# Mac or PC?



## GNOME32

Hey, I'm really stuck on which I should buy and use. I've heard a lot of good things about both Macs and PCs, but there are also some bad things about both, and I would like to know what you guys think, from technical, geeky standpoint

Macs or PCs ?


----------



## nimd4

Hm, there must be like a million threads about this already... IMO macs blow, that's from a technical point of view. Otherwise they just suck  Why is it that Apple dropped their architecture and switched over to Intel.

A-a-anyway, the way Apple does business is like this:



> *Email and Telephone Support for Emagic branded products is no longer available.*





Code:


http://www.apple.com/support/emagic/

Emagic Logic Audio was the greatest *audio editing* software (sequencer, whatever you wanna call it ). Then Apple got it & it's available on the Mac only now. Whatever. Let 'em have it - they need all they can get (really).

Seriously now, the way I see it is if you want something that costs twice as much - and works twice as slow - get yourself a Mac xD Basically Intel owns Apple (literally now hehe). Historically, Macs are not cost-efficient, have had terrible upgradebility and dangerous lack, availabilty and supply of software.

Personally I would like never, ever get a Mac, for the simple fact that I don't live in the States.


----------



## TechGuy

I've always been a PC man myself, but to try to avoid making this thread identical to every other "Mac vs PC" that's been out there, let's add some news:

[WEBQUOTE="http://www.toptechnews.com/news/Army-Adds-Macs-To-Improve-Security/story.xhtml?story_id=13000A5M7L1O"]The Army's Apple program to bring more Macs into military facilities is being led by Jonathan Broskey, a former Apple employee who says it's not just that Macs are a less inviting target than Windows; Apple's version of Unix is inherently more secure than Windows, he says. Some observers, however, are taking issue with that assessment. [/WEBQUOTE]


----------



## Tsugaru

Well I've used Windows all my life and I've gotten bored with it and I went out and got a MacBook. So far I'm enjoying it more than Windows, which is virus heaven and Mac isn't. 

I'm on this Mac a lot and the programs are really awesome with so many cool features. I find Mac more for entertainment than PC, PC is more technical and more for business. Well that's just my thoughts and I just love Mac now.


----------



## ferrija1

Oh my gosh, I just voted for PC. stubby fingers...... 

Make sure you try both before you buy. I recommend a Mac personally, since they can run both operating systems, but it's all up to you.


----------



## TechGuy

If you had a PC, that wouldn't have happened.  (just kidding)


----------



## cancon

hahahaha - everyone has voted PC so far!

It really depends on what you want to do with your computer. If you're a gamer, get a PC. If you're a designer, get a mac. If you're a SQL guy, get a PC. If you use your computer to just check e-mail, download stuff, and have some fun, get a mac. If you're a server guy, get a PC. If you're a journalist get a mac.

Tell me your career, i'll tell you what to buy.


----------



## cancon

Quite ironic that you have a linux avatar though


----------



## loserOlimbs

I see no reason to buy a Mac anymore. If you know enough to keep your PC safe then you don't need a Mac. Designers on a PC have more designer programs choices.

If all you do is check emal and surf, buy an Eee!


----------



## GoSoxTM

loserOlimbs said:


> I see no reason to buy a Mac anymore. If you know enough to keep your PC safe then you don't need a Mac. Designers on a PC have more designer programs choices.
> 
> If all you do is check emal and surf, buy an Eee!


Agreed, with the amazing AV protection there is nowadays (and this site if something does baffle me ;P) Macs just don't seem necessary to me. And the all-too-popular phrase "Macs don't get viruses" is void x]


----------



## delwin

I've only used a Pc, but I've been interested in a Mac. The only drawbacks so far as I'm concerned is that the Mac is rather pricey compared to the Pc and I'm not sure the Pc software I have would run on a Mac. Also, I live in an area where there is no Apple store. Best Buy doesn't seem to carry Macs. 

The freedom from viruses and reputed ease of use would be welcomed, tho.

Delwin


----------



## ferrija1

loserOlimbs said:


> I see no reason to buy a Mac anymore. If you know enough to keep your PC safe then you don't need a Mac. Designers on a PC have more designer programs choices.


If you're good with technology you can set-up and run a Windows machine with minimal effort, but people who don't want to take the time to set their computer up well should buy a Mac. I'm talking about setting up networking, programs, security, etc.

Final Cut Studio is only on Macs.


----------



## TechGuy

Mac does have a pretty interface. The hardware is expensive and software difficult to find. The problem with new users getting Macs is that they generally have trouble finding family and friends who can help (they all have PCs). On the other hand, maybe that's an advantage to the family! 

(ferrija, I'm writing this from Donora, PA -- heading to Monroeville tonight.  )


----------



## ferrija1

Mac hardware is expensive (for a reason, blah, blah, blah...), but software is plentiful. If you can do it on Windows, you can do it on a Mac.  Support can be a problem though there are a few great forums for Macs and AppleCare is arguably the best support out there.

What are you doing over here in Pittsburgh?


----------



## TechGuy

Was born in Pittsburgh -- visiting friends and family. We're heading out tomorrow, but I'll have to let you know next time we're in town so we can grab a meal.


----------



## ferrija1

Ok, great!


----------



## Killazys

Get a PC if your going to be gaming, but the problem with a PC is that you have to get it from the right company, see? 

Macs are good if you don't play games and you just surf the web, word processing, video editing, blah blah. 

I'm sticking with PC's my whole life because I'm a gamer


----------



## cancon

Killazys said:


> Get a PC if your going to be gaming, but the problem with a PC is that you have to get it from the right company, see?
> 
> Macs are good if you don't play games and you just surf the web, word processing, video editing, blah blah.
> 
> I'm sticking with PC's my whole life because I'm a gamer


same here - what kind of games are you into? Me is attached...

COD4 addiction right now... LAN 5 PCs in my house... Great fun.

Bought Crysis yesterday... I'm gonna install it the moment i get bored of COD4... I'm always entertained that way


----------



## Tstright

Until a Mac runs Autocad in it's native OS....


----------



## Killazys

Hm I play all of the Orange Box , all the Counter-Strikes 
Quake 4, Quake III Arena
Battlefield 2142, Warrock, little bit of Maple Story (i know, i know), used to do IJJI games but not anymore. 
Oh and CoH and Wolfteam, all on the PC
For the 360 I have CoD 4, Assassin's Creed, DDR UNIVERSE!!, Halo 3, yea yea


----------



## cancon

assasins creed - nice
2142 - nice
quake - have to try it (yea, yea, i know)
COD4 

You need to get a PS3 man. I'll beat u with a stick if we get into this argument.


----------



## Killazys

Ewww Pentium D 

PS3 is mad expensive.


----------



## cancon

Killazys said:


> Ewww Pentium D


It runs anything I want it to, and was a lot cheaper. Something you obviously take into consideration _(See Below)_.



Killazys said:


> PS3 is mad expensive.


So is blu-ray. Well worth it in the long-run. A games console is a long-term investment. Blu-ray has won the war. You lose.

You have to weigh out cost with output. At the time, Pentium D was cheaper and it still runs anything I want it to. Although had I bought a Core 2 Duo at the time, this PC would probably have lasted a lot longer. So you win on that one, I guess. 1 - 1. Any more challenges?


----------



## cancon

To prove my point...



cancon said:


> Blu-ray has won the war.


[WEBQUOTE="http://www.computerbuyer.co.uk/news/151200"]Blu-ray winning high-def battle 11:01AM, Thursday 3rd January 2008
Blu-ray appears to be winning the battle to become the dominant high-definition video standard that succeeds DVD.








According to Hollywood Reporter, Blu-ray (BD) discs are outselling HD DVDs by three-to-one in Europe, while in Blockbuster's US stores, rentals are about 70-30 in favour of BD. Warner Bros' movie 300 is one of the minority of titles that are available on both formats: the BD version is selling twice as fast as the HD DVD disc.

While the relative figures may reflect the fact that there are more BD titles are more players, since they're built into every PlayStation 3 console, they do not make good reading for HD DVD's principle backers, Toshiba and Microsoft.

The decision by Paramount and its subsidiaries Dreamworks and Liongate to switch from BD to HD DVD, in return for a $150 million incentive, appears to have had little impact, Hollywood Reporter notes.

In fact it has been a while since there was any good news for the HD DVD camp. While its players were once much cheaper, Blu-ray player prices have been falling steadily to wipe out the rival's early advantage. And just last month, Warner, the only major Hollywood studio to back both formats, intimated that it mat be about to ditch HD DVD.
Simon Aughton[/WEBQUOTE]


----------



## cancon

To disprove it...

