Mac and PC debate?

[beavereater]

I know NOTHING about Macs. I say that I like my PC just because I don't know anything else. Just like a little Japanese kid likes eating dried squid with cups of green tea rather than munch on cheesies and down a bottle of Coke. This is more for the Mac owners out there? Any particular reason for owning a Mac rather than a PC? Does it do the job better? Are you fine with the fact that your Windows pals might be able to run more kinds of software (I don't know that that is true) or that new vid cards, mobo's etc. come out and they can upgrade easily? Or is there some secret to the Mac that I'm not hearing about?

[Conquest10]

I wouldn't say better. Mac fanboys would definitely say it but its not. Its different but not really that different. The GUI looks better. A lot of what you can do in Windows can also be done on a Mac. Its just that it looks more stylish on a Mac. I use both, like them equally.

Mostly old people own Macs. They say they are easier to use (I don't notice that at all as it took more work to get my internet connection to work than it did in Windows). You don't have to worry about viruses because so few people actually use them that hackers don't waste their time on writing viruses for Macs.

[lordsmurf]

The only thing "Mac" about a Mac is the motherboard and the software. And most of the software is ported from Windows or Linux.

Nothing wrong with a Mac, great machines. They work too for many things.

As time goes by, though, even media and educational institutions are converting to Windows XP systems, no more Macs. They were too costly and not as easy to repair. You were forever sending them to Apple instead of fixing them in-house, like you can with standard PC hardware and Windows/Linux OS.

When it comes to video, Mac is only good for camera-shot work. But so is Windows. Mac has little to offer in other areas of video. The same can be said of publishing and photo these days, Windows systems are either more stable or outright better in options.

I no longer have immediate regular access to a Mac, I've been converted to 100% Windows XP everywhere as of a month or two ago. But I used Apple computers since the 1980s, before I ever used Windows or DOS systems.

There are more negatives to Mac than positives. Those commercials on TV with the dork and the cool dude are basically bullcrap.

[yoda313]

commercials on TV with the dork and the cool dude are basically bullcrap.

Yeah and totally stupid too. I mean you can do exactly the same thing on a mac or a windows its just a matter of how much software or hardware you have available. And now with "bootcamp" you can even put xp on a mactel so the differences are disappearing - and I guess Aero for VISTA is supposed to push windows even more into macworld.

I have two reasons for sticking with xp - SOFTWARE and Hardware.

1 - software - So much more is made first for xp and especially GAMES are pretty much a windows world

2 - hardware - who the hell wants to pay such a premium for a funky looking box? I mean you can buy any case you want for a pc/linux unit and customize the hell out of it for a lot less than a mac machine.

[ps2daddy]

Right now they dont really have viruses or spyware for macs hadnt had to buy virus protection since college maybe someday they probably will

I own both mac and pcs but like macs but its just my personal preference I dont think macs are better or worse

I have my pc and mac hooked up to my xbox so I can watch tv shows that I have donwladed from the net

screw itv!

[yoda313]

Hah you know who makes xbox don't you ps2daddy???

[Conquest10]

screw itv!

Its new official name is the tv.

[Conquest10]

Apple does have some neat stuff like the upcoming tv and of course iPod (and now iPhone) and Final Cut. Except for Final Cut, you don't really need a Mac for the others. If you're happy with a Windows PC, there is nothing that you're really missing.

[guns1inger]

The iPod is just an mp3 player - no more, no less. It has good and bad points, but like most of the Apple product line, it is based more on a perception of being part of some exclusive clique or sub-culture than any real innovation or technical superiority. Macintosh computers are much the same. There is no doubt that Macs introduced the GUI to the masses, but Apple didn't invent it, they just applied technology already well developed at Palo Alto and took it out to market.

It is this perception of being part of a tribe and being somehow 'cooler' for it that makes having a reasoned debate with Apple fans difficult in a corporate arena. The Apple zealot's approach (and most are zealots', like it or not) is that Apple is the answer - what was the question ? A reasoned approach is - What is the desired outcome ? OK, how do we get there.

There is no doubting Steve Job's credentials as marketer. The man is no idiot. Is he a great innovator - no more than Bill Gates is. Where he has excelled is seeing a niche and targeting it very well. Early on this niche was education. Apple invested millions in equipping educational institutions through subsidies and training programs. After a few years they could no longer compete with the cheaper PC and they started to lose ground in the educational areas. It was around this time Apple tried it's ill-fated clone program. They licensed a few manufacturers to produce cheap Macs, with Apple making money from licensing fees, OS sales, and over-hyped but unready technology (remember the Newton ?). After losing money hand over fist, and going from IT wunderkind to in-joke, Apple got Steve Jobs back, and re-focussed. The new niche - yuppies. Concentrating on form over function, Apple designed PCs that looked pretty. Didn't work any better (and I defy any honest person to tell me, with a straight face, that any Apple OS prior to OS X was more stable than any version of windows prior to 2000), but they didn't look out of place in a Manhattan apartment.

