1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Apple Mac vs. PC

Discussion in 'Software' started by flann, 28 Jul 2005.

  1. John Cena

    John Cena What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    818
    Likes Received:
    0

    That's kind of funny. Something must be wrong with your PC hardware. Do you have generic ram modules?

    My win xp seti server has been running for 5 weeks right now and I'm about to restart it because i installed a program that requires a restart.

    Nobody attacks a MAC or a Unix OS, because nobody cares. It can be done. When your talking about software, there's going to be a flaw no matter how good of a coder you are. However OSX is verrrry stable but so is Windows XP/wk23. The problem is, the way windows is designed is dumb. It allows programs to install DLL files to the system directory which can cause corruption.

    On a linux/mac system, programs keep ALL their stuff in their OWN folder so it causes no corruption or conflicts. Also, there is no stupid registry bs.
     
  2. iMaGiNe

    iMaGiNe What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    24 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have had 2 crashes on a mac so far... one needed a totally re-install.

    I am a mac user of many years now and a PC user for even longer... what you can achieve do in one, you can do in another. (Well apart from creating WMV3 files in os x because that's not possible (yet, and without errors!)).

    I prefer my Mac, photoshopping, and final cut pro'ing is a boon... but I couldn't live without my PC for long periods of time either.

    It's debateable about whether OS X is better than WinXP or vice versa as there are so many facets that can be compared it's ultimately impossible to fully rate it as a whole (and anybody who does is a fool I say! :p and just a fanboy)

    The only thing I can suggest is that if you want to buy one... buy one. And then compare for yourself to see which OS is better for your own needs and tastes.

    One man's trash is another man's treasure.
     
  3. woof82

    woof82 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    18 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    58
    I don't understand why its kind of funny... please explain :confused:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 5 Aug 2005
  4. ou7blaze

    ou7blaze sensational.

    Joined:
    5 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,653
    Likes Received:
    2
    I think macs retain value easily because everyone wants one for a start and it's "new" and the looks are good, basically thats why value remains high.

    Windows hardware comes out all the time and therefore it's in the tip a few months after you buy it.

    I think Macs are ok nothing special I haven't gotten a virus since last year when I realised there is something called Zonealarm and using your brain avoiding bad sites and stupid msn viruses. :rolleyes:
     
  5. RotoSequence

    RotoSequence Lazy Lurker

    Joined:
    6 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    4,588
    Likes Received:
    7
    My whole Macintosh Spiel

    The Macintosh Computer in and of itself is a fairly interesting piece of hardware; with the minimum compatability designs and extremely efficiently designed motherboards, they are clean and very sleek, with guarunteed stability because it is a fully unified platform. However, the G5 processor is not a good piece of technology. Its floating point performance and general functionality is much lower than claimed, and it cannot process data quickly as many Mac/PC users can attest to (Like Goat).

    The Savior of the Macintosh is OSX; this well made FreeBSD based operating system is at its heart very similar to Linux, resulting in stability-especially with the limited types of Hardware it needs to work with and the very rigerous standards to which Apple holds applications for the operating system. Memory management is very efficient, and it is a very pretty OS-but getting used to it can get to be a little mind boggling at first.

    However, a Macintosh computer, for what it is, is very, very expensive. While you get a well engineered piece of technology, even without extra components, you pay through the nose for this high profit piece of tech. You arent buying just a computer; you are buying a brand name like Abercrombie and Fitch. The exorbitant expense is only justified somewhat by OSX; there is no real reason for these machines to be as expensive as they are.

    With Apple set to use Intel products, things will likely remain priced where they are; what you get out of a Macintosh nowadays is an operating system. The cost for the OS when you upgrade may be pretty low, but they milk you for it; the major updates are not free like with Windows XP's service packs, but they are more frequent-however, you have to buy a whole new copy of the operating system just to have it (correct me if I am wrong please).

    Apple's computers have a high cost of ownership compared to PCs if you do your homework with them. They do not have nearly as wide of a software base as PCs, and they run things much less quickly than PCs; OSX is snappier than ever on Pentium 4s because the P4, is in truth, faster than the G5 chip.

    PCs have faster hardware because you can make near-apples to apples comparisons between AMD and Intel processors; they both run the same operating systems and software, allowing for performance comparisons to be made directly. Apple has never had competition to genuinely compare with. But now, things are getting put into perspective with the leak of OSx86 and Apple's switch to Intel processors.

    In my opinion, Macs have never been worth the extra money you pay for them compared to a high end PC. You can do everything you want with a PC much more quickly than a Mac ever could; there is no software advantage that Apple has over Windows - other than a shiny GUI and being able to have many very large files open at once.
     
