# Why Should I Purchase a Mac vs. PC?



## Guest (Sep 3, 2005)

Hello Everyone 

I'm considering purchasing a Mac to be used as my primary computer and taking my PC off-line ( so most resources are not gobbled up by all the security software..) and my boyfriend can learn on/use it for small business.

I'd love to hear what you think about the Pro's and Con's I've listed;why YOU prefer your Macs;and if you think one sounds suitable for me based on what I use my PC for..

PRO's

Mal-ware Infections are Significantly Diminished
They Handle Graphics Much Better - but why?
OS X is more stable than Windows
Hardware Quality is Simply Better
The G5s look Tres Chic!   

CON's

Need to Learn a New OS
MUCH less Software to Choose From
Costs More (why?)

Probably it all comes down to what someone wants to do with the machine. I enjoy working with graphics a lot, however I'm a complete beginner who's going to need a text-book to learn Photoshop and am only familiar with using a Publishing Program format for working with them. (Little arrows you pull to re-size...  ). Also, a lot of surfing, downloading, trying out all kinds of new software and skinning/customizing the look of my computer. Guess the "graphics potential" I've heard about (but don't understand) appeals to me because I see developing in that direction.

So - Why do You like your Mac? Do you miss the software selection? Would you switch if you could?

It'd be great if anyone wants to share their thoughts on the subject and I'd sure appreciate any feedback!

Hope to Hear From You,
Silver Drop


----------



## jp1203 (Jul 21, 2005)

You can get very common software for the mac, such as MS Office, Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia Flash (I believe), etc. Plus, Macs come bundled with a lot, unlike Windows. If you are planning on video editing, you can get FinalCut on it, or photos, Photoshop or something, Mac is the way to go in that case.


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2005)

If I'm not interested in video editing, but rather just building quality 3D objects, will I experience greater capability with a Mac? I haven't found an explanation as to how/why Mac is "better for graphics" so I suppose I'm wondering if it would really make that much of a difference if I don't get into animation, flash or video. Do you think it does?

BTW, thanks for the feedback.


----------



## damiendevlon (Aug 28, 2005)

I just think MAC is a costlier machine and you can get a much more stronger configuration for the same amount / besides MAC some times makes you feel like a kid  .... but the graphics are awesome  enjoy the graphics .. i wonder if it supports or has new games ... power book is still a better option when compared to MAC desktop . what do u guys say ?


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

Regardless I'd wait until Mac for Intel is out commercially and Windows Vista Pro is out for a better comparison, if you can handle a year.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2005)

Do you mean Mac is going to have an Intel Processor at some point? And still I'm wondering how exactly the graphics are 'better' - excluding video or flash. Does it just process graphical information faster? Sorry I'm so clueless!
SD.


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

Apple is switching to Intel. Yes.
Graphics are whatever the computer has inside it. The card is the main power. Now the OS does handle graphics (in certain cases) better than a windows box. But that is not what I would call one of my reasons of switching to a mac. 
A big reason for me is the unix insides and Spotlight.


----------



## jp1203 (Jul 21, 2005)

Yes, intel processors will appear in macs soon, basically the tools are what makes the graphics better as far as I know, Mac has astounding tools for creating and displaying graphics, and video.


----------



## jp1203 (Jul 21, 2005)

iXneonXi said:


> The card is the main power. Now the OS does handle graphics (in certain cases) better than a windows box.


Yes, that also...post wasn't up when I posted.

Compare ITunes to Windows Media Player. That's basically the scenario for audio in the same instance.

Wish I could run ITunes...needs y2k or xp though...maybe I'll actually buy it some day. (I hate spending money)

J.S.


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

Why buy ITunes (assuming you are using windows) when there are plenty of free players for windows? 

Unless you want to make use of legal music downloads?


----------



## jp1203 (Jul 21, 2005)

ITunes is free, I think, except for the music downloads. I meant Buy Windows 2k so that I could use it, now I use Winamp. I was comparing it to WMP, basically I like the interface better. I would also definately use the legal music downloads. I always end up getting the entire CD of something when, truth is, I only like one or two songs of it. 

J.S.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2005)

IMO iTunes is far better than Windows Media Player (for audio). There are not 4 ways to perform the same function which is confusing and its just plain simple and logical. iTunes _is_ free BTW and their music store is quite good - even if I do have to shop in the Canadian one. I agree, buying 1 song off a CD is great and all their songs cost the same, .99.

