Mac vs. PC & Apple vs. Microsoft

[BobtheGreatII]

So here's the deal, I'm rather fed up with hearing all the wars throughout the forum and seeing threads get derailed from the actual discussion...

So all I'm asking for is to the point discussions. Come up with facts to discuss, and talk about why you think one tops the other. Debate whatever, Zune Vs. iPod, OS X vs. Vista... etc.

Remember:
Keep it Clean :saggy:

[klange]

I'm going to debate the side that the poll sucks.

First off, Macs are PCs. Now more than ever. They are both x86-compliant personal computers. This automatically nulls the argument as to which is better, as they are the same thing.

Second, they both refer just to hardware, in which case, I guess I'd have to go with PC because a PC can be custom built with a quad core 4GHz processor, 16GB of RAM and eight-bazillion TB of hard drive space, with tenthousand GPUs.

Third, if you're going to extend this to software, a Mac is best because it can run anything. OS X without glitches, Windows, Linux, BeOS if you swing that way. You have to pay special attention and break numerous parts of the DMCA to get OS X on a custom PC.

That will be all.

[flibitijibibo]

Yeah, you probably should have said Windows vs. OSX.

You can actually build a Mac Pro to have octo core processing, 4 separate graphics cards (up to 8 GPUs), and 32GB of RAM. Of course, this costs more than a car thanks to Apple's nasty pricing, but it's still possible. At this point, it's just an OS war.

[Needles]

I would get a mac if I had enough money to spend, they cost quite a bit more than PC's. That and I have to wait for a special MAC version of the game, I can't use the normal windows version, so I'm missing out on a lot of games.

[Xetsuei]

Yeah, you probably should have said Windows vs. OSX.

You can actually build a Mac Pro to have octo core processing, 4 separate graphics cards (up to 8 GPUs), and 32GB of RAM. Of course, this costs more than a car thanks to Apple's nasty pricing, but it's still possible. At this point, it's just an OS war.

What. Radeon 2600XTs don't have two cores on one card.

Plus you can do all of that shit on a PC for much cheaper if you really wanted to.

[ICEE]

PC forever. The only concessions I allow apple are the iPod and iPhone. They are great pieces of technology, but seriously, gtfo my computers apple.

[ExAm]

...But the resulting machine won't run OSX, Xet.

[flibitijibibo]

You can replace them with your own GPUs. This one can actually be upgraded. o.o All you have to do is just get the single 8800GT, then swap that out and put 4 GTX295s in there.

[Dwood]

You can replace them with your own GPUs. This one can actually be upgraded. o.o All you have to do is just get the single 8800GT, then swap that out and put 4 GTX295s in there.

Doesn't matter how powerful their systems are/can be if they can't run the blasted games.

[Xetsuei]

...But the resulting machine won't run OSX, Xet.

Never said it would.


You can replace them with your own GPUs. This one can actually be upgraded. o.o All you have to do is just get the single 8800GT, then swap that out and put 4 GTX295s in there.

The GTX 295s only work in quad SLI, and only have one SLI connector on each card. The other two would be completely useless.

[ExAm]

Doesn't matter how powerful their systems are/can be if they can't run the blasted games.You're either forgetting or ignoring the fact that Windows can be installed on newer Macs :|

[SnaFuBAR]

except at an extremely higher cost.

[flibitijibibo]

The GTX 295s only work in quad SLI, and only have one SLI connector on each card. The other two would be completely useless.Two separate cases of quad SLI, then have a dual monitor setup, one monitor for each pair.

[Dwood]

You're either forgetting or ignoring the fact that Windows can be installed on newer Macs :|

At that point it's no longer considered a Mac.

[Xetsuei]

Two separate cases of quad SLI, then have a dual monitor setup, one monitor for each pair.

Pretty sure that wouldn't work.

[Phopojijo]

Yeah... the counter point of "It can't run OSX" is simply "Why do you care?"

Sure... people say "But then it can't run Garage Band" and that's true... however it can run Sony Acid.

There isn't anything you can do that cannot be done on a PC running Windows or Linux for a fraction of the cost.

Also Apple has crap backwards compatibility. God help you if you want to run any program for Mac OS9 now that that functionality is gone. Sure, it had Rosetta for the PPC transfer... but there were some programs you had back in the PPC days that did not work on Rosetta... "For most applications, you can upgrade to the Universal version for minimal cost".

Sure that's fine right? Well there's a problem... they're talking about Apple's own products {{Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Aperture, Logic Pro, Logic Express, Shake and Final Cut Express}}.

Since Apple changed CPU vendors... they demanded money for you... on top of buying their new PC from them to keep your old Pro-level programs as you continue to support their platform.

Remember... this isn't simply upgrading version numbers for extra features... this is simply making the programs you once had work on your new PC.

And lord help you if you have a PowerPC and you want to upgrade to Snow Leopard.

