Mac Vs Pc

[ebud]

I'm frustrated lately with my brother's unending desire to tell me what I'm missing out on as a mac user. I'd like to froth at the mouth and debate him vigorously on the advantages I have found in using my Tibook and iMac. But then, I realized-why should I advertise for macintosh if they don't advertise for themselves? I agreed with him and may eventually decide to switch to a PC. They've come a long way since the mid 90's. The top of the line Dell (2.53gHz) runs hoops around the top of the line Mac G4 dual. I don't own a volkswagen. I'm not an interior decorator. I'm not female. I know where the power-button is on my computer and I don't consider myself a "beginner" computer user. I don't need my computer to stick it's disc drive out at me. Microsoft office author admits his program works better on a mac than on a PC. Did anyone not in the eternal mac ring know this? OSX is virtually crashless. Anyone out there in PC land know this? Why should a PC user switch to Macintosh? I'm not so sure you should. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder if maybe Apple is just trying to reap whatever profits it can before finally closing the doors on these beautiful machines, leaving us with cute looking, highly over-priced, little boxes with no support, no upgrades, no software, and no one to sell it to. Seriously, with such a small market-share; you'd think Apple would aggressively pursue a more effective ad campaign. The iMac campaign though successful, only appealed to folks already thinking like a mac user. What about the computer geek? Why would so many public schools continue using macs when they have no practical application in the real world? Something needs to be done and soon. Apple has got to produce a faster, business-geared machine. With it's RISC processor and it's UNIX-based OS, there's no excuse for it getting blown out of the water in Adobe benchmarks by a Dell!!! Apple continues to earn and save at the expense of it's following. Why can't a mac user get all the latest software? Because Apple has such a small market share that it's not profitable for a developer to create it! Who pays? I do. I pay by having to wait an average of 6 to 8 months for the latest apps. My advice? Get out now while you still can! Please save me from myself. ;)

[cmchamp]

Well Mactivist, you have some very valid points.
Actually, Windows XPPro is just as stable, I've heard, as OSX. That kinda pains me to say since I've been using Macs since '86 and will not switch back to what I was using before. Apple II's and Comadore 64's.
Regarding benchmarks: Has anyone in the PC market told anyone else that the reason why the P4's are clocked so high is because of the additional instruction steps built into the chips? Does anyone out there in the 'real world' know that Compaq, HP, Dell and Gateway (I believe) all sued Intel over the P4 when it was first introduced because it wasn't faster than a P3? I'm sure most of us know that an AMD chip will blow a P4 away 90% of the time for the money?
Public schools still having Apples? Well, hey, do you want to have a Mac which requires only one part-time support person per 150 or so units, or WinTel machines that require almost 1 full time support person per unit?
Regarding chips: I think Apple spent too much time depending on Motorola. IBM's new chip is supposed to blow everything out there away. The only problem Apple has, as I understand it, is that they (Apple) can't seem to get a system bus and data i/o built that's fast enough for the new processor.
Why do I stay a Mac user? Not because I rich, or a computer geek. The machine works. Every Mac I've ever had, from the 512kE, SE, Centris 610, G4, iceBook, they all work. System crashes, errors, 99% of the time were created by me, or something I installed. Apps: IMHO, the 6-8 months we have to wait (sometimes we get them first) for applications to be ported to the Mac platform makes them more stable. Developers are in too big of a hurry to get their apps released to the WinTel world to get their profit shares up. Developers of Mac software, due to the dedication of their market, most of the time take their time releasing new products and upgrades. Why did Illustrator and Photoshop get released for OSX prior to audio apps? I believe it's because the Audio Core, Apple's proprietary audio instruction set, wasn't implimented til 10.2, and not even completed to being usable by pro quality audio apps till 10.2.3. It may not even be completely finished yet. This is why ProTools, Digital Performer, etc., haven't released public versions of the software yet.
So, I know that an application is going to work as it is supposed to when I get it.
If you want to bail, hey, bail. Just remember how much money you have wrapped up in applications that you use on a daily basis on your Mac. When you think of purchasing a Windows box, don't forget to add the cost of those apps.

[dixiechicken]

It really is not the case.
Windows XP Pro is a LOT LESS stable than Mac OS X and other Linux/Unix based distros. Dont forget that the multitasking is a joke on - "w2k and win xp".
( I'm the sysadmin for our dept - 150PC:s & 50 Mac:s - I know what I'm talking about )

In Mac OS classic of course you dont have any multitasking.
( cooperative mt, dont count )

Mac OS X has two really serious drawbacks,
1:
it is a LOT less intuitive than Mac OS Classic, and quite clumsy to work with for many everyday tasks.