Back to graphics though, when you say "tools" do you mean features of OS X? Or other software developed for Macs... or something else entirely? I guess I don't understand why Photoshop results would be better when using it on a Mac vs. a PC, but it seems anyone in the Graphic Design business (who utilizes static print images, not video) always has a Mac. Just thought people who browse here would know why. 

Another silly question if you guys don't mind - does running a Windows emulator on a Mac (with OS X) allow you to use all the Windows-only software and is this what is then called a virtual computer?

(I'm sorting through articles on the net, but here I can ask actual users so hope no one minds too much) Thanks for all the feedback. SD.


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

Virtual PC will run all windows stuff, but it is sluggish. Wait until OSX is out on Intel and you will be able to buy Windows itself and install it in your Mac. That is what I've read.

And yes, Macs just seem to be the chosen system to run programs like Apple's suite, Photoshop, Flash etc.


----------



## HenryVI (May 27, 2005)

Yeah, I went to a computer animations class this summer, and we used Flash on Mac's. I don't know the reasoning behid it, but I liked it. Just if you get a Mac, be sure to not use the Mac mouse









It only has one button


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

The new one is much better and has all the functions of a normal mouse. Cept its sleek


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

For the love of God... When will the dissemination of faulty information cease?



damiendevlon said:


> I just think MAC is a costlier machine and you can get a much more stronger configuration for the same amount / besides MAC some times makes you feel like a kid  .... but the graphics are awesome  enjoy the graphics .. i wonder if it supports or has new games ... power book is still a better option when compared to MAC desktop . what do u guys say ?


First off, it's _Mac_, not MAC. MAC is an acronym for Media Access Control. Mac is an abbreviation for Macintosh, a series of computers made by Apple Computer for the past twenty-one years.

Macs cost more off the shelf than a Dell or Compaq cost off the shelf. But to compare an off-the-shelf Dell or Compaq with a Mac is not a valid comparison. The hardware is of a higher quality with a Mac. Macs come loaded with a lot of software (the iLife suite being just the tip of the iceberg). You never have to worry about hardware conflicts with a Mac. But in the end people don't (normally) buy Macs because of the configuration of the computer. They buy them because of the OS. It is elegant, powerful and quite stable (I don't remember the last time I had to restart any of my machines running 10.4.2, excepting restarts after installation of updates that require restarts).

I have no idea what you mean by "makes you feel like a kid." Is it that you're actually able to get work done without having to worry about trying to fix the thing?

Games are constantly being released for the Mac platform. Often they come out later for the Mac OS than they do for Windows. Big deal. This means they often have bug fixes that plagued their Windows counterparts, will be released with expansion packs for the same price the Windows side paid for just the base game, and, most importantly, we don't have to wade through hundreds of crappy games to find that one decent one. In any case, if your OS choice is based on how many games are available you should be buying a PlayStation 2 or an X-Box.

In what way do you think a PowerBook is a better option than a desktop (I have both, by the way). There are no G5 PowerBooks. There are no multiprocessor PowerBooks. You can't upgrade the video card on a PowerBook. RAM is more expensive for a PowerBook.

The _only_ way a PowerBook is a better option than a desktop is if you need portability. That's _it._



HenryVI said:


> Just if you get a Mac, be sure to not use the Mac mouse
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please update your data. It is outdated.

As for the original poster's question, there is only one person that can answer that question for you: You. If one platform is more appealing to you than the other (for whatever reason - workflow, aesthetics, expandability, etc.) then that is the one with which you should go.


----------



## I Fix 4 U (Jul 19, 2004)

Thankyou vegas, you typed what i didn't want to waste time typing.


----------



## robomatic (Nov 5, 2004)

My first personal computer was a Mac Plus, which I loved. I now use Windows and Linux. Couple months ago a neighbor with no background in personal computing asked me to set her up with a system that would help her write and use email. I ordered her up an iMini with a 20" Apple screen and keyboard and, YES, a TWO-button mouse by a third party.

BAsically: Mac will get you a good looking, reliable, nicely working systems which many if not most people find intuitively easier to learn and use.

The down side of the Mac is the idiosyncrasies of Steve Jobs, the Mac designers, and the past poor decisions of Apple. No floppy reader comes standard and hasn't for some time. This wouldn't bother me now but five years ago it was a pain. They sold my father an iMAC with a totally unworkable mouse built not for the hand, but because someone thought a circular mouse like a hockey puck looked 'cool'.