[WEBQUOTE="http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9838619-1.html"]A roadmap for ending the high-def format quagmire
Blu-ray

Can Sony put an end to this war?
(Credit: Blu-ray)

How many times over the past few months have you heard that "the worst is over" and the chances of the high-def format war finally coming to a close were increasing by the day? If you haven't heard it at least once, you're probably not reading the right stories.

But with all that going on, the war is officially a quagmire for both sides and the chances of getting out of this quickly are diminishing at an astounding rate. Consider this: as it stands, the Blu-ray camp commands roughly 49 percent DVD market share, while HD DVD is trailing slightly behind. To make matters worse, some reports suggest HD DVD may be gaining strength, although most buyers are sitting out.

So what's really going on with this war? Is there an end in sight? Even better, is there a solution in sight that can finally put this to rest? If you ask me, I think this could be over in a month if the Blu-ray camp follows three steps.

Step 1: Warner

Warner Bros. is, without a doubt, the most important element of ending this quagmire. As I said above, Sony currently commands 49 percent of the DVD market before Warner jumps on board. But with a little coaxing (and financial massaging), Sony could probably get Warner to take its side. If it can succeed in this, most estimates put Blu-ray's share of the DVD market at about 70 percent, while the HD DVD camp is left to flounder.

Now, the biggest issue with this is getting Warner on board. More often than not, Warner's representatives have come out and said that it plans on being neutral until it sees a clear-cut winner emerge. To make matters worse, the company is actually performing relatively well by supporting all three formats (DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray), so there is no immediate need to join one side or the other.

As if that wasn't enough, the HD DVD side of the war still harbors support from Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks, and Universal Studios, to name a few, and the chances of any of these companies leaving this format could be difficult without Warner's Blu-ray backing.

Interestingly enough, if Warner would decide on HD DVD because of its cheaper cost of production, the war would officially hit a standstill and the chances of this ending soon are all but over.

Simply put, Sony must do whatever it can to bring Warner aboard. Not only would it give its format a commanding lead in the market, it would almost surely attract other studios to join its side and put an end to this once and for all.

Step 2: Slash prices on all players

Although prices of Blu-ray and HD DVD players are coming down, none have hit the sub-$100 price point long enough to justify a purchase. Worse, most consumers are downright confused and others couldn't care less about the future of HD DVD and Blu-ray.

But with Warner now on board, Sony would need to deal the death blow as soon as possible. Surely it could drop prices on its media, but the most effective solution would be to drop the prices of its players.

Much like its gaming division, Sony should sell its own players at a loss for a while to increase adoption rates. Sound a bit too extreme for an industry that doesn't employ this tactic? Think of the alternative: with so much money invested in this format, Sony currently runs the chance of losing everything if Blu-ray becomes a debacle. At this point, nothing should be left to chance.

As far as I'm concerned, each and every Blu-ray player should hit the magic sub-$100 price point as soon as the deal is inked with Warner. In effect, this will help create two scenarios--people would take notice that more movies are available on Blu-ray and the players are cheaper than (or the same price as) HD DVD hardware. If that's true, what's the impetus for people to buy Toshiba's device?

Step 3: Get in contact with HD DVD's supporters and inform them of the bad news

Once steps one and two are complete, Sony must do everything it can to get in touch with HD DVD's supporters and fill them in on the writing on the wall. After all, once Warner jumps on board and sales start increasing for Blu-ray, what are the chances that these studios want anything to do with HD DVD anyway?

Even better, the deals Sony could make with the other studios would almost surely turn out to be far more lucrative than the Warner deal and it finally completes the ultimate goal--victory.

Believe it or not, this war could be ended sooner than you think. It just all depends on Sony's ability to make sound business decisions. If you ask me, we're probably in for a long one.
[/WEBQUOTE]


----------



## vinyljunkie

I have an Acer laptop that I use for most things (mostly work-related) and a 3-4 year old eMac at home which I use to surf, hold my music, and play around with Google Sketch-Up and Blender, and here's are some random observations of mine. Keep in mind that I am not a very technical guy:

For the Acer I have blockers for adware, malware, as well as AV protection and a Registry Maintenance utility, all using memory and taking up space, and these help keep it running as it should. XP is convenient to use, and extremely familiar.
The eMac is older and (per tech specs) slower. I have added nothing to it keep it up and running as it should. And it seems to be as fast as the Acer.

In simplest terms, the Acer requires all of these programs to be as usable and consistent as the Mac just...is.

Aside from that, I agree with those who say that there is no perfect machine and that Mac is not _better_ than PC, or vice-versa. Depends on what you want to accomplish.


----------



## namenotfound

Mac [the hardware] *is* a PC.

Which "Mac" is the poll referring to? Since "Mac" can mean either the hardware or software.

If you want a question about software, then "Mac or Windows or Linux" would be a better poll question.
If you want a question about hardware, then "Mac or Dell or Gateway or etc." would be a better poll question.

But "Mac or PC" is incorrect on so many levels.


----------



## Killazys

Haha cancon. Well I guess that's true. Now if only Dad will believe me


----------



## ferrija1

namenotfound said:


> Mac [the hardware] *is* a PC.
> 
> Which "Mac" is the poll referring to? Since "Mac" can mean either the hardware or software.
> 
> If you want a question about software, then "Mac or Windows or Linux" would be a better poll question.
> If you want a question about hardware, then "Mac or Dell or Gateway or etc." would be a better poll question.
> 
> But "Mac or PC" is incorrect on so many levels.


If a Mac's hardware is essentially the same as a PC's then it's just like a Dell vs. HP thread.


----------



## namenotfound

ferrija1 said:


> If a Mac's hardware is essentially the same as a PC's then it's just like a Dell vs. HP thread.


A MAC IS A PC
PC STANDS FOR PERSONAL COMPUTER
PERSONAL COMPUTERS ARE DEFINED BY BEING AFFORDABLE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BEING SMALL ENOUGH TO FIT IN A HOUSEHOLD, A BEING USER FRIENDLY.

So what do you mean by "If a Mac's hardware is essentially the same as a PC..."

It *IS* a PC. And I'm tired of people trying to say Mac and PC are somehow two different things. Even those "Mac vs. PC" commercials on TV are moronic! They just help to spread the stupidity of the world.


----------



## ferrija1

namenotfound said:


> Even those "Mac vs. PC" commercials on TV are moronic! They just help to spread the stupidity of the world.


No they're not, they're talking about Mac vs. PC which is OS X vs. Windows, respectively. Anyways, you are saying a Mac's hardware is just like a PC's hardware. If that's what you're saying, then this is like a Dell vs. HP thread, since there hardware is the same.


----------



## cancon

namenotfound said:


> A MAC IS A PC
> PC STANDS FOR PERSONAL COMPUTER
> PERSONAL COMPUTERS ARE DEFINED BY BEING AFFORDABLE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BEING SMALL ENOUGH TO FIT IN A HOUSEHOLD, A BEING USER FRIENDLY.
> 
> So what do you mean by "If a Mac's hardware is essentially the same as a PC..."
> 
> It *IS* a PC. And I'm tired of people trying to say Mac and PC are somehow two different things. Even those "Mac vs. PC" commercials on TV are moronic! They just help to spread the stupidity of the world.


----------



## vinyljunkie

Personally, I think that's rooted in the fact the Macs have been driven by media industries (art, design, music, etc.) to the point that they are not considered to be a personal computer, but a work machine, to be used only when you want to perform a limited set of chores.

The lines have always been "so much faster!", "extremely efficient and easy to use", and "I can do my work so much more easily!", and not "fun to use!", "good for all ages!" or "batteries included!".  <--couldn't help that one

I believe this has led people to not associate Mac/Apple with personal use and has pigeonholed it as described above. People think "personal computer" and they think Dell, HP, Acer, etc.

When someone says "pc", I don't think they are referring any given hardware+software+affordable machine, they are referring to what they have been _told_ is personal versus what they have witnessed is not personal.

Just my opinion, though.


----------



## namenotfound

ferrija1 said:


> No they're not, they're talking about Mac vs. PC which is OS X vs. Windows, respectively. Anyways, you are saying a Mac's hardware is just like a PC's hardware. If that's what you're saying, then this is like a Dell vs. HP thread, since there hardware is the same.


Then they should say "Mac OS X vs. Windows".

Staying "Mac vs. PC" *IS* stupid!

