Mac v Win
-
Touche !
-
@mike lucey said:
Let me ask a question! Which (Independent) Computer Maintenance business would a (Dual System) Service Engineer choose, Mac or PC? I imagine if he wanted to make enough to eat he would opt for a PC Maintenance Shop.
9x out of 10, he'll go pc...
@unknownuser said:
. I don't understand what you are saying about Macs being OSX only. Windows runs on Macs via BootCamp, often faster than on PCs.
yeah, i jumbled that part all up.. meant - you can't install os x on a computer that doesn't have the 'i'm a mac' chip... if apple took that part out of the OS, you could.. they want you to buy macs if you want to use their software.. that leads back to what xrok said earlier about lots of ways to run windows on macs but zero ways (legal) to do the opposite..
apple allows the crossover programs in order to lure in more hardware buyers but they won't allow their software to run on machines sold by another company.. -
I understand what you are saying now Jeff and agree the Apple is a 'closed shop'. I honestly think this is a good policy as they can maintain their standards with this policy. As I said above, they went the clone route some years ago but Steve Jobs put an end to it when he took the helm over. BTW I hope he gets over his health problems as he will be a difficult act to follow. He did put a 'face' / personality on Apple and this again is something that I like about the company.
I also put the Maintenance case badly. How about this choice? If you where Computer Maintenance guy and your choice is to earn a living maintaining 1000 PCs or 1000 Macs on call-outs only (and no sabotage allowed
) ! Which one would you go for?Mike
-
@unknownuser said:
apple allows the crossover programs in order to lure in more hardware buyers but they won't allow their software to run on machines sold by another company..
Mike do you care to tell how this practice is in their customers best interest?
Allow me; if people could run mac's OS on pc's they would never sell another mac, because after all it is really mac's OS that makes there computers worth having not their hardware. if apple where smart they would get out of the computer business and into the OS business where they belong. OH, wait a minute, then they would have to deal with hundreds of manufactures hardware configs which would cause their OS to CRASH! Never mind, better leave that to Microsoft, they know what their doing.
-
eeeerrrrrr ...... yes!
I wonder what the case would be if IBM did not 'open the doors'! -
If........
we may still be running 8086 processors, who knows. the fact that they did open there doors did in fact benefit apple as much as anyone, it opened the "race" for the biggest, fastest, best...
-
I have a Mac (powerbook), which I use most of the time and I generally prefer it to using my windows box. Unlike most people, I got the Mac for the things you can't see; I like that it has Bash by default, that there is a lot of uni stuff I can put on it easily and just the general *nixiness of the internals. It is good as a laptop, too, light, thin, decent battery etc. Most things do just work and I don't know what I would do now without Hot Corners.
There is the odd thing I have come across in the Mac version of SU that I prefer (exporting pictures, for example, as rarely as I do that from the menu), but there are also a lot of annoying things which are different from the Windows version, for no good reason.
Of course, if I could choose any OS and have SU work on it, it would be Linux. I don't think I am a fanboy of anything, but windows really annoys me when I have to use it for any length of time. Linux usually does what I want and, ironically, is now easier to use most of the time, too. It really has come on leaps and bounds in the last few years and some of the window managers now rival OS X for prettiness. If a few key applications would properly support it, I wouldn't look back.
Oh, and for anyone who has ever had trouble installing Microsoft software, using Windows Update, or anything else like that: you may be amused to know that you are not alone.
-
@mike lucey said:
Guys,
I recently did a quick comparison between a 17" Dell Precision M6400 and the New 17" MacBook Pro cost wise. The following is how it panned out.
Dell Precision M6400 Covet Mobile Workstation
2.4 Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB,1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
1920x1200 17in Back-Lit Display
200GB SATA Hard Drive
8X DVD+/-RW Drive Slot Load with Optical Media Included
512MB NVIDIA Quadro FX2700M€ 2,499
MacBook Pro 17"
2.66 Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1920 x 1200 Glossy Widescreen Display
320GB Drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT with 512MB
Built-in 8-hour battery
AppleCare Protection Plan for MacBook Pro (w/or w/o Display)€2,344
I also advise that more than likely the Dell would be worth €500ish after 2 years (id possible to sell) whereas the Mac could be worth in the region of €1,000 and probably a lot easier to sell to graphic / design students.
I think the demonstrates that Macs are not expensive when compared fairly.
Mike
Well as far as I know Quadro FX 2700M is WAY more expensive then a 9600M GT. Not really a fair comparison really.
-
Compare the entry desktops...
20" iMac: $1,199.00
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
250GB hard drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with
128MB memoryDell Inspiron 518: $819
2.33Ghz Core 2 Quad
Dell SP2009W 20" Widescreen Flat Panel Monitor with Webcam
4GB memory
640GB hard drive
16X DVD+/-RW Drive
ATI Radeon HD 3450 256MB supporting HDMI
Dell 19 in 1 Media Card Reader
Internal PCI 802.11g Wireless Network CardApple really needs to sell a consumer tower but I guess Steve won't let them.
-
-
This is fun.
-
If I had a choice of laptops I'd probably get a Mac, all other things being equal, because they are fairly sexy. The trouble is, all things are not equal. They are expensive, no more reliable than an IBM system and don't run half the software I need. Laptops are different...you physically handle them a lot. They are right in your face; if not on your lap.
As for a desktop...I couldn't care less what it looks like as long as it does it's job. I'll bet that most people don't even notice their tower boxes; they are under the desk most of the time, anyway. All I really notice is the monitor (My HP looks much like the Mac in the picture above) or more specifically, the monitor screen.
