[jdjtcagle]

I've been on a older mac and a newer mac and there is a difference.  They have evolved into very accessible and user friendly machines.  What did you start on?  Things such as hot corners and the view all applications feature on your mouse is really handy.

[Dark RevenantX]

Macs aren't for gaming.  That's the only reason I stick with Windows.

Yes, I realize that one can get a Mac Pro that smokes most PCs, but I don't have a bottomless well of money.

[Nuke]

people who take sides in the mac vs pc debate are stupid.

pcs can be built by anyone, but youre always stuck with a ****ty operating system.
macs have a good operating system, but you cant build em and you have to buy overpriced gay looking hardware.

untill microsoft starts making good software or apple sells its os for use on pcs, computers will suck.

[Ghostavo]

You know there are a lot more OS's beyond Windows and Mac OS right? 

[Mars]

Please understand this:

PCs ≠ Windows

and never have been. As a matter of fact

Alpha ≠ VMS
SPARC ≠ Solaris

and now

Mac ≠ Mac OS
Mac ~ Intel PC
Mac = Ripoff

Macs suck because their PCs with a cheesy operating system and a fancy logo, going for 1.5 to 2 times the going rates for computers.

PCs rock because you can build them with parts of your choosing, they're cheap, and you can put virtually any operating system you want on it. I believe there was a project to port Mac OS to PCs, but I don't know why you'd want to, as it's basically Linux with GNOME... only with a Mac logo.

[Spicious]

You can't forget the button that makes all the windows fly off the screen for no reason. Or that their laptops still have only one mouse button for some inexplicable reason. But the real problem are mac users who seem to think they're so very special because they own a mac.

[Nuke]

You know there are a lot more OS's beyond Windows and Mac OS right? 

unfortunately theyre all 2 star oses. i suspect mac osx may be a 3 star os, i dont know ive never used it.

Please understand this:

PCs ≠ Windows

and never have been. As a matter of fact

Alpha ≠ VMS
SPARC ≠ Solaris

and now

Mac ≠ Mac OS
Mac ~ Intel PC
Mac = Ripoff

Macs suck because their PCs with a cheesy operating system and a fancy logo, going for 1.5 to 2 times the going rates for computers.

PCs rock because you can build them with parts of your choosing, they're cheap, and you can put virtually any operating system you want on it. I believe there was a project to port Mac OS to PCs, but I don't know why you'd want to, as it's basically Linux with GNOME... only with a Mac logo.

i have used old macs, and im talking mac classic here, and for its era those were awesome. the equivalent pc was still running dos. macs were using what power pc chps, im not to familiar with the architecture but it was more closed. the ibm architecture was fully open, save the custom bios which was later clean room reverse engineered and made so called clone pcs possible, what was essentially the birth of what we now call the x86 architecture. it has matured to the point that mac decided to just make x86 machines instead of its usual exotic architectures it used in their older machines.

hardware has never been the issue though. in the win 98 era and before there really was no real reason to hate either windows or mac os (pre x). they were both good operating systems for their day. its sort of after that when everything started the downward spiral to the operating system hell we now live in. linux has matured greatly but it never manages to keep up with hardware as far as drivers go. and win 2000 and xp werent all that bad, they were pretty good. but todays operating systems are 200% bloatware. im talking linux, windows, and possibly osx (i really should use it one day and form an opinion proper on the thing ). i think weve reached the point where hardware has advanced so much and we have to now take a step back and rewrite the books on programming to catch up on the software side of things. im also much awaiting reactos and hopefully have a modern os thats not only free and open but easy to use by everyone.

[Ghostavo]

You know there are a lot more OS's beyond Windows and Mac OS right? 

unfortunately theyre all 2 star oses. i suspect mac osx may be a 3 star os, i dont know ive never used it.

So wait, you have never used Mac OS X but you say it's good compared to some other OS's you may have never used? Talk about a leap in logic...

i have used old macs, and im talking mac classic here, and for its era those were awesome. the equivalent pc was still running dos. macs were using what power pc chps, im not to familiar with the architecture but it was more closed. the ibm architecture was fully open, save the custom bios which was later clean room reverse engineered and made so called clone pcs possible, what was essentially the birth of what we now call the x86 architecture. it has matured to the point that mac decided to just make x86 machines instead of its usual exotic architectures it used in their older machines.

This is somewhat laughable, the x86 architecture has nothing to do with IBM other than the fact they used it, since it's just the intruction set used firstly by the Intel 8086 (hence the x86) which was reused in most of their processors eventually having the popularity they enjoy today. As for Mac deciding to use x86 because they have "matured" is something mighty strange to say since the x86 architecture precedes the power pc one by at least 15 years. Their choice was simply made because IBM was planning to stop making power pcs.