Also, don't put words in my mouth "Anyway, you are saying..." A MAC IS A PC, what you're saying still doesn't make any sense. "Mac's hardware is just like a PC's hardware". If a Mac is a PC then what the hell are you referring to when you say "PC". PC is a general term, WHAT specifically hardware are you referring to when you ask if I am saying they're the same?

Anyone that thinks a Mac isn't a PC is also stupid. Anyone that asks "Do you own a Mac or a PC" are stupid. End of discussion.


----------



## namenotfound

vinyljunkie said:


> Personally, I think that's rooted in the fact the Macs have been driven by media industries (art, design, music, etc.) to the point that they are not considered to be a personal computer, but a work machine, to be used only when you want to perform a limited set of chores.


When the term "PC" was coined, it had with it 3 lists of requirements to be considered a PC. Those are the three I listed before. Usage isn't a requirement. How you use your PC is up to you, weather it be for business or pleasure.


----------



## vinyljunkie

namenotfound said:


> When the term "PC" was coined, it had with it 3 lists of requirements to be considered a PC. Those are the three I listed before. Usage isn't a requirement. How you use your PC is up to you, weather it be for business or pleasure.


I agree. However, due to marketing of the Mac to certain industries; on top of the considerably higher cost ownership, there has been a line drawn which makes consumers *perceive* the Macs as being less "personal". At the same time, the marketing efforts of Dell, etc. have been pointed at general users. All I'm saying is people are not considering the three things that you listed, but they are referring what they _perceive_ as a personal machine.


----------



## namenotfound

vinyljunkie said:


> I agree. However, due to marketing of the Mac to certain industries; on top of the considerably higher cost ownership, there has been a line drawn which makes consumers *perceive* the Macs as being less "personal". At the same time, the marketing efforts of Dell, etc. have been pointed at general users. All I'm saying is people are not considering the three things that you listed, but they are referring what they _perceive_ as a personal machine.


Ok, that makes sense.

I just wish more people would be technologically aware. I still hear people refer to the Internet as "the blue E".


----------



## ferrija1

vinyljunkie said:


> Personally, I think that's rooted in the fact the Macs have been driven by media industries (art, design, music, etc.) to the point that they are not considered to be a personal computer, but a work machine, to be used only when you want to perform a limited set of chores.
> 
> The lines have always been "so much faster!", "extremely efficient and easy to use", and "I can do my work so much more easily!", and not "fun to use!", "good for all ages!" or "batteries included!".  <--couldn't help that one
> 
> I believe this has led people to not associate Mac/Apple with personal use and has pigeonholed it as described above. People think "personal computer" and they think Dell, HP, Acer, etc.
> 
> When someone says "pc", I don't think they are referring any given hardware+software+affordable machine, they are referring to what they have been _told_ is personal versus what they have witnessed is not personal.
> 
> Just my opinion, though.





> I agree. However, due to marketing of the Mac to certain industries; on top of the considerably higher cost ownership, there has been a line drawn which makes consumers perceive the Macs as being less "personal". At the same time, the marketing efforts of Dell, etc. have been pointed at general users. All I'm saying is people are not considering the three things that you listed, but they are referring what they perceive as a personal machine.


I don't know if that's what people think, but Apple definite wants it to be (and makes it) a fun computer. Just look at the iLife apps and Photo Booth as well as Apple's site and ads. 



> Then they should say "Mac OS X vs. Windows".
> 
> Staying "Mac vs. PC" IS stupid!
> 
> Also, don't put words in my mouth "Anyway, you are saying..." A MAC IS A PC, what you're saying still doesn't make any sense. "Mac's hardware is just like a PC's hardware". If a Mac is a PC then what the hell are you referring to when you say "PC". PC is a general term, WHAT specifically hardware are you referring to when you ask if I am saying they're the same?
> 
> Anyone that thinks a Mac isn't a PC is also stupid. Anyone that asks "Do you own a Mac or a PC" are stupid. End of discussion.


A Mac's internal hardware is the same, yes, the RAM, CPU, motherboard, optical drives, and video card are all generic parts that could be in a PC. What is different is the outside, the design of the computer, the case. Also, saying you have a Mac implies that you have OS X, the native operating system for Macs. A "PC" includes Macs in it's original definition, but things change and for the sake of clarity in Mac and Windows discussions, a PC generally refers to a machine that runs Windows. If saying Mac vs. PC is stupid, then so is Dell vs. HP, iPod vs. Creative Zen, and Bose vs. Polk, since all essentially use the same hardware.

I guess those 1.6 million hits for "Mac vs. PC" on Google are wrong. (sarcasm) 

The Blue E 
http://mouserunner.com/FF_Click_On_The_Blue_E.html

Peace...


----------



## vinyljunkie

yup. Seems like you feel about this subject the same way that I feel about the general public calling all Electronic Dance Music "techno", so I feel your pain.


----------



## loserOlimbs

If Macs are PCs then why are they so... not affordable?

Or at least over priced!


----------



## cancon

ferrija1 said:


> The Blue E
> http://mouserunner.com/FF_Click_On_The_Blue_E.html




Very good.


----------



## Foley

If you like games go for a PC, if you like looking at pictures and just browsing the web (what a mac is good at) then still go for a PC.

PC is just so mutch better, im sorry but its true.


----------



## TechGuy

Alright, let's stick to a news topic here rather than just do the regular Mac/PC bashing.


----------



## cancon

TechGuy said:


> I've always been a PC man myself, but to try to avoid making this thread identical to every other "Mac vs PC" that's been out there, let's add some news:
> 
> [WEBQUOTE="http://www.toptechnews.com/news/Army-Adds-Macs-To-Improve-Security/story.xhtml?story_id=13000A5M7L1O"]The Army's Apple program to bring more Macs into military facilities is being led by Jonathan Broskey, a former Apple employee who says it's not just that Macs are a less inviting target than Windows; Apple's version of Unix is inherently more secure than Windows, he says. Some observers, however, are taking issue with that assessment. [/WEBQUOTE]





TechGuy said:


> Alright, let's stick to a news topic here rather than just do the regular Mac/PC bashing.


haha... Always trying to get to the point...


----------



## vinyljunkie

Honda vs. Toyota
Ford vs. Chevy
Cingular vs. Verizon
us vs. them
Church's vs. Popeye's
Jets vs. Giants

As is Mac vs. Windows.

In a perfect world, everyone would respect the opinions of all others concerning this. Truth is, I don't care why anyone prefers one over the other. It's their opinion, and that's really all that matters. As long as they don't attempt to push their opinions on me, it doesn't affect me.

Ya love Mac and want no other?
Great.

Perfectly happy with Windows?
Wonderful.

Prefer Unix or Linux?
Beautiful.

But plz don't attempt to convince anyone that your opinion (that one is simply better than the other) is actually a fact.

On a related note, I work in the GIS industry, and finding a spatial data viewer/editor that works well on a Mac (including web apps) is quite frustrating.


----------



## ferrija1

In the end, I just want to say that you really have to have owned both a Mac and a PC to compare them. You can't just have a PC and say Macs suck because you don't have one.


----------



## vinyljunkie

ferrija1 said:


> you really have to have owned both a Mac and a PC to compare them


well said


----------



## ferrija1

vinyljunkie said:


> well said


Thanks, I just hate it when people who don't know Macs are even computers come in here and say, "sorry guys, but you all know PC is better."


----------



## namenotfound

I've owned a Mac since November '07, but used them for years in school. I started with an Apple II in Junior High. In college I've used a combination of iMac CRT and iMac LCD computers. The Mac I own is a MacBook Pro.

I've owned Windows-based computers since 1999. The computers I've owned were: Sony, Gateway, & Dell.

My first computer was command line based, it was a Commadore64 computer.

So I'm experienced with both Windows and Mac, and I can honestly say for my own personal preference, I prefer Mac. Mac OS X has so many cool features in it, such as "stacks". And the Mac hardware runs Windows XP faster than my Sony or Gateway computer. The Dell seems to run Windows XP as fast as my Mac.

I still say though, that people should STOP with "PC vs. Mac" comparisons, because a Mac is a PC.