You've got to be pretty sad to be drooling over a piece of hardware...and even sadder to pay good money for it for little extra reason other than it looks pretty
Macs do have a nice GUI, but nothing that you can't generally replicate with some 3rd party Window apps...and for a lot less cost than the price differential of the basic systems.
-
Hi,
I was a Mac fanboy until Windows 95 was released.
There was absolutely no way you could compare a PC to a Mac prior to this.
The Mac ruled and I looked down at PC's with utter disdain.Things have changed dramatically since then.
Windows XP is an excellent OS but still not as pretty to look at as OSX.
But despite how pretty OSX is, I still feel that XP is more functional in how you use it.
Macs are now PC hardware based because over time PC hardware developed far faster and produced much better results than the dead ends Apple ventured down. Anyone remember how Apple insisted PowerPC processors were the future?Today, I am not a fanboy of PC's or Macs because I now regard all computers as tools and not fashion items. It is nice to have pretty looking hardware but not essential.
If spending my own money I would always buy a PC for bang for buck and a greater choice of software. Plus being able to play Call of Duty in all its glory!
========
Actually, the only computer I felt any real passion for was the Commodore Amiga. With the Directory Opus file manager installed it did all I needed at the time. That was the first machine I saw running 3D software. It was called Lightwave 3D Version 1.0. At that time neither PCs nor Macs were capable of running such wonderful software.
Sorry for getting all nostalgic.Regards
Mr S -
Hmm, since one cannot measure "pretty" and "ugly" I'll leave that up to the individual. Both are tools to get a task done. I guess when my desktop needs to be pretty under my desk that will matter
or when I care how pretty the case is. To each their own.
I guess people go to the hardware to get a pretty hammer -
Yes indeed
-
I find it interesting that people always have so much passion for "their choice" when this debate inevitably rises. But I would like to put forward the proposition that there would be no Windows OS at all had Mac not all along used the desktop style Graphical User Interface (GUI) system. This system was not actually developed by Mac but by Xerox PARC by Alan Kay, Douglas Engelbart, and when introduced to Steve Jobs early in his process of developing Apple computers he adopted the system under the title Apple Lisa. The Xerox system was never developed by Xerox commercially, and Jobs hired some of the Xerox team to help him develop the GUI.
Now I don't know if many of you were around when all Microsoft offered was MS-DOs (Microsoft Digital Operating System), I was, and I was using a Tandy TRS 80, and (probably dreaming of a Commadore 64) tick tacking away with the Tab button using the old fill in the blank style software when along came the Mac Plus it had this tricky little device called a mouse ( which when Jobs recruited Microsoft as the first third party software developer for his system he had an agreement not to ship any software that used the mouse for at least one year after the first Macintosh shipped). That was the point when I first heard this debate rage. MS-DOS users called the Mac a toy, and claimed that only the PC DOS based system could be used for serious business applications. Mac users just kept smiling that little smug smile like they knew something that other didn't.
But you know there really was something logical about that interface. It was elegant and intuitive.
I think Bill Gates sensed that too, and MS announced the development of its new GUI mouse based system called Windows in Nov 1983 at the Comdex trade show. This of course cause a rift between Gates and Jobs, and eventually led to the famous law suit that Apple lost. And as it happened the member of the Microsoft team that developed the Apple software for MS , Neil Konzen, was assigned to the develop the second version of Windows (the first version Windows 1.0 was generally seen as pretty dismal) which was released a couple of years later in about 1987 and became the basis of the successful Windows line (some would argue with the exception of Vista)
Although it may be an Urban Myth, at the meeting that took place after Microsoft's announcement of Windows release, Gates apparently after sitting through a tirade by the angry Jobs was supposed to have said: " Well Steve, I think it's more like we both had a rich neighbour named Xerox, and when I broke in to steal his TV set, I found you had already stolen it."Windows and Mac desktop flashback
-
@unknownuser said:
Hmm, since one cannot measure "pretty" and "ugly" I'll leave that up to the individual. Both are tools to get a task done. I guess when my desktop needs to be pretty under my desk that will matter
or when I care how pretty the case is. To each their own.
I guess people go to the hardware to get a pretty hammerAs a designer I spend a lot of time with my computer and it is important to me that it looks cool. Of course, if my Macs were a source of frustration, I would change, but, they provide everything I need in a beautiful package. Sure, I've had my moments over the years when I wanted to throttle Apple, but, when it all shook out, there was no real viable alternative.
When I cook, I use nicely designed knives and if I was a carpenter... Nice hammer, Mike.On the topic of Mac vs Pc, well, when I was a kid the big fight was Ford vs Chevy.
Things never change.
You only pass this way one time. -
-
People just get ruffled because their decision-making faculties are being questioned--and this is enhanced by a media-driven commercial rivalry (whereas neither Apple or MS really care about it as they go to the bank).
So just to set the record straight, maybe we can all agree:
ALL Mac users are fluff-headed, fashion-obsessed fan-boys, barely capable of connecting a monitor, and easily duped into paying exorbitant prices for "pretty" above performance.
All PC users are propeller-headed, tech-drenched, drudges, who would rather fix a computer than use one, and are too cheap to pay for, much less recognize elegance.
There, debate settled.
-
Where old iMacs go to die...
When the LCD died I removed it and created 'Samar-iMac'.
Still works great!
Advertisement