2:
it is terribly terribly slow.
Mac OS Classic runs about twice as fast as Mac OS X.
Yellowdog Linux 2.3, runs about 4-5 times as fast as Mac OS X.

( I compare with Mac OS 9.2.2, YDL 2.3 & Mac OS X 10.2.3 )
( on my iMac G4 and PowerMac grey 400MHz machine )


For maximun speed, stability and true multitasking there is only one way to go.
Any Linux distro BUT Mac OS X, ( and some other *nixes )

Than of course you will run into a lot of other hassles.
(compiling your own software, finding drivers, libraries, checking dependencies etc. )
The Linux community in generalhowever, is really helpful.

As usual the choice is yours - good luck!

Cheers: Max!

[brokentoys]

i cant beleive what i read up there.

i mean omfg, dell is so **** its unreal.

i dont care about its benchmarks but have you ever actually taken one of those fuckers apart and seen what it(and every other name brand pc) is like.

hell, dell even uses RD ram, hard to find, and detrimental to the performance of the processor(wont find a 533 front end on it thats for goddamned sure, **** youll be lucky if you get 133). as well as a million other funny and sometimes wild things in their computers.

taken a look at any new so called top of the line HP units( i know, i sell them, and fix even more of them). running fancy ass vid cards and 2.66 p4's but runs so fucking hot it will lock up every time you turn it on cuz its got a fucking 200 watt power supply in there.

not a single brand name computer(besides apple) is properly built for whats in it. oh yeah im sure the specs are great, that is, if it actually ran at anywhere near 2.66 or if that crappy ram even hits 200 let alone 533.

the only decent pc in my honest opinion is the boutique custom jobs like alienware, redsubmarine ect. and of course a good homemade unit.

and dont even fucking talk benchmarks of pc versus mac or mac is too slow. the macintosh os is better written and more streamlined and the apple does more in a clock cycle than any pc ever made because of this. which is why my g4 700 (512, pc133)
imac can do things noticeably faster(and better as in less overall problems) than a 3.06 HP with hyperthread and 1 gig of ram(ddr).

dont compare apples and ****.

[brokentoys]

i cant beleive what i read up there.

i mean omfg, dell is so **** its unreal.

i dont care about its benchmarks but have you ever actually taken one of those fuckers apart and seen what it(and every other name brand pc) is like.

hell, dell even uses RD ram, hard to find, and detrimental to the performance of the processor(wont find a 533 front end on it thats for goddamned sure, **** youll be lucky if you get 133). as well as a million other funny and sometimes wild things in their computers.

taken a look at any new so called top of the line HP units( i know, i sell them, and fix even more of them). running fancy ass vid cards and 2.66 p4's but runs so fucking hot it will lock up every time you turn it on cuz its got a fucking 200 watt power supply in there.

not a single brand name computer(besides apple) is properly built for whats in it. oh yeah im sure the specs are great, that is, if it actually ran at anywhere near 2.66 or if that crappy ram even hits 200 let alone 533.

the only decent pc in my honest opinion is the boutique custom jobs like alienware, redsubmarine ect. and of course a good homemade unit.

and dont even fucking talk benchmarks of pc versus mac or mac is too slow. the macintosh os is better written and more streamlined and the apple does more in a clock cycle than any pc ever made because of this. which is why my g4 700 (512, pc133)
imac can do things noticeably faster(and better as in less overall problems) than a 3.06 HP with hyperthread and 1 gig of ram(ddr).

dont compare apples and ****.

[brokentoys]

oops no more drunken posting for me hehe....

omg..

[Argis]

ummm OK guys

I'm a PC guy. Sry never used a mac. Build my own, read on it eveyday . . .

breifly - yeah stability? OK for me, the more crap apps one puts on the more likely for probs.
RDRam is still the fastest solutions and yes this comes from benchmarks
I game so no other OS will due

What I came for is a audio nut freind that know nothing of computers wants a Mac. I know nothing of Macs. I would like to know if this is good choice? What should he look for in terms of sound options? Cards? Software? What mac should he be looking for? Speed version . . .

He is a nut and only uses the best. Help me out if you can. Thanks