----------



## cancon

vinyljunkie said:


> Honda vs. Toyota
> Ford vs. Chevy
> Cingular vs. Verizon
> us vs. them
> Church's vs. Popeye's
> Jets vs. Giants
> 
> As is Mac vs. Windows.
> 
> In a perfect world, everyone would respect the opinions of all others concerning this. Truth is, I don't care why anyone prefers one over the other. It's their opinion, and that's really all that matters. As long as they don't attempt to push their opinions on me, it doesn't affect me.
> 
> Ya love Mac and want no other?
> Great.
> 
> Perfectly happy with Windows?
> Wonderful.
> 
> Prefer Unix or Linux?
> Beautiful.
> 
> But plz don't attempt to convince anyone that your opinion (that one is simply better than the other) is actually a fact.
> 
> On a related note, I work in the GIS industry, and finding a spatial data viewer/editor that works well on a Mac (including web apps) is quite frustrating.


It's slightly annoying when people don't have a related point to make, and try to make an argument-destroying comment when they can't take sides. If you don't have a relevant point to make, don't make one at all. Not directed at you, vinyl. This is just bottled up anger from all those who do it. You just happened to be the last one to do so.


----------



## jp1203

oi! Not this again!

I voted PC


Why?

1. The Availability of them around here and the popularity is huge, because of this I just got 16 of a company's old ones (P-III 866 MHz, the lot of them)

2. The capability to build my own

3. The compatibility with lots of software, one of my main reasons of not looking too much into the mac market is the fact that at least 30% of the software I use won't run on it, and for the software I do have I'd have to spend thousands on buying mac versions.

4. The price- I can build a pc for a couple hundred easy, for 500-1000 I can have a pretty sweet one, to get a higher-up mac, you're looking at thousands easy

5. The interface...most people call it revolutionary and love it, but I CAN'T STAND IT! It reminds me so much of Gnome, which I hate as well. I can't stand having basically a menu on the desktop, don't like how said menu is taken over by whatever app is open, I think it's too pretty and not functional enough and playing with it A LOT, it frustrates me. Saying that, I don't much care for vista's interface either. I like Windows XP/2k's classic theme with the taskbar on the top, it's just so easy to work and not over-prettyfied. The most I'll go is a pretty cool black theme I found online - Royale Noir. I like KDE's layout too, but not mac's.

6. (nitpicky but it's a reason) They're widescreen-happy. The idea of a widescreen computer monitor sickens me! Think about it, you do everything scrolling up and down, why sacrifice that? I'll stick with 4:3 thank you very much. Looking through every single one they have is widescreen, this affects you in all but the Mac Pro, where you could throw on a different monitor.


----------



## namenotfound

JStergis said:


> 6. (nitpicky but it's a reason) They're widescreen-happy. The idea of a widescreen computer monitor sickens me! Think about it, you do everything scrolling up and down, why sacrifice that? I'll stick with 4:3 thank you very much. Looking through every single one they have is widescreen, this affects you in all but the Mac Pro, where you could throw on a different monitor.


Almost every single Windows-based laptop computer I've seen on sale in the past couple of years have been widescreen


----------



## hewee

I well not say anything about PC or Mac but I was always thinking how great a wide screen monitor would be and how you can see more. But most I have seen is in the stores and your seeing a desktop background.
Have heard how things don't show up right with some programs but don't know how many programs are effected my this or have I seen it. But this was on some image or I think a 3D image program that all the added buttons etc that are on top, down the side etc were not showing up right on a wide screen. Don't know if it has anything to do with it being a wide screen or that some wide screen do this or all do this. Said also if you want the added space so you can have the program open and then have the added work space to get two standard monitors and use one for the program and other for work space. 

Then on the Mac Pro they have these monitors.
Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
Apple Cinema HD Display (23" flat panel)
Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)

They are all the widescreen format.


----------



## jp1203

namenotfound said:


> Almost every single Windows-based laptop computer I've seen on sale in the past couple of years have been widescreen


True, but there are still SOME without (I'd say maybe 1/8 of them are 4:3s), Apple has none whatsoever without, I don't think (after looking around their site) they even have a single 4:3 monitor, so you'd have to buy one separate for a desktop machine and for an imac or laptop, there's nothing you can do.

Anyone agree with my theory on the widescreen? It just doesn't make sense. For TVs, fine, but for computers, the only way I'd see it making sense is if you do animation or video work where you are scrolling across more often. For anyone else, most things are up-and-down (electronic publishing, word processing, browsing the internet, file management...)

True, it fits our field of vision better, that's why for TVs I have no complaints, but for computers, it just makes no sense. I think when I'm that close to something I tend to focus on one thing anyway. Right now I'm focusing on maybe two lines, right where I'm typing. The whole "field of vision thing" doesn't work in monitors.

...anyway it's 1 AM and I'm off to sleep. Reading my last two posts they aren't too coherent. I repeat things quite a lot, like the phrase "doesn't make sense" in this one. Must be a sign I'm tired. Don't really feel like proofreading them, I'll just reply again with a more meaningful response next time I suppose.


----------



## namenotfound

As for the height, you can get a bigger widescreen 
I'm currently on a Dell with dual screens, one is 4:3 and the other is 16:1 (a widescreen's number is 16:1, if you're gonna use numbers for "standard", then you should use numbers for both)

The 16:1 has the same resolution in height at the 4:3, so I'm seeing the same height on both screens. The only difference is I'm seeing more width on the 16:1 

Also, if you prefer a 4:3 ratio, *most* 16:1 monitors support 4:3 resolutions. If I wanted, I could put 1024x768 or even 800x600 resolution on my 16:1 monitor. But those are tiny compared to what I have


----------



## jp1203

namenotfound said:


> As for the height, you can get a bigger widescreen
> I'm currently on a Dell with dual screens, one is 4:3 and the other is 16:1 (a widescreen's number is 16:1, if you're gonna use numbers for "standard", then you should use numbers for both)
> 
> The 16:1 has the same resolution in height at the 4:3, so I'm seeing the same height on both screens. The only difference is I'm seeing more width on the 16:1
> 
> Also, if you prefer a 4:3 ratio, *most* 16:1 monitors support 4:3 resolutions. If I wanted, I could put 1024x768 or even 800x600 resolution on my 16:1 monitor. But those are tiny compared to what I have


A widescreen isn't 16:1, it's 16:9 (16:10 on occasion). Think of how ridiculous a 16:1 screen would look. I just never thought to use both.

Doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose to go buy a much more expensive say 22" widescreen instead of the 17" 4:3 you would have gotten originally.

While it's true you can use smaller 4:3 resolutions on a widescreen, that'd be a horrible waste of money, and you'd have annoying black bars on the sides of the screen.

Doing the math, a widescreen display has significantly less surface area than a 4:3 monitor. A 19" widescreen has the same height as a 15" 4:3, yet they try to squeeze tons more pixels in that area making it appear to have plenty of height, but in reality it's just distorted and smaller.

according to my math, a 19" widescreen would have dimensions of 11.4 inches for height and 15.2 inches for width.

A 19" 4:3 would have dimensions of 12.4384... for height and 14.3626... for width

This makes a widescreen have an area of 173.28 sq. inches and a 4:3 have an area of 178.65 sq inches. You lose a slightly over 5X1 inch square with a widescreen.


----------



## TechGuy

I think we're getting a little off-topic. Might want to start a separate monitor thread in another forum.


----------



## cancon

TechGuy said:


> I've always been a PC man myself, but to try to avoid making this thread identical to every other "Mac vs PC" that's been out there, let's add some news:
> 
> [WEBQUOTE="http://www.toptechnews.com/news/Army-Adds-Macs-To-Improve-Security/story.xhtml?story_id=13000A5M7L1O"]The Army's Apple program to bring more Macs into military facilities is being led by Jonathan Broskey, a former Apple employee who says it's not just that Macs are a less inviting target than Windows; Apple's version of Unix is inherently more secure than Windows, he says. Some observers, however, are taking issue with that assessment. [/WEBQUOTE]





TechGuy said:


> Alright, let's stick to a news topic here rather than just do the regular Mac/PC bashing.





TechGuy said:


> I think we're getting a little off-topic. Might want to start a separate monitor thread in another forum.


See anything in common?


----------



## jp1203

TechGuy said:


> I think we're getting a little off-topic. Might want to start a separate monitor thread in another forum.


Good Point 

http://forums.techguy.org/random-discussion/668789-16-9-10-vs-4-a.html


----------



## tech.jk

It depends on wat u want... if you want more style, and graphics, go for a mac. but if you want more programs, and more PLAYABLE games (GO WINDOWS!!!) you really should go for a PC/Laptop...