Macs have, ever since the launch of the powerPC CPU, only ever held brief performance advantages. These advantages were held for perhaps a few months, if that, from launch, were often based on dubious benchmarks, and were soon overtaken by Intel (and later AMD) chips. The long delays in upgrading PowerPC architecture meant these leadership periods were often well spaced out, and users were left languishing in the mean time.

Apple have known, as do most IT professionals, that the road to stability is paved with conformity. Apple have always used proprietary architecture, which has of course lead to much higher costs. However with OS X, a unix based and stable OS (Apple's first stable OS in a long time), and a relatively small supported hardware component list, current generation Macs are quite stable (although not infallible). The same can quite easily be achieved with PCs as well, all it takes is discipline and a standard operating environment.

The recent move to using more widely available hardware is a simple economic one. Apple could not compete keeping a closed hardware architecture. They couldn't compete on price (not a huge issue, as there are still enough in the 'tribe' who will pay more for less because it looks good and has the Apple logo), and more importantly, could not compete in performance. However the supported hardware component lists is still quite small. Were Apple to open it up to support hardware as freely as the PC does, it would find it would quite quickly lose it's ability to boast about stability.

The current ads are aimed purely at 'the tribe' to re-enforce what they already to believe to be true, regardless of how it stacks up against fact, and also at people who know nothing about computers at all. They are propaganda, not fact, and should be viewed as such.

I have worked in IT in mixed Apple/PC environments for going on 20 years. I have seen way computers are used in government, in education, in media. And with very few exceptions, the only pockets of Macs still being used in many environments are used by those who want them because they are Macs. Nothing at all to do with the software they run, or the need they fulfill. They are part of the Cult of Apple, and buy Macs because "why would you buy anything else". They have no logical need or argument behind their choice.

If you truly need a Mac to run specific software, buy a Mac. If you need access to a wide variety of software and hardware, and the flexibility to upgrade as you need, buy a PC.

The outcome you want achieve should drive the purchase.

[ps2daddy]

screw itv!

Its new official name is the tv.

Yeah I saw just used to calling itv

$300 for that box though
For less than $200 I can do everything that that apple box can do and store xbox games on a 200gb hard drive (stream in hd and play my itunes library (cant use the latest versions of itunes though) from my pc and mac) I I also save all my music in mp3 instead of aac so my whole itunes library is already open

Mind you that I am using a mac right now and I do like using them very much not a mac evangelist though

[SquirrelDip]

I've always wanted to pick up an older Mac to see how it is on the other side of the fence but haven't done so yet. Anyone got a recomendation for a cheap(er) Mac internet/office system?

I've often had friends/family ask which system to get - even though my personal preference is Windoze I ask them where will they be getting help from and buy what the others are using. I'm not going to get into a debate as to which is better for what - it's really quite simple, if your support group is Mac then buy Mac - Windoze then buy Windoze.

[ViRaL1]

One place to look...

http://www.geeks.com/products_sc.asp?cat=810

[SquirrelDip]

I've looked at geeks (they're pretty good with shipping to Canada) but I'm thinking something with OS-X... Taking into account their machines are refurbished and have to be shipped across border a locally purchased Mac Mini may be a better option.

Looking at ebay also but there's no such thing as a "Deal" anymore when looking there at electronics - just loads of scams...

[glockjs]

im not comfortable enough with my sexuality to sport a mac

[Conquest10]

but I'm thinking something with OS-X

Yeah, OSX is a must have on a Mac. You don't want to be messing with OS9 or earlier.

ps2daddy, I'm interested in what you use for that.

[ps2daddy]

I have a RevB iMac G5 with 10.4 on it

I do miss some of the stuff the to burn old ps2 game a specific way and kareoke feature of my old mp3 playing program in 9 but have adapted to OS X and I agree OS X is the way to go you can also install osx on those iMacs on the geeks website too

I use my mac to make money on the side doing video editing, hooking up music keyboard and dabbling with music, and just the other normal stuff surfing, videogame hacking ect...ect....

[pchan]

I used Mac IIe, Quadra, and LC II(piece of shit). Was the OS stable ? Absolute NOT. I saw (sad face) and the bomb window all the time... too many of it. Had to hunt Mac Autocad like hell ! Swithed to Win NT... and never look back.

Software for Mac OS is still limited... that's the key reason for dual boot.

Apple fans kept saying their hardware is superior..... why switch to Intel....?????????

[northcat_8]

I'll give the ipod to MAC, pretty good product, other than that...not so much.

Perhaps its just because I've used a PC too long to change, but I'm old dammit, I don't have to change.

[SquirrelDip]

Well, I think I found a deal on eBay... Picked up an iMac 750 (500MHz) from a local seller. Paid $34 and no shipping or handling.

No keyboard or mouse so picked up a USB adapter. I found that I had an old PC133 256Mb ram module. Just finished upgrading to OS X 10.4

Okay... Now what...

[guns1inger]

Okay... Now what...

