copyrighted materials from the emulated OS. But again, PearPC and BasiliskII both require that you provide your own copy of the OS - all they emulate is the underlying machine hardware.

I hope this clears things up for you. I suggest you do a search on Google for a more in-depth explanation of reverse-engineering and hardware emulation.

Bingle

Yep, that's one side of the argument. The other one being that Kazaa is nothing but a framework for filesharing, and it's not up to the government to decide that the intentions of certain people who use it to break the law make P2P apps inherently illegal. The point of contention regarding the law you stated is whether it really was designed to circumvent copyright laws, and whether it has limited use otherwise. Don't forget that a lot of independent musicians release things on Kazaa, I knew a bunch of college bands who would distribute their music just to see how far it spread.

It's like rolling papers, or "tobacco water pipes".. Everyone knows that they're almost exclusively used for smoking pot, but that's irrelevant: there's nothing illegal about a piece of pipe with a tube sticking out of the side, and it's marketed for use with tobacco. The fact that most people buy it with other intentions in mind don't make the product itself illegal.

lol, tell that to Tommy Chong. Asscroft seemed to disagree.

Actually, Kazaa is pretty f***ed now. The court got access to a bunch of documents of the executives talking about how they technically *could* track and log downloads on the network, and indicated that they knew copyrighted content was being shared. It also talked about how employees hated installing Kazaa because of all the spyware, but that's another issue :-)

However, you're right about the principle - network providers who are not knowledgable cannot be held liable for content. I think this was tested in regards to the phone companies - they can't be held liable if you use the phone network to plan a murder or something, because they don't and can't control the network content.

Bingle

macs and pc's both have their pros and cons, just pick one and put linux on it :D

I love my Mac, I use it more than any of my other 2 computers (one running linux and the other XP) really it all depends on 1. what your willing to pay (in most cases macs will cost more) 2. what your using the computer for. in my opinion if your doing anysort of video, imaging, music production, or even composition i would recommend mac. if your just playing games PC. if i were in your shoes i would go with mac... much much more stable mines never crashed! thats my 2 cents on the issue

Seeing as how:

• the original post was about building a computer 9 months ago
• the original poster never returned
• the thread has seriously devolved

... maybe it's time for this thread to die a lonely death?

It was obvious that Sharmen tracked kazaa, however there were "safe" versions... but if they have officially said they can track stuff then they start to lose their distinction... better to have left that off the official books me thinks.

I didn't know about the Kazaa execs acknowledging on paper that they ought to track things and they knew copyrighted material was being exchanged. That definitely blurs the line. To extend my water pipe analogy, it's kind of like if a bong company had internal documents explaining how their product is designed to make pot taste smoother, or that they did a customer survey and 98% of them use it for pot.

My take on "borderline illegal" things like these are if it's not marketed or solely used for illegal purposes and no mention is officially made of how it can be used illegally, it's none of the government's business because they are punishing THOUGHTS and POSSIBLE INTENTIONS regarding how the product is to be used, rather than anything objective. And although they may very well be right that Kazaa is used 99% of the time for trading copyrighted materials, that sets an extremely dangerous precedent--imagine buying some nails and pipe for a remodeling project, then being sent to jail because some cop thought you planned to make a pipe bomb based solely on that evidence. Or being convicted of burglary because you happened to have a crowbar in your car. Same thing.

But once the company documents that they are perfectly aware their product is being used illegally by most of its users and does nothing to curtail such behavior (or worse yet, encourages it), that hurts their case dramatically because then there is objective, tangible evidence.

So basically the Kazaa people should not have tracked usage, and should've kept their damn mouths shut about using it for sharing copyrighted materials.

So? Good conversations can continue without the originator and they don't have to stay true to the original topic.

Can somebody just close this thread!!!

Windows people who have never used a Mac for more than a few days will never get it. Likewise, continually stating that people buy Macs to "look cool" is ridiculous. Have you seen the crazy mod crap that kids are buying for their PC? Neon lights? Alien Face cases?

Aren't neon lights just to look cool? If not, then it's a matter of style. I'd use that to describe Mac buyers - they have a sense of style, which incidentially, doesn't seem to gravitate to neon.

(oh god, why am i feeding this nasty monster of a thread...)

It's as obvious as the last election that Red and Blue is split almost 50/50.

Actually, I think modern Macs are fantastic. OSX is a fantastic blend of the security and power of BSD with the beauty and ease-of-use that only Apple can devise.

However, I'm also a big fan of Linux, and I would never tell someone to use a Linux PC at college. (Unless they're going to be doing Comp. Sci. at Berkeley or someplace) There's a grim reality that people have to face: you're going to have better luck with a Windows PC at college because that's what everyone else will be using, all of your software will be available for it, and when you play games you won't be stuck with a 6-year-old copy of Starcraft while everyone else is playing UT2k6. Trust me, I had friends who were Mac people in college, and they suffered because of it. It's not like it's a 50/50 split, remember - it's something like 2 percent vs. 95 percent.

This isn't a discussion about which is the better platform overall, it's a discussion about which one you should buy for your first year in college.

Bingle

Have a good thread ppl.

That's basically the end to the story. No denying it.

-Lasereth