----------



## strouprob

What is it that you would like to do with the computer? I have both a Dell 710 and a Macbook Pro 17. I love the Mac, because I have had no issues with it in a year. I use it for everything. The Dell has just kinda set there as a very expensive file server. I use the Mac for multimedia and work. I run Microsoft OS's on it for testing using VMWare. I have had no issues so far with viruses and malware. I spend about 4 hours a day connected to the web for one reason or another and I also use it to VPN to work. What a great laptop. The best I have ever owned.


----------



## namenotfound

JStergis said:


> A widescreen isn't 16:1, it's 16:9


It was early, I was still tired, mistakes happen. :up:
At least I got the "16" part right 



tech.jk said:


> you really should go for a PC/Laptop


*hits head*
Ok, I made the "mac is a pc" speech, now I'll have to make the "laptop is a pc" speech 

"PC" stands for Personal Computer. A laptop meets the requirements to be considered a PC, thus it is a PC.

Saying "PC/Laptop" or "PC or a Laptop" or any of the various configurations of the above, doesn't really make much sense.


----------



## GNOME32

Very true, but most people in the world don't use the term in its literal form, but its widely accepted form which is "A computer which standardly comes with Windows OS and with an (before Macs got Intel x86 processors anyway) Intel based processor. So, basically take "PC" as a spawn of Bill Gates, not Steve Jobs.


----------



## cancon

namenotfound said:


> Ok, I made the "mac is a pc" speech, now I'll have to make the "laptop is a pc" speech
> 
> "PC" stands for Personal Computer. A laptop meets the requirements to be considered a PC, thus it is a PC.
> 
> Saying "PC/Laptop" or "PC or a Laptop" or any of the various configurations of the above, doesn't really make much sense.


 wow... a realist?


----------



## strouprob

My only reference to MAC is the Macbook Pro, since it did not apply to this post I apologize for "chiming in"
I will say this, I have had no compatibility issues with my MAC, while PC's seem to be the majority of the computers that I work on. Statistically speaking this is a small sample since I am a small business, so take that information for what it is worth.
My Mac has been like a never ending day on the beach, while my PC has been like a meth trip followed by rehab. BTW I do not do drugs, it just seemed like a good reference.


----------



## hewee

Build a Mac Pro equivalent workstation for 1/3 the cost

Note you still run Windows and can run the Mac OS.


----------



## jp1203

The reason, I think, that Mac hasn't rerouted it to a PC platform (sorry namenotfound...can't think of better terms) is because they would seise to exist at anywhere near the status they have now in the hardware market. People would go for the cheaper hardware with more options and just buy MacOS if they wanted it badly enough.


----------



## ferrija1

hewee said:


> Build a Mac Pro equivalent workstation for 1/3 the cost
> 
> Note you still run Windows and can run the Mac OS.


That guy had 2 500GB hard drives and 8GB of RAM, which I would buy from somewhere else, at the absolute best price.


----------



## Bloodyskullz

The way I see it is that Mac is best used for graphic design while windows is better off for the gaming and business part of the computer world.


----------



## namenotfound

Just wondering, if I bought a Mac Pro, since it's a tower, can I add non-apple parts? Like if I wanted to upgrade the RAM or add a second or third hard drive (since the Mac Pro has room for four), would it work if I used a cheaper supplier?


----------



## ferrija1

namenotfound said:


> Just wondering, if I bought a Mac Pro, since it's a tower, can I add non-apple parts? Like if I wanted to upgrade the RAM or add a second or third hard drive (since the Mac Pro has room for four), would it work if I used a cheaper supplier?


Any RAM or hard drives work fine with with Macs. Video cards, sound cards, and other devices that require drivers must be Mac-compatible.


----------



## hewee

ferrija1 said:


> That guy had 2 500GB hard drives and 8GB of RAM, which I would buy from somewhere else, at the absolute best price.


Yes I know upgrading the ram, harddrive(s) and graphics can be cheaper getting other places.
Did read that you shouldmake sure to get good ram for the new Mac pro and getting from apple may be best, but that was long ago.
It was over here someplace http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2811&p=1 or maybe another write up your find a link to here. 
Anyhow it was about needing to have the good ram that needs to stay cool. 
The type of memory that is used is not cheap even if you do it it someplace else and it works ok. 
Now I read all this back around August 2006 so things would have changed on being able to get ram other places and the price may of even come down more getting it other places. 
It also said get you own added drives because they are over price and you don't know what brand drive your be getting because they use two brands and one was better but you can't pick the brand so get what ever they put in.


----------



## GNOME32

From what I see from the guided tour, the new Mac OS X Leopard has wicked awesome features, like Spaces and Time Machine.

Check it out!

http://www.apple.com/macosx/guidedtour/small.html


----------



## ferrija1

GNOME32 said:


> From what I see from the guided tour, the new Mac OS X Leopard has wicked awesome features, like Spaces and Time Machine.
> 
> Check it out!
> 
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/guidedtour/small.html


They are nice to have bulit-in but you could find very similar programs on Windows, although you would have to pay more for them. I think Cover Flow and Quick Look are the two best features. 

I also like how OS X comes in only one simple $120 version.


----------



## skopas

The mac is rigid and heavy.. It reminds me of a silver flat hummer expensive and pretty. Lots of nice features in terms of eye candy on the Leopard and Jag. Even though its open base safer in terms of security. I would just go with a pc based linux distro. I luve Windows pc based computers. Easy, fun....and you can take them for a world of overhaul, if u wish. My 2 cents/


----------



## namenotfound

Bootcamp let's you run Windows on an Intel-based Mac computer.
Microsoft has a version of "Virtual PC" that lets you use Windows on a PowerPC-based Mac computer.

So if you have Intel-based or PPC-based Mac, you can still use Windows 


As for Linux, eventhough I do like Linux a lot, I recently reverted back to Windows XP on a laptop I had Linux running on for over a year.


----------



## hewee

Does the Time Machine do backups at all on the Windows?


----------



## Yankee Rose

No, it cannot back up files stored on a partition which is not formatted with the HFS+ file system. Hence, it cannot back up Windows or Linux partitions.


----------



## GNOME32

What about a Mac with Windows in a VM?


----------



## Yankee Rose

Technically, yes, but not in a productive way. Take Parallels for example:

Time Machine considers the entire multi-GB VM a single file and will back up a new copy of the enormous file every time it sees the slightest change in the VM. 

This is not productive, if only because it will rapidly fill up the backup disk, perhaps even within hours if one uses Parallels regularly and has a large VM.

Future versions of Time Machine are supposedly going to include a preference setting allowing the user to change the backup interval to a longer period of time.


----------



## namenotfound

Well what if you format the Windows partition to FAT32?
Mac can read and write to FAT32.
Would Time Machine back that up?


----------



## strouprob

I use my Mac to run VMWare. I have about 20 machines that I use for testing. I have VMWare workstation for MAC. I have had no problems with the Virtual machines and it gives me great flexibility for environment testing. When I first starting using VMWare on my PC, I would have Virtual Machines dump on me, basically not boot and become useless. I have had the MAC for about a year and since I have been running virtual environments on my Mac performance is better for the VM(Windows Servers) and the host (MAC)and not one machine has gone down. I have 2g of memory and can run three machines in an ADS environment without killing my host processing. I cannot say that about my Dell that has 4g of memory. It is for this reason that I am using my Mac as a primary for work and Multimedia. Anyway, Mac fits the bill for me.
I have also left my Mac up and running for months at a time, no reboots, with my Virtual Windows servers running without any issues. I am impressed.


----------



## hewee

Yankee Rose said:


> No, it cannot back up files stored on a partition which is not formatted with the HFS+ file system. Hence, it cannot back up Windows or Linux partitions.


To bad because Time Machine did not because it really seems like a great backup.


----------



## tomdkat

I voted Mac and I'm with namenotfound on the "Mac is a PC" issue. 

Peace...


----------



## nimd4

nimd4 said:


> , availabilty


* *availability* ...wasn't able to edit my post (any longer)?!??  Must be a time-limit or something


----------



## ferrija1

Yep, you have 24 hours to edit your post.


----------



## cc64

I have experience on both PCs and MACs alike. Deciding on which platform really comes down to what youre going to use it for, and how much your willing to spend. MACs are obviously more expensive but offer some more power. MACs main standout area is in multimedia. Windows stands out in the business application area. Personally, I dont hold a favorite system, it all depends on what Im doing that day. I usually make recommendations to friends based on experience with computers and their willingness to learn.


----------



## strouprob

cc64,

I agree with you. Does anyone have a good link to MAC issues, where it relates to PC being a better solution? With all of the negative comments about MAC from PC users, their should be some good sites. If someone knows of one that is specific and technical I would like to review it. Thanks.