I loved my MacPLUS, but these days Macs and I don't get along. To shift gears a bit, I received an Apple iPod as a gift. I found the iPod to be a pain in the *** to use, it has a dedicated battery and requires a cradle to connect it to the computer and iTunes with the iPod hooked in resulted in either my PC crashing, my iPod crashing, or both. The iPod gives you a quality sound, but according to the frustrating rules according to Apple: No FM tuner, a dedicated battery rather than standard ones you can recharge, and finicky controls. Anything else will cost you extra - a lot extra. As this translates to computers:

If all the features you want come with the MAC, it's a good deal. If you need 'extras' they will cost you.

The entire computer industry is one where you often purchase something and find out it has become faster and cheaper upon the check clearing. This is much more likely when buying a MAC.

Apple indeed has made the Unix system tame and approachable from a desktop basis. This alone probably makes a Mac a good deal, gives you stability, resistance to internet attack, and a good file handling system.

The less expensive MACs come in nice little packages, but as something like a DVD burner gets outmoded and a faster one becomes available, it isn't possible to 'pop out' the old and 'pop in' the new as it is with a PC box or the more expensive/expansive MACs. Furthermore, the less expensive Macs don't have all my treasured I/O standards, for instance the iMini has a microphone input but not a 'line' input, which would be important to me.

Graphics. I think the Mac graphics looks better, but it's an 'edge' not an outright knockout over the PC, and photo processing and editing is equivalent in both makes IMHO (In My Humble Opinion). I've heard that Macs come with great video editing utilities and Spotlight indeed sounds great. There are good PC utilities, but typically you've got to go out and get 'em over the internet, they are not instantly available to you.

Apple as a company has produced quite a few models of Macintosh which looked great, but had quality control or heating problems. In addition, there is a morality problem. The magazine MacWorld made quite a fuss, deservedly so, over Apple's hard drive service quarantee. Back in the 80's and 90's, you got a one year guarantee on an Apple hard drive. If it failed after you'd owned it a year, you paid to have it fixed. Apple however had a three year deal with the supplier, so in that over-a-year-and-under-three-years window Apple made money over your failed hard drive. This may be a 'bad habit' of the past, but it doesn't go toward building consumer trust. More recently, people with iPods have found that when their dedicated battery dies an early death, their best bet is to purchase a new iPod. In the tradition of love the sin, hate the sinner, I love playing with Mac stuff but I don't trust the company a millimeter.

I personally do a lot of audio processing, and I've been quite happy with PC and CoolEdit, and I like to put together PCs from parts, choosing my motherboard, putting all the nuts and bolts together, and going for that distinctive look. I'm reasonably happy with XP online, and I've got a Linux box I'm constantly fiddling with.

Write down what you want this computer to do as soon as you get it home. What must the computer come with, hardware AND software, to accomplish this? Make a little checklist and go visit a computer store and ask the dumb questions, or come back to this forum.

In short, buy something you expect to use over the next two years, keep your most important files, music, photos backed up on two different media in two different places, and use the hell out of your machine. Then take what you've learned to buy yourself another machine two years later and use the hell out of that.

I have thought of doing something like maintaining a lot of my important files on a 'soap on a rope' external storage drive, then using it with both PC AND Mac. A full backup would consist in duping the drive.


----------



## MSM Hobbes (Apr 23, 2004)

Check out past threads for more info too:
http://forums.techguy.org/t315896.html

http://forums.techguy.org/t352586.html

http://forums.techguy.org/t377205.html

http://forums.techguy.org/t380118.html

Either way, enjoy, learn, and have fun!


----------



## Chang3 (Sep 15, 2005)

HenryVI said:


> Yeah, I went to a computer animations class this summer, and we used Flash on Mac's. I don't know the reasoning behid it, but I liked it. Just if you get a Mac, be sure to not use the Mac mouse
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They came out with the Mighty Mouse recently.


----------



## myluvnttl (Aug 13, 2004)

I would get a mac any day of the week.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2005)

I appreciate all the thoughtful feedback folks. Clarifications, having the graphics issue addressed and links to further information provided have been especially helpful (Performing a forum search was difficult as the words PC and Mac are so common.) Also, wading into all this has proven a little daunting and any encouragement is happily received!