    Last edited: 29 Aug 2005
  6. Go4t

    Go4t i

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    939
    Likes Received:
    1
    only thing i have to disagree with is that large files do not open quickly however they do work smoothly once opened
     
  7. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    561
    [RANT]

    Macs (High end ones anyway) are like BMWs: Very nice I suppose, but not really worth the money. You don't really get anything for it. A fast G5 is no faster than a high end PC, and the "design" aspect is no longer a selling point, as PC designs offer so much choice, they are starting to make the Mac look decidedly stodgy. Macs are not really very customiseable, or as cheap to upgrade. The software base is limited compared to PCs... and, as I opened with.... they're too damned expensive for what you get.

    Another thing I dont get here is the whole "Macs dont get viruses" thing. Well.. yes they do... it's just that no one bothers to target Mac-OS. The whole point of creating a virus is to cause mayhem and destruction... so you attack the biggest user base: PC users. Watch this space, 'cos when Apple go x86, and there's more cross platform jiggery pokery it will happen, ESPECIALLY if this move to Intel increases Apple's popularity. Apple's are not virus free because of OS-Xs invulnerability or anything.

    Another thing that bugs me is: "If you're seriously into graphics, then you should buy a Mac".. er.... why is that then? Do they use faster GPUs? Nope... can you get better software? err.. nope... I struggle to understand this one. As a photographer, I'm in a Mac dominated universe, and am always getting Mac users trying to convert me... they remind me of Christians to be honest. Well... this is what Apple say about the latest, fastest G5... "For true over-the-top performance, configure your system with one of the fastest graphics cards available: the ATI Radeon X850 XT or the NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT DDL.".. well... forgive me if I don't hold onto my hat won't you. Nice cards, as we all know, but if I paid THAT much a PC, I'd want a 7800GTX in there.... an overclocked one! Actually.. I'd want TWO... an option Apple dont seem to give. Come to think of it... there are better cards for 2d and CAD work than any of these.. why are apple offering cards that are primarily gaming cards anyway? I thought they were "serious" graphics machines? They're also making a big deal about liquid cooling for some reason now as well... Liquid cooling? How do they DO that?? :hehe:

    So... whether you're into graphics or not, buy a Mac if you wanna make some sort of lifestyle statement (same reason people buy BMWs), or if you just wanna get some work done, and play high end games as fast as possible, buy a top flight PC.

    Same with cars really.... If you wanna spend 30K on a car, you could buy a BMW 325 with no options, and have a "so called" exclusive car that actually outsells the Ford Mondeo, or you could take your £30k to a Ford dealer, and actually buy a car that is now more exclusive than the BMW 3 series... a Ford Mondeo. A ST220 with all options is £26k, and it would kick the 325s ass in every conceivable way. The only problem, is that Mr Average BMW Driver doesn't really care... he wants that badge.. he couldn't bare to have a FORD.. I mean... how else is he going to let people know he's "made it"? (even tho people who have really made it woldn't be seen dead in a BMW). I think a lot of computer snobbery is the same to be honest. Macs are seen as more serious.. more exclusive... people who do "serious graphics work" use them, so surely that's what you buy if you want to do "serious graphics work"... well.. I've been doing "serious graphics Work" for around 15 years now, and I'm still using PCs, and they're every bit as fast and productive... if not more so.

    The only good thing about Macs is the OS... that's it. But you know what? Windows aint that bad if you get it set up to your liking. I'm aware than OS-X is better, but I'd rather pay way less to get much better hardware, and when I'm sitting here looking at Photoshop, or Far Cry, I'm not really paying that much attention to Windows.. I'm either working, or playing... and i'm doing both more efficiently, with having spent less money, on my PC. [/RANT]
     
    Last edited: 29 Aug 2005
  8. bennifer

    bennifer What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    26 May 2004
    Posts:
    322
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are wrong. You buy, say, Apple 10.3 Panther. Thats like buying Windows XP. Then they offer online updates to patch any bugs... taking it to 10.3.1 etc... 10.3.9 was where Panther stopped I think.

    Then they release 10.4 Tiger. Thats like Vista, a whole new version of the OS. Lots of new features, rather than just bugfixes (not meaning to flamebait, but with all the new features being removed from vista, its starting to look like MS are going to be charging for a mere service pack)
     
  9. Go4t

    Go4t i

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    939
    Likes Received:
    1
    :hehe:

    and the differences between the different versions of osx are not that big and just seem to get annoying after a little while (spotlight, dashboard)
     
  10. RotoSequence

    RotoSequence Lazy Lurker

    Joined:
    6 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    4,588
    Likes Received:
    7
    Can you tell me the differences between OS 10.2 and 10.3? While there were some significant improvements made in 10.4, it is comperable (by MS standards) to Service Pack 2 for Windows XP Pro. Microsoft improvements take time, but they are free; it doesnt cost a cent to go from Service Pack 1 of Windows 2000 to Service Pack 4. However, going from OS 10.0 to 10.4 is going to cost you $150.

    Most of Apple's coolest GUI functionalities have already been replicated for the PC, and are freeware. While you get some cool features for that $150 purchase of Tiger, you can literally have everything special about it on PC by third party applications; when it comes to value, you can't beat free.
     