----------



## Yankee Rose

strouprob said:


> cc64,
> 
> Does anyone have a good link to MAC issues, where it relates to PC being a better solution?


The two best sites I've seen - which provide unbiased facts from extensive research - conclude the opposite:

SystemShootouts.com & Mac Vs. PC Info - The Study of How Macs Compare to PCs

In my experience I have found that the majority of those who prefer PCs are either (1) gamers or (2) folks who have never really _used_ a Mac. But like I said - that is in my experience.


----------



## ferrija1

A Mac is not a MAC, a MAC is a NCAA Basketball division, address, or a box that spits out money.

I think the main issues with OS X are gaming and business applications, both weak spots for Apple.


----------



## strouprob

Thanks Yankee.
I think that MAC has its place and is growing in the business sector of computing. Most people that I know in the industry have purchased a MAC, but use if for MultiMedia. I do not care about gaming but started out using my MAC for film and Multimedia. Now that I am running VMWare Fusion, I use it as my primary computer. Working as a consultant I need a powerful laptop with a slim profile, and good battery life. I currently own a Dell XPS 140, IBM ThinkPad, and have used a dell laptop from my company (cannot remember the model number because it has been in the bag for months). The MacBook Pro out performs all of these computers, even running Fusion. I use Microsoft Office for MAC even though I have many VMWare computers with office. I have heard about the battery issues with the MacBooks, and some other minor complaints but have not experienced any problems what so ever with mine. Hell! I sleep with it....LOL Just kidding. Anyway, I am going to go over the sites that Yankee recommended.


----------



## ferrija1

Mac's weakness is in general business, it's growing in multimedia and personal use though.


----------



## Killazys

But I'm still wondering why iPods are so expensive compared to say, the Creative Zens...


----------



## ferrija1

Because people will still buy them even when they are expensive.


----------



## Killazys

Heh, another marketing ploy?


----------



## cc64

Killazys said:


> Heh, another marketing ploy?


Yes. But you know what? It works. And my iPod mini is still kickin', so I guess it was a good investment.


----------



## Killazys

Good point


----------



## absolutezero1287

It's funny when people say "Mac vs. PC" when a computer manufactured by Apple is just that a PC (personal computer).

i would go with the "PC". You can boot Windows, Linux, and Mac if you wanted to.

Btw, Linux is the most secure one out there.
Nuff said


----------



## ericleb010

I chose PC, but I also own a mac.

I just don't like the fact that the app bar is soooooooooo badly done. If it would be like the Windows taskbar, or Ubuntu styled, I'd use it more often. My opinion about how to sort out your windows is the same. Too messy.

I also hate the amount of Mac-compatible apps right now. The list is just not populated enough.


----------



## tomdkat

ferrija1 said:


> I think the main issues with OS X are gaming and business applications, both weak spots for Apple.


How is "business applications" a weak spot?

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat

ericleb010 said:


> I just don't like the fact that the app bar is soooooooooo badly done. If it would be like the Windows taskbar, or Ubuntu styled, I'd use it more often. My opinion about how to sort out your windows is the same. Too messy.


Do you mean the app dock that is usually at the bottom of the screen in OS X?

Peace...


----------



## ferrija1

tomdkat said:


> How is "business applications" a weak spot?
> 
> Peace...


It doesn't run Microsoft Access and many small applications. Some (uneducated) ITs don't like Macs on PC networks and there are many IE only sites for business.


----------



## tomdkat

ferrija1 said:


> It doesn't run Microsoft Access and many small applications.


I can see MS Access being an issue but there are other databases (arguably "real" databases vs MS Access) that do run in OS X, so I don't see this as a "weakness" unless you're talking about people desiring to run MS Access vs a "real" database. OpenOffice comes with a more functional database than MS Access while providing compatibility with MS Office so I'm not sure where the real "weakness" lies.

EDIT: What kinds of "small apps" would you consider to be needed or necessary in a business environment?

Peace...


----------



## namenotfound

ferrija1 said:


> ...and there are many IE only sites for business.


IE5 has a Mac version. It's not available for download on Microsoft's website anymore though, but maybe you could find it somewhere else online.

Plus Firefox has a "user agent switcher" extension, and Opera has this feature by default. So either browser can mask (pretend) to be IE for those IE-only sites.


----------



## tomdkat

namenotfound said:


> IE5 has a Mac version. It's not available for download on Microsoft's website anymore though, but maybe you could find it somewhere else online.


This is true but unfortunately, IE on Mac isn't current enough to adequately support sites tuned for IE 6 on Windows. What IS fortunate is Microsoft improving web standards support in IE such that the need for IE-only sites goes away.



> Plus Firefox has a "user agent switcher" extension, and Opera has this feature by default. So either browser can mask (pretend) to be IE for those IE-only sites.


This is also an option but it's actual effectiveness will depend on the sites in question.

My personal experience has been there are far more internal web sites with IE-only requirements than ones actually on the Internet. In this day and age, it's hard to participate in the global economy and expect all your clients or customers to be running Windows. Things are improving in this regard as time marches on. 

Peace...


----------



## namenotfound

What I think is stupid is that some web designers are still in an "old fashion" way of thinking, so they put up "browser detection" to block all non-IE browsers. Yet about 85% of the time, they don't have ANY features that only work in IE. So I use UAS in Firefox and can browse those sites just fine. One of my school's many websites is like that. Annoys the hell out of me.


----------



## tomdkat

Yep, I'm with you on that and have had similar experiences with sites. Some sites, I use a UAS to masquerade as IE or Opera and the page I'm served still doesn't work quite right. Fortunately, I don't have to use a UAS much these days since the sites most important to me (Bank of America and some credit card sites) all work just fine across browsers.

Peace...


----------



## AbsentHarvest

mac or pc.
one excels where the other one fails.
vice versa.
depends what you use it for, really.. that's all.
despite the comments i've been hearing about vista. it's still my number one choice. you just need a good processor and a lot of RAM. i haven't had any security problems since the day i purchased it. in my opinion, it all depends on the user's experience.


----------



## ferrija1

namenotfound said:


> What I think is stupid is that some web designers are still in an "old fashion" way of thinking, so they put up "browser detection" to block all non-IE browsers. Yet about 85% of the time, they don't have ANY features that only work in IE. So I use UAS in Firefox and can browse those sites just fine. One of my school's many websites is like that. Annoys the hell out of me.


It seems most times the web sites still work, they just look bad.


----------



## andrewdrew

I like both mac and pc but I like pc better. Thats probabley because I like to game and mac stink for gaming, allthough they are getting better. as for which you should get it depends what you want. Macs are good for graphics design, image/vid editing, music, stuff like that. PC are good for gaming and everything else.


----------



## GoblinCleaver

The only reason I picked a PC is because I know about Linux which makes the still overpriced Mac worthless. I still have a Macbook that I mainly use... I guess that makes me a hypocrite


----------



## GNOME32

But what about a Mac running Windows? Is a Mac worth it for gaming them?


----------



## tomdkat

GoblinCleaver said:


> The only reason I picked a PC is because I know about Linux which makes the still overpriced Mac worthless. I still have a Macbook that I mainly use... I guess that makes me a hypocrite


Maybe you could install Linux on the MacBook. 

Peace...


----------



## namenotfound

GNOME32 said:


> But what about a Mac running Windows? Is a Mac worth it for gaming them?


Look at the specs. Some Apple computers would be great for gaming, others may not be.

For example, the MacBook Pro would probably be better suited for gaming than the regular MacBook.

Whatever brand of computer you buy (Apple, Dell, Sony, etc.) you got to look at the hardware specs when deciding which to get.


----------



## GNOME32

namenotfound said:


> Look at the specs. Some Apple computers would be great for gaming, others may not be.
> 
> For example, the MacBook Pro would probably be better suited for gaming than the regular MacBook.
> 
> Whatever brand of computer you buy (Apple, Dell, Sony, etc.) you got to look at the hardware specs when deciding which to get.


Very true, and I'm sorry I did not specify, but my question was more about how well a Mac can run Windows and run games on it as well.


----------



## namenotfound

They can run Windows just fine. I've ran both Windows XP and Windows Vista on Mac computers without a problem. Vista runs fast on my MacBook Pro with its 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor.

I wouldn't know about games, I just have the pre-installed Windows games. I mostly just use the Windows partition for Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Premiere, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Media Player, and various Office tools.