I think you are supposed to just sit and bask in it's glory, perhaps while meditating, then go back to ebay to find copies of the 6 applications available for the mac - office 2004, photoshop, finalcut pro, quake 3 and something by extensis.

[lordsmurf]

Don't forget to imitate the founder of Apple and take a few bong hits. Maybe that's how you'll truly get the "Mac experience"?

You really cannot do jack shit on a G3, to be honest. The good stuff, video software, requires a G4. So no FCP, DVDSP, etc. Not on that system. Somebody gave me a similar system in early 2006, and I gave it back a few months later and told him to use it as a boat anchor. All it did was waste $20 and about 20 hours of my time.

[SquirrelDip]

I realize it's going to be a bit on the slow side lol - but I didn't want it for the apps (all 6 of them). Mac people are always spouting off at how wonderful the operating systems is, now I may be able to gain a fair opinion.

So far it kinda looks like a Linux desktop...

[lordsmurf]

OS X is based off Linux. I forget which core.

[Conquest10]

Its based off Unix.

[Faustus]

I use both platfroms, and personally now that the new Macs can run Windows XP for the few games I want to play but didn't get released on mac I see no reason NOT to buy macs other then of course... the price.

I don't notice that at all as it took more work to get my internet connection to work than it did in Windows)

You must have an odd connection or have used an OS 9 system because for most poeple it consist of plugging the ethernet cable in and you are done.

im not comfortable enough with my sexuality to sport a mac

You say that but I've had plenty of female ask "Is that that MACBOOK?" when they see my glowing apple on the back.

[Ron B]

Being in the photography/graphics/video business, many organizations who work in these fields use Macs and have done so for a long time. If you apply for a job in these fields, odds are they will ask for experience with Mac programs. If the computers did not do the job, I'd assume they would go for something else, so they must be working.
While Macs may have the creative end covered, for the "business" part of the business, that is, managing websites, email, documents, etc., a PC seems to have the edge here. More of a choice of hardware and software.
I've got PC's, a lot of that has to do with the fact I like to build and maintain my own computers, but I wouldn't mind having a nice Mac to run Final Cut Pro and Photoshop. Many of the video producers I work with swear by Final Cut Pro, they aren't idiots and they do good work, so there must be something to it.
Of course the PC-Mac debate has always been great internet forum fodder and there's nothing more entertaining than a PC geek vs. Mac geek in a rough and tumble bar room brawl.

[SquirrelDip]

... Of course the PC-Mac debate has always been great internet forum fodder and there's nothing more entertaining than a PC geek vs. Mac geek in a rough and tumble bar room brawl.

I'm picturing a lot of "Bitch-Slapping"

[lordsmurf]

Being in the photography/graphics/video business, many organizations who work in these fields use Macs and have done so for a long time. If you apply for a job in these fields, odds are they will ask for experience with Mac programs.

Nope. Not anymore.

Quark, InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc .... the programs are not just on Windows systems, they tend to now be designed for Windows systems and released first. Mac gets the ports these days.

More and more design firms, newspapers, in-house media operations, etc., have been moving to solid Windows systems for several years now (2000-present). It helps that the "digital age" that requires so much digital media has systems that can integrate fairly well with Windows 2000-2003 servers.

One of the biggest reasons for this shift was delayed software ports, and getting pissed off at how you would basically lose old software when a new OS was required. Meanwhile, all those "dumb PC folks" were happily working as always, they could upgrade when THEY felt like it, not when Apple commanded them.

These days Mac is mostly getting niche DV/HD video, as well as trying to appeal to people who think Mac has more style. I understand the DV/HD reason, the other one is retarded. Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro are both very nice pieces of software!

[SquirrelDip]

@lordsmurf: Your comments have been my observation. Wasn't Adobe originally (pretty much) Mac only? Premiere is now Windows only isn't it?

Anyone know how Premiere 2.0 stacks up against Final Cut Pro?

[lordsmurf]

Don't forget Aldus.

Both Windows/DOS and MacOS systems had Adobe/Aldus software for publishing. It was really only Quark that was Mac-only, and they only recently started to do Windows versions instead.

Design software for PC in the 1980s and even somewhat early 1990-ish was chunky ASCII-like GUI, not a graphical GUI like Mac did. Although it needs to be noted how awful crappy Mac monitors were, tiny little Gameboy-looking things. As Windows 3.1 and eventually Windows 95 came out in the early 1990s, you saw more and more dual-releases and quicker ports. In the last 7 or so years, we've seen a complete reversal, especially when OS X came out, with Windows systems getting primary developments. The G3/G4 architecture was pretty shoddy too, much slower than Windows-based P3/P4 systems of the time. And programming for Windows was apparently just an easier task when you did not have to worry about specific Mac OS/hardware needs (like "needy" needs).

Adobe Premiere and Final Cut Pro are both good. And if you know one, it really is not hard to quickly learn the other. FCP is doing more with HD that I'm aware of, but I don't really do anything HD.

I've been around the publishing industry since the 1980s. I've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly, when it comes to computers and software. It's really evolved.