  11. J-Pepper

    J-Pepper Minimodder

    Joined:
    20 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    4
    I have to disagree with pookeyhead... a BMW (even if it is 'just' a 325) drives infinately better than a ST220. And before you ask... yes I have is the answer.

    Back on topic... OS X is OS X, WinXP is WinXP

    You can both do the same thing... one thing will run faster on OS X another thing will run faster on WinXP.

    Whoever can absolutely claim which OS is better is a fool. But personal preference compared to their work/use style is what is it.

    Personally, I would like a dual-boot WinXP and OS X machine... or just how I have it right now, an OS X machine and a WinXP machine sitting side by side running what runs best on each system..

    all this hullabaloo about WinXP is old, switch to OS X is better or WinXP is better, burn the Macs is rediculous... grow up.

    And with the viruses and exploits, even Mac experts say that Macs are vunerable to exploits (not always in the same sense as WinXP exploits... can't compare apples to pears, so no point saying 'you need a password to install stuff' malarky), and that when Macs increase in popularity and are targetted more frequently, having the 'snobbish' appraoch of 'Macs don't get viruses' will be a dissadvantage to them as they would probably not gte used to the WinXP way of doing things ala being cautious.
    Even large software companies are starting to invest R&D into making virus protection software for OS X, why would they do that if the majority of Mac users chant 'Macs don't get viruses'? and the oft used mantra of 'Macs don't get viruses' is used as a major selling point to Windows switchers (who presumably are used to using virus checking software)?

    Erm.. rant over.
     
  12. <A88>

    <A88> Trust the Computer

    Joined:
    10 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    25
    Spot on :)

    <A88>
     
  13. woof82

    woof82 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    18 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    58
    I agree to some extent with pookeyhead. I prefer winxp becuase its more compatible, and with a PC i can chop and change it whenever I want. My computer cost £600, making it cheaper and more powerful than a mac. But if you prefer OSx by all means go for it. Macs have become a style icon, and they have marketed them towards this image, which in my opinion is at the cost of performance. An imac for example is a laptop with a crt screen and a peice of orange plastic over the top some people think it looks cool and like the simplistic design. I hate all the whirly flashy animation annoying things in OSx, however an average jow will be saying "wow thats so cool" not realising that its rather impracticle. When i want to minise a window i want it to minimise, not curl up and whirl around the screen before sinking into the dock, its a waste of time. Yes, you can disable it, but you can see that its marketed towards people who think its great, which is sad. I also dislike the navigation setup.

    If im going to make a car example I would say that the mac is a 'mini one deisel 1.0l' with airconditioning, heated seats and rear window, sunroof, cdchanger, electric windows, 5 spoke alloys, abs, gps, in car entertainment, front and rear airbags, runflat tyres, automatic gearbox and xenon headlamps.

    The pc is a mini cooper s.

    pretty and slow vs fast and simple.
     
  14. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    561
    Define better? If you like a sterile, uninvolving experience, then I suppose so.

    anyhoooo... this aint a car thread.

    Facts is what counts... with a Mac, you pay a whole lot more, and don;t really get a whole lot more. Can't argue with that now can you? If you want the whole loft apartment, Smeg fridge, BMW lifestyle thing, then go for it... it;s your money.
     
  15. alcedes

    alcedes What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Randomly reading through the various critiques of Mac vs. XP I have to say I find the many perceptions and metaphors to be interesting.

    Let's review some history...

    ...I think the original argument was "Mac vs. IBM"

    IBM PCs were running on the 80x86 platform. In the early days this was an 8-bit/16-bit platform. The Mac ran on a 68000k processor. From the view of the programmer this was a 32-bit processor (the data bus width on many of the early variations were actually 16-bit, but that's another story). During these days Macs were much better at graphics than PCs. Many IBM PCs only had text based video output adapters. The early PC graphic adapters only displayed 2-bit and 4-bit images at low resolution (look up CGA for details).


    There were many graphic applications that were only available for Macs such as Adobe Photoshop and Pagemaker. A Mac was the sandard platform for desktop publishing and graphics work; the option just was not available on PCs.

    Since then a lot has changed. IBM doesn't mak computers any more. They only brand them. The "PC" architecture is an open platform. And individual or entity that wishes to can make PCs and make modifications to the design.

    The argument has evolved to "Mac vs. PC" and "OSX vs. Windows." I'd be willing to bet the "Mac vs. PC" argument is about to die in a couple of years since they are evolving to a common hardware platform. This begin to occur even before the Intel announcement; for example, ATI and nVidia were both making graphics cards for both platforms. (side note: has any one ever seen a comparison between the 64-bit AMD systems and the Power Macs? I've yet to encounter one).


    The Adobe applications are available on both Mac and PC and have almost identical interfaces;the differences beween the Mac and Windows versions of these applications has become more trivial.

    I can't make any assertions of one Platform being better than another. They have their advantages and disdvantages, strengths and weaknesses. You'll have to find what fits you best.
     
Tags:

Share This Page