I don't really like playing games on my computers, that's what my Wii and Xbox are for


----------



## jfm429

I'll start by saying right away that this is a HUGE topic with many different views. In this post, I have tried to be as objective as possible based on my own experiences, except where noted. So, I'll first give my opinion, then the observations.

Opinion: Macs rock, Windows sucks, Linux is somewhere in between (had to put that in!)

Observations:

First, I'll start with my experience with Windows. I've been a long time XP user, and honestly can say that I don't mind the Windows environment itself. Sure, it's not as pretty as Leopard, but it still functions, albeit sometimes in strange ways. On my 2.6 GHz P4 with 512 MB of RAM and 64 MB of graphics memory, it tended to choke on programs like Adobe After Effects and The GIMP, and Microsoft Word took forever to start, but overall it ran well. However, I was CONSTANTLY fixing technical, Windows-induced errors and problems. Finally, it crashed for good (had to reinstall) just after I got my Mac. Compatibility issues with codecs were a huge problem when doing video editing (each program uses its own codecs). Another thing to note with Windows is that the built-in applications are almost always not enough. I found myself having to buy $150 worth of software just to make an acceptable DVD, plus a grand total of over $250 for virus/spyware software and updates.

Now on to the Mac. It's a 20" aluminum iMac with a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB RAM, and a 256 MB graphics card. First off, I have to say (excuse the ad) the computer itself is beautiful. It's amazingly convenient - one power cord! (End ad... ahem.) Anyway, Mac OS X Leopard runs smoothly and has so far (over a month) had no major problems (unlike my PC, which crashed TWICE the first day I got it!). All programs, even large ones, start almost instantly. The real beauty of the OS, however, can be seen in the details. Where before I had to navigate through the cluttered Start menu, I just tap a few times on the keyboard and I can locate any application and open it using Spotlight within seconds (MS copied this feature!). Files that are in use, such as an open Word document, can be moved to a different folder or even moved to the trash without needing to close the file - the OS just reroutes the program to the new location. (It WILL warn you if you try to EMPTY the trash with a file that is in use, though!) Uninstalling programs, unless they have a dedicated uninstaller program, is a simple matter of dropping it into the Trash, then emptying it. In other words, everything just makes sense. Nothing gets in your way; the OS does what it's supposed to do. All the built-in applications (such as iLife) are full-featured and are fully compatible as well as easy to use. For additional functionality, there are HUGE amounts of open-source and freeware apps that are professional quality (GIMP, Inkscape, Vienna, LiquidCD, iSquint, Handbrake, and Growl, just to name a few.) And the UNIX core means that it's almost entirely unhackable and virus/spyware free.

As for running Windows (or Linux) on a Mac, there are two main options: Boot Camp or virtualization. Both have advantages and disadvantages. For most applications, virtualization is the best choice. It is the most convenient and provides seamless integration when using products like Parallels or VMWare Fusion. (Q is a free (and much slower) alternative if you feel like tweaking it to run well or only need it for basic stuff.) However, it is slower for high-performance applications. In these cases, Boot Camp lets you run Windows OR Linux at FULL, NATIVE SPEED using ALL the capabilities of the computer. This is the choice for gamers and those who depend on top performance. There are normally no compatibility issues; Boot Camp ensures that all drivers are properly configured for the computer.

Conclusion: Your choice depends entirely on two things: how you will be using the computer and how much you're willing to spend. First off, anyone looking for a computer should seriously consider a Mac primarily because of its ease of use and security. Its capability of running Windows is a huge bonus. Gamers can rest assured that their Windows games will run at full speed under Boot Camp. The only people I think a PC is really appropriate for, disregarding cost considerations, are those who work in a Windows-only environment. With that said, cost can play a factor in the decision. In my view, a $1500 computer that is ready to go and will (we hope) not cause frustration and prevent you from enjoying using it (like the Windows machine was doing to my parents) is a much better deal than a $800 computer that you sink hundreds of dollars into to get it to do what you want, all the while fighting the OS. The reasonably powerful Mac Mini makes it even more economical. If after all that, however, you still want a PC or want to try and lower costs even more, then I hope that you can get as much enjoyment out of your computer as I have with my Mac!


----------



## rohitpandita

I would prefer mac to pcs the reason being mac seems to be more stable os and the best of the class.
:up:


----------



## GoblinCleaver

tomdkat said:


> Maybe you could install Linux on the MacBook.
> 
> Peace...


Yeah, I'm having trouble with that right now since the bootcamp beta expired... Maybe I'm just stupid.

EDIT: I just want to clarify that what I was saying was that if you're going to use Linux primarily or you're going to game primarily, then why buy a pricey mac when you could get a customizable mediocre regular PC? There's just no sense in that if you're relatively poor like me, haha.


----------



## tomdkat

GoblinCleaver said:


> EDIT: I just want to clarify that what I was saying was that if you're going to use Linux primarily or you're going to game primarily, then why buy a pricey mac when you could get a customizable mediocre regular PC? There's just no sense in that if you're relatively poor like me, haha.


Actually, a few years ago I was reading an article in Linux Journal I believe about people running Linux on their PowerBooks and iMac laptops (the ones with the colored cases) so they could run Linux on "cool" looking hardware. 

As for installing Linux on your Macbook, have you seen this?

Peace...


----------



## GoblinCleaver

tomdkat said:


> Actually, a few years ago I was reading an article in Linux Journal I believe about people running Linux on their PowerBooks and iMac laptops (the ones with the colored cases) so they could run Linux on "cool" looking hardware.
> 
> As for installing Linux on your Macbook, have you seen this?
> 
> Peace...


Hmmmm... No I haven't seen that. Thanks!


----------



## cdrdannya

PC = More secure.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758


----------



## middigit

oh dear god - not another moronic "Mac vs PC" discussion -



cdrdannya said:


> PC = More secure.


you do know that PC stands for Personal Computer when referenced in relation to a computer right, and that acronym seems to have somehow become synonymous with a computer running Windows.

anyways - the discussion is defunct unless attributed to a question with substantial reasoning behind it, a mac is good and some stuff, windows operating system is good for some stuff and linux is good for some stuff.

all down to choice and needs.


----------



## tomdkat

Thanks for posting that link. Fortunately, that article contains the list of vulnerabilities for 2007 they used for the analysis. That table demonstrates that "the numbers" don't paint the story. For example, let's take the first vulnerability listed for Dec 2007 as reported by Secunia, . Here is the description of that exploit from the Secunia page:



Secunia said:


> Multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in Adobe Flash Player 8.0.22.0 and earlier allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted SWF file.


This is an Adobe Flash Player problem, not an OS X problem. Conversely on the Windows side, I wouldn't count a Word macro exploit as a "Windows" problem but as a "Word" problem. The same issue exists for Linux vulnerabilities where problems with Apache or bind or who knows what else are "lumped" with Linux issues simply because distros ship Apache or bind.

Now, I'm NOT saying the entire list of OS X vulnerabilities is bogus but only that it will contain issues in third party products that come with OS X but aren't part of the core OS.

Peace...


----------



## thebeginner

I agree its really according to needs. I've heard that too about designers using Mac. Personally I've used Windows all my life and Mac only a few times. I agree totally with tombkat. Its the fault of the original company that made the certain software not the fault of the platform the company is running on. Its the same thing with Microsoft Office and Open Office. It all comes down to certain needs. Certain choices are better for certain things.


----------



## mtlhd

I am a designer and I use windows and have had no problems. PC (Windows) is my preference because I like the interface a million times better. For some reason I can't get into the way mac's interface is set up. If you have more than one program open at once, which you will as a designer, the mac's screen looks like a mess if you ask me. another thing to add, some will prolly disagree, but in my experience, macs crash a lot more than my pcs have. If I see the the color wheel pop up and start spinning, I cringe.


----------



## chrismo

PC has millions of programs that will run on them. For Mac's ur limited


----------



## tomdkat

chrismo said:


> PC has millions of programs that will run on them. For Mac's ur limited


You know, I hear this argument all the time. For the apps I don't use or care about, their existence is irrelevant. Sort of like any given app that runs on OS X or Linux and _not_ on Windows is probably not relevant to Windows users if they don't care about the function that app performs.

That being said, there are more apps available for Windows. 

Peace...


----------



## ferrija1

chrismo said:


> PC has millions of programs that will run on them. For Mac's ur limited


There are millions of programs for Windows and half of them are terrible.


----------



## cdrdannya

ferrija1 said:


> There are millions of programs for Windows and half of them are terrible.


lol very true.


----------



## firestormer

Macs have style but the style comes at a price, your more limited to what software and hardware you can use.