[Dark RevenantX]

As someone who has used both operating systems very often for his entire life, I can forge an unbiased conclusion.

Macs are like the Lamborghinis of computers.  They are expensive and not the best for everyday functionality, almost impossible to build on your own, but are stylish, fun to use, usually have high performance, and look great making movies.

Windows PCs are like the Fords of computers.  They are usually affordable and functional, sometimes break quickly, not always the prettiest, sometimes problematic out of the factory, but are very good for everyday use with a wide range of applications, highly moddable, and work better for many jobs.

[jdjtcagle]

Amen!

[CP5670]

i have used old macs, and im talking mac classic here, and for its era those were awesome. the equivalent pc was still running dos.

Same here. In the early 90s, Macs actually had premium hardware and did some things that DOS-based x86 machines of the time were incapable of. There were numerous cases of games back then that were released on both platforms, but where the Mac version had far superior graphics and audio.

Things have changed a lot since then though. The only unique thing Macs have now is their OS, which can be a good or bad thing depending on your usage patterns, but that is basically what you're paying for if you buy a Mac. In terms of the hardware, they're just crappy PCs for the price.

Macs are like the Lamborghinis of computers.  They are expensive and not the best for everyday functionality, almost impossible to build on your own, but are stylish, fun to use, usually have high performance, and look great making movies.

They don't really have high performance though. The Mac Pro line is good but nothing special compared to other, similarly priced OEM systems, and the consumer models generally have poor hardware given their prices.

[Flipside]

The thing about Macs is that they are less demanding that PC's both in terms of cooling and energy, though, I'm sad to say, they seem to have fallen into a trap of trying to keep up with the Jones's and those temperatures are creeping up.

Macs are used a lot for Music and Film work for the reason that they are less likely to overheat, cost less to run, and, in the case of music, because they run comparatively silently next to a standard PC.

That said, for the extra money you spend on a Mac, you could also buy a new cooling system and silent fans for the PC, however, the PC is still more expensive to run over long periods of time.

Macs aren't 'faster' than a PC, they are better built, and more optimised, and sometimes this is more important, especially when you are doing things like Network rendering.

[Ghostavo]

This is something I'll never understand about people.

If Macs are built with the exact same components a normal PC is built with, how would they consume less energy or heat less than a PC built with the same components? Unless you've built the PC wrong, it is impossible.

[CP5670]

The thing about Macs is that they are less demanding that PC's both in terms of cooling and energy, though, I'm sad to say, they seem to have fallen into a trap of trying to keep up with the Jones's and those temperatures are creeping up.

No, the workstation versions have the exact same hardware as a PC and would have similar power usage. They may run more silent, but I doubt they are any less likely to overheat than any other OEM system. OEM computers in general sacrifice cooling ability for silence, compared to DIY setups.

They're used in the film industry mainly because they have been dominant there for a long time and have well established software available on them (that people working there are familiar with). There aren't any inherent advantages to using them for that purpose.

If Macs are built with the exact same components a normal PC is built with, how would they consume less energy or heat less than a PC built with the same components? Unless you've built the PC wrong, it is impossible.

Exactly.

[Flipside]

This is something I'll never understand about people.

If Macs are built with the exact same components a normal PC is built with, how would they consume less energy or heat less than a PC built with the same components? Unless you've built the PC wrong, it is impossible.

The internal architecture mostly, a Mac uses less energy because it uses a lower clock speed than PCs, which is why old Macs used to not need a fan, hence why they were silent. Macs have only started using PC parts recently, and have suffered for it, they don't have the (relative) cache speed they used to have, and that is what causes a bottleneck in most PCs.

Edit: What a lot of people don't realise is that 'Gigahertz' has a lot less impact on system-speed than they think.

[Polpolion]

PCs ≠ Windows

Pretty much all of us know that, it's just a few of the people on the Mac side seem to fail to realize that and everyone else on their side follows them, and it's pretty much futile to go against it.

Of course, if they're right and Macs aren't private computers, what are they? Community computers?

[CP5670]

This is something I'll never understand about people.

If Macs are built with the exact same components a normal PC is built with, how would they consume less energy or heat less than a PC built with the same components? Unless you've built the PC wrong, it is impossible.

The internal architecture mostly, a Mac uses less energy because it uses a lower clock speed than PCs, which is why old Macs used to not need a fan, hence why they were silent. Macs have only started using PC parts recently, and have suffered for it, they don't have the (relative) cache speed they used to have, and that is what causes a bottleneck in most PCs.

Edit: What a lot of people don't realise is that 'Gigahertz' has a lot less impact on system-speed than they think.

They switched to a standard PC architecture over two years ago, which is not exactly "recent" anymore. And in any case the old G5 processors were much more power hungry than the Core 2-based Xeons they use these days. The clock frequencies certainly aren't the only factor that determines power usage.