As it turns out, learning about the components of any computer and how they work together seems to be the only way to actually decide which machine will best fit my needs. Frankly, I didn't want to do all that work. Alas...

Currently, for this time around, I'm leaning toward the PC as folks in graphic design forums have stated the gap in performance regarding graphics can be next to eliminated if you build your PC accordingly. One person even went as far to say that _now_, using a Mac in the graphics industry, is more of a fashion statement than a necessity. I like the idea of a hardier machine with less malware risk and a potentially better OS - and am guilty of being attracted to the look of the machine  . However, if I can get the same processing power and nearly indistinguishable Photoshop results while still being able to 'try on' all sorts of different software - and I am a dabbler - then maybe this time should be a PC. I just have to learn enough about _what I need_ in a PC. Done my research on CPUs. Moving on to Graphics Cards and Type of RAM. Any comments regarding those?

Essentially - the problem I'm having now is my slowing down or freezing when working with large graphic files. This will not be magically solved by purchasing a Mac. I just need a better designed and more powerful PC. (IMHO) Then again, my research is not done yet..

Once more, thanks for taking the time to 'share'. Any thoughts on what components need particular attention for smooth graphic handling, aside from CPU, RAM and Graphic Cards?

I tell you one thing I've learned lately: You don't just have to be intelligent to learn; you have to be brave enough to look and feel stupid until you get to the other side! 

SD.


----------



## MSM Hobbes (Apr 23, 2004)

For now [as it is late, and morn' calls too soon], will just say that I admire and love your attitude!  :up: Especially, your statement:


> "I tell you one thing I've learned lately: You don't just have to be intelligent to learn; you have to be brave enough to look and feel stupid until you get to the other side!"


  Just curious, have you actually had chance/time to go to an Apple store, if one is semi-convenient to you, and spend some time there?


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

I agree wholeheartedly with my feline friend (Hobbes). Yours is a good attitude to adopt, and not just in dealing with computer purchases. I will add one thing though, regarding this quote:



Silver Drop said:


> I like the idea of a hardier machine with less malware risk and a potentially better OS - *and am guilty of being attracted to the look of the machine *  .


(emphasis added)

I don't understand why this is a comment at which to roll your eyes (and you're not the only one to do it, mind you). When you buy a car does looks factor into it? What about your house? How about a couch? Clothing? Shoes? Watch? Probably even some of your choices in foodstuffs are made on the basis of the aesthetics of the _packaging_ (which, I'll point out, unless you're a goat you probably don't eat). And I guarantee you when you choose/chose a husband or wife appearance played at least _some_ role. Why should it be _any_ different for computers?

I doubt I need go further. I think you get my point: Looks matter.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2005)

Yes, I agree, it is nice when something is pleasing to the eye. However, people can be swayed by a pleasing appearance to make foolish decisions all too often. I'd purchase a statue because it makes me feel good to look at it, but then that is it's purpose. A computer's purpose is quite another so I suppose I felt silly letting it's physical appearance be amajor factor in how I evaluate it. In this case, looking good should be a bonus, not a criteria - that's all I meant. Incidentally, in my personal experience anyway, the attractiveness of a mate eventually always comes down to what they emanate from the inside - carriage, disposition, charisma etc. People who look physically great at first glance can come to look downright ugly over time when you can't look past their selfishness (or some other strong undesirable trait) any longer. I've learned to regard people rather like cans of food in the looks department; I won't know what they really look like until I see what's inside. So, have to disagree with you on that particular point, Vegas. My girlfriends have learned not to ask me, " so do you think he's cute," because I'll invariably answer that I'm not sure yet. And they roll their eyes at me!   Basically (IMO) looks matter proportionately to what you think something's purpose is I suppose.

No Hobbes, haven't visited an Apple store and as it turns out I'll have plenty of time to do so. There was a misunderstanding about when I'd have the opportunity to get that second computer and it now looks like it may be a year or so.  However, that just gives me more time to read up. If I understand correctly, it may be better to wait in any case as the new multi-core platform (vs. dual core) will not be out until 2006. In addition, waiting for Windows OS for Mac proper eliminates the 'less software for a Mac' problem - doesn't it? I'm just going to see what I can upgrade my CPU to in the meantime.

So thanks again for all the feedback! Its great to have a place to go where people are generous with their knowledge and time. Who knows, maybe by the same time next year - I'll be coming here with answers to other people's problems!

Take Care All,
SD


----------