Personally i go for a PC running Windows Vista (It not as bad as it sounds from all the press its acutely quite good (Did you realise its been out over a year now?!)) with Ubuntu Linux installed in a dual boot setup, that way you get the best of both worlds and Macs are based on Unix which is what Linux runs on.


----------



## WarLord725

PC all the way.... PC=gaming.... MAC=(???? securtiy maybe???? no one makes viruses for MAC cause barely anyone uses it) its PC for me though:up: MAC for me =:down:


----------



## SweaterVest014

Macs are the nicest looking computers available, but they are expensive and you are really limited as to what kinds of hardware and software you can install in/on them. Plus, I like Vista WAYYYYY better than any of Apple's operating systems.


----------



## middigit

SweaterVest014 said:


> ...you are really limited as to what kinds of hardware and software you can install in/on them


Upgrading isn't something that you can do that much no, unless you get a mac pro - extra bays and stuff. External accessories though, there's no problem there at all.

As for software - are you kidding? There is an abundance of excellent quality software available and ongoing software development for osx - what you don't see much of is games - but there are a lot of games available on osx.


----------



## ferrija1

firestormer and SweaterVest014, I completely agree that you can't upgrade the hardware and Macs are no good at gaming, but try to name something that a PC can do in software that Macs can't.


----------



## middigit

what ferrija1 said


----------



## BludKnight

I like windows best because for me it is easier to navigate and tweak. Also there are so many people out there that have had tweaks and fixes to it that there is lots of support out there for whatever situation you encounter. If you like tweaking and upgrading and gaming then I would go with Windows. If you will never adjust anything and want something that looks cool and will never be upgraded (oreven could be in most of them) then maybe a Mac, a they are more of an all in one machine. If it is software then it does not matter as most of them are written for both anymore. You really need to ask what you are getting one for. Also if it is a laptop then you have a whole 'nother set of questions, like price, durability, life, and screen type, tablet, etc.
Hope that helps too.
Jerry


----------



## J_Hanyu

MACS are quick and convenient to setup, just like MacDonald's - but neither of them settle very well once we sit down to try and enjoy them.


----------



## ferrija1

J_Hanyu said:


> MACS are quick and convenient to setup, just like MacDonald's - but neither of them settle very well once we sit down to try and enjoy them.


How so?


----------



## J_Hanyu

They're just not as convenient. Only one mouse button instead of two, the keys and orientation. I suppose, it's a simple matter of comfort and preference. It's rather difficult to change a routine, try a new deal, and say that it's not right. My wife's work uses Mac's and I just can't do as much with it, like I can with a PC. There are some cool features. I like the little wall-eye browser thing on the OS Desktop, for choosing apps to run.

Has anyone seen the new Bumptop Desktop OS, yet? 
www.bumptop.com
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS254&q=bumptop


----------



## tomdkat

J_Hanyu said:


> They're just not as convenient. Only one mouse button instead of two, the keys and orientation. I suppose, it's a simple matter of comfort and preference.


Yep, that's what it sounds like to me. Most of the frustration I see Windows users have with Mac OS X is it doesn't behave like Windows.  I don't know why it's so difficult for more Windows users to view operation of a computer outside of their Windows experience. Once people "let go" of the idea that the Windows way of doing this is "the" way to do things, I find they can adopt other operating environments pretty easily.



> Has anyone seen the new Bumptop Desktop OS, yet?
> www.bumptop.com
> http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS254&q=bumptop


Nope, but I'll take a looksee..... 

EDIT: It looks neat. 

Peace....


----------



## namenotfound

J_Hanyu said:


> Only one mouse button instead of two


Have you ever tried a Mighty Mouse?
It might help


----------



## J_Hanyu

No. I haven't tried a mighty mouse. My wife's work supplies the computers (she's a school teacher), So, she doesn't have a whole lot of choice in what she's using. It's just a blue/white iMac with the OS10.


----------



## ferrija1

namenotfound said:


> Have you ever tried a Mighty Mouse?
> It might help


Or any other 2-button USB mouse for that matter.

To get a feel for a Mac, you've got to use it for a few days. People have been using Windows for years and they have been pigeon holed into it and think that Windows is the way computers should work. If you want to judge UNIX, Linux, OS X, Solaris, Amiga -- whatever it is, you should try to live with it for at least a week (no offense) so that you understand the way the developers want you to use it.


----------



## tomdkat

ferrija1 said:


> so that you understand the way the developers want you to use it.


Or at least try to figure out why the developers made the choices they made. 

Peace...


----------



## namenotfound

ferrija1 said:


> Or any other 2-button USB mouse for that matter.


Well I was just pointing out that Apple makes one 
I prefer the mice made by Dell for their size/shape :up:


----------



## ferrija1

namenotfound said:


> Well I was just pointing out that Apple makes one
> I prefer the mice made by Dell for their size/shape :up:


Yes, I was just adding that you don't have to use an Apple mouse.


----------



## Killazys

Mighty Mice are cheap 

Dell mice are horrible (No offense!). M$, surprisingly, makes nice mice, as well as Logitech and Razer.


----------



## RootbeaR

Looks like 2/3 of the votes for PC meant Linux





Edit: Okay. I guess none of you saw that ad.
You are supposed to simultaneously turn to me and say "Shut the expletive up."


----------



## huggie54

my son who is at secondry school,not bad at IT tells me Mac is garbage,just a comment, me never tried Mac.


----------



## J_Hanyu

All in all, it's a matter of preference. At the end of the day, they will all get the job done. People who are more into aesthetics, something that looks pretty without TOO many wires hanging out everywhere, then you'd be more inclined. If you're into the custom look, and have a knack for writing code, you'd probably be inclined to build a UNIX based system. For other's who just want to get the job done, Windows is just convenient.

It's like buying a car. If you want something sheik, fuel efficient, classy, and an all-around best car for your buck, then a Honda would be your choice, because they just conveniently have all that. If you just want class, and price is no issue, then you might settle for an Aston Martin, or Rolls Royce. Perhaps you just want something small, but don't care about safety or gas-mileage - then you might be inclined to get a Ford Focus, or Scion. The rugged type may go for "Texas Edition" F-250 ; while the athletes may go for a Miata, Viper, or Mustang. Some may just prefer to build their own car, from the ground up. While yet, there are some who just prefer to walk, ride their bike, or just ride the bus.


----------



## FallenFenix87

Don't look at it as an "either-or" problem. Get a computer that fits your budget and your needs. As people have said before, get a computer that suits your purpose for the computer. If you are looking for the best for your buck, then it's hard to compete with a cheap desktop running windows or linux. If you want something a little more cutting edge, go with a mac with a few of the bells and whistles. Btw, are you looking for a laptop or desktop???

If you are looking for something that is versatile in many graphic/audio processing fields, go with a mac. A powermac comes standard with 8-core processing, something not seen on the PC market yet, and it can be rigged out to 32 gigs of memory and 8 linked video cards...but that may be a little much for what you need and what your budget can handle . That, and the 50'' Apple monitor :O

On the flipside, if you are a little tech savvy, you could build a very powerful quad-core PC for under 1200 dollars, even less if you are willing to compromise a little performance for frugality.

If you are going laptop, I would recommend trying a mac and see if it suits your purposes and if you like it. Mac makes a wonderful, stable laptop that performs very well. But, not everyone can drop 2k on a laptop, so find a good windows laptop with decent performance and long battery life [afterall, it is a laptop and not a performance desktop here ;D]

I say all of that to say this. Determine your needs [not your wants] and your budget for the computer and purchase appropriately.


----------



## RootbeaR

http://chris.pirillo.com/2008/02/23/the-mac-vs-pc-challenge/

P.S. Not my fault they flame Vista.


----------



## namenotfound

RootbeaR said:


> http://chris.pirillo.com/2008/02/23/the-mac-vs-pc-challenge/
> 
> P.S. Not my fault they flame Vista.


What is "nobo". I never even heard of that computer manufacturer before


----------



## RootbeaR

namenotfound said:


> What is "nobo". I never even heard of that computer manufacturer before


Not sure what you are referring to.
I heard him mention Lenovo, could that be it?


----------



## namenotfound

RootbeaR said:


> Not sure what you are referring to.
> I heard him mention Lenovo, could that be it?


Possibly. The audio was a little chopped up for me.


----------



## RootbeaR

namenotfound said:


> Possibly. The audio was a little chopped up for me.


Must have been.
I wasn't sure if you saw a sticker/logo or something in the video that I had missed.


----------