[Flipside]

Meh, it's recent from my perspective...now get orf my lawn

And yes, cycles aren't the only thing that determines power usage, but I saw a comparison a few years ago between the power usage of a bank of Macs and a Bank of PC's. The PC's actually completed a rendering job earlier, but were using up electricity faster than the speed increase compensated for, so the PC's were faster, but the Macs were cheaper to maintain over a long period of time, so I suppose it really boils down to what is more important.

Though, part of me wishes I had a Mac, since PC's just cannot seem to be able to support ASIO and Virtual Instruments anywhere near as well for some reason

[CP5670]

You were probably looking at PCs running P4-based Xeons, which haven't been sold for quite a while. The Core 2 Xeons are way more power efficient.

I grew up with those old System 6/7 Macs (and still fire up those classic games in emulators every now and then), but two years in the computer industry still feels like a long time to me.

[MP-Ryan]

people who take sides in the mac vs pc debate are stupid.

pcs can be built by anyone, but youre always stuck with a ****ty operating system.
macs have a good operating system, but you cant build em and you have to buy overpriced gay looking hardware.

untill microsoft starts making good software or apple sells its os for use on pcs, computers will suck.

Not a bad post.

Truth be told, if I had the money I would run a PC desktop (dual-booting Windows and Linux) and a MacBook pro notebook.

For MOST users, Apple makes very good systems.  MacOS X actually is inherently more secure than Windows (It's a UNIX-based OS, for whoever said it wasn't).  Of course, the malware market for Macs is primarily restricted not by inherent security, but its piece of the marketshare.  For people writing malware, it makes much more sense to target the less secure, often misconfigured operating system that controls 85%+ of the market (accounting for Apple, Linux, and server operating systems that make up the rest).  Apple's success is their own problem - they can make all the various claims about Windows so long as their marketshare remains a tiny fraction of the overall industry.  While malware may eventually have a more difficult time infiltrating MacOS should it become a viable target, it isn't immune to attack.

In general, Apple makes very good machines.  The components are solid and the OS is intuitive.  I tell EVERY SINGLE HOME USER I know to buy an Apple when they tell me they're having computer problems and want a new PC.  Windows PCs are fantastic so long as you take the time to properly configure them and maintain them.  Most home users do not.  MacOS is a relatively maintenance-free OS that works just fine straight out of the box.  For your average user that surfs the Web, listens to music, watches movies and TV, and uses office functionality an Apple computer is more than sufficient.  It is not a viable option for gamers, however.

Where Apple's good qualities start to break down is when you look at pricing.  You can assemble a high-end PC for $2000 quite easily.  MacBook Pro's start at $2000.  A PC laptop with the same basic usage and functionality can be had for as little as $1200.  That's one hell of a markup for the Apple brand.  The key problem lies in Apple's hardware controls.  Having been consistently paranoid throughout their development, Apple certifies every single component that goes into their systems, and they are extremely selective about what components they choose.  Whereas a PC owner can choose from many different brands of hard disk, RAM, processor, video card, Mac users are stuck with what Apple gives them.  While their desktops do retain minimal upgradeability (you always have the unfortunate problem of driver support for hardware components, even on a Mac), their laptops cannot be upgraded.  That's not much different from a Windows-based laptop, except the $800 (minimum) price difference.  Of course, Apple uses this strategy to try to weed out components that could be prone to failure.  Unfortunately, it comes with a much heftier price tag than the hardware itself actually demands.

Personally, I'm not willing to pay a much higher price for a system that essentially cannot be upgraded just because it features a much better OS.  I can quite easily load up Linux if I get really sick of Vista - and to be honest, after properly configuring it to my tastes, I'm actually fairly impressed with Vista.  Granted, I had to turn off all the crap aimed at home users but the same was true of XP.

Apple computers and PCs have different roles to play in the market and should occupy different niches.  If we could convince people who know very little about computing to switch to MacOS and leave those who know what they're doing on Windows (and simultaneously convince Microsoft that their OS's should be geared towards power users and not the "I just want to watch movies and surf the web" crowd) the entire computer market would be in a much better position.

Either that, or Apple should just sell their damn OS as a standalone and let people install it on their home PC instead of Windows.  They'd be smarter to get out of the hardware market in the long run.  Unfortunately, it's a very lucrative market for them (given the price markup) that they're reluctant to abandon because they still attract the "I'll buy a mac because it's cute!" crowd.

The MacBook Air is a perfect example of idiocy in a price tag.  Yeah, it's thin, yeah, it's wireless everything, but it really doesn't actually do anything that a terminal can't.  But it's still nearly $1800.  That's ridiculous.

Incidentally, I voted True for the poll.