And you know what? It wouldn't be nearly an eighth as bad if they wouldn't have made all these Ads stating "how crappy Vista's compatibility is".

C'mon... at least when Microsoft fixed a broken program, they pushed it for free over Windows Update.

They conditioned their customers to accept paying extra for these services... which is actually the same thing that's going on new with micro-transactions on consoles.

[Cortexian]

For general purpose and certain specific things, PC's are still the better system. In my opinion they are also more powerful with support for complete customization (to the degree of parts available).

Mac's are good for certain things... They're gaining in the general area as well, but lack a lot of customization options.

PC gets my vote still, though I'll use a Mac with OSX if certain programs run better on it.

[ExAm]

At that point it's no longer considered a Mac.Macintosh is the make, not the operating system :eng101:
You're wrong.

[Lateksi]

Better... Better for what purpose? <- My answer depends on that.

[Dwood]

Macintosh is the make, not the operating system :eng101:
You're wrong.

You don't buy a mac for the hardware do you? You buy a mac for the Operating System. If you load Windows on it then you lose the mac style because macs use the same hardware as anyone else.

Your statement would only be right under a powerpc mac environment.

[Reaper Man]

As much as I like Mac OS (due to it being Unix-based and more efficient than Windows [afaik]), I don't think I'll ever use it for my desktop computer - their desktops are a rip-off and getting a hackintosh to work is just not worth the effort (then again, I haven't looked into this option for a while and Snow Leopard sure looks alluring). For laptops on the other hand, I'd love to have a Macbook Pro w/ Mac OS. Currently I run Linux on my laptop, but the lack of industry standard software for photographers prevents me from using it as my main OS (as much as I like it).

My hopes are to build a powerful desktop, run Windows 7 64-bit so that I may utilize the ability to have lots of RAM (8-16gigs I hope to have) and 64-bit processing, I get out-of-memory errors regularly and I have 2gigs - that's to be expected when you're batch processing hundreds of full resolution (10mp and more if I get a new camera/now that I work with medium format film) RAW photos.

I don't discriminate OSes based on what shiny features they have (though eyecandy doesn't hurt if it's not processor intensive - like Compiz Fusion), I need something practical for what I do, and I've tried all three main options out there. Currently efficiency and support for the Adobe suite are my main concerns. I know there are ways to get Adobe software to run on Linux, but it's a pain. Needless to say, if Adobe ever makes a Linux version of their software I would consider switching, I just love the efficiency and customizability of Linux (Ubuntu to be precise).

E: I wish something like this would happen http://creativebits.org/opinion/adobe_linux (lol, writer of the article has the same name as me)

Second E: After some further reading, I probably wouldn't ditch Windows or Mac OS for Linux, kinda overlooked the fact that there's more than just Adobe software that I use that just isn't there for Linux..

[Phopojijo]

You don't buy a mac for the hardware do you? You buy a mac for the Operating System. If you load Windows on it then you lose the mac style because macs use the same hardware as anyone else.

Your statement would only be right under a powerpc mac environment.It's generally either the Operating System... or the aesthetics of the system.

Yeah. The latter 'is not negligible'.

[JunkfoodMan]

Buying a mac is playing more for less IMO.

[Phopojijo]

There are plenty of people who would benefit from having a Mac.

1) If their job or school requires it >_> (duh :p)
2) They're looking to use it for a short period of time and then resell it.
3) They want it for aesthetic reasons (furniture, etc).
4) The pre-loaded software is all they'd need and they aren't used to the PC ways.
5) They don't mind paying a bit extra.
6) They have nothing that relies on Windows (or would be willing to take the extra extra expense of a copy of Vista/XP)

[TheGhost]

Wow 28-0 for PC. That's crazy. Compare to sites like Engadget where everyone seems to love Mac.

[ExAm]

You don't buy a mac for the hardware do you? You buy a mac for the Operating System. If you load Windows on it then you lose the mac style because macs use the same hardware as anyone else.

Your statement would only be right under a powerpc mac environment.
Your lack of intelligence is frightening. The computer itself is called a Mac. The label "Mac" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the software installed on the machine, because Mac is the name of the machine. The hardware inside Macs, the motherboard and case design are custom tailored for the machine. Ever try to fit a 3rd party motherboard inside a Mac? You can't. Mac Pro towers have separate cooling compartments inside the case for the RAM and the rest of the innards. The motherboard is completely non-standardized.

I will repeat that. The physical computing machine that Apple sells is branded, "Macintosh".

To address your other point, people will buy Macs because the hardware is able to dual-boot Mac OS and Windows simultaneously. You can't do that with any other brand of machine without, as was said earlier, breaking several parts of the DMCA. So yes, people do buy them for their hardware.

[Phopojijo]

To address your other point, people will buy Macs because the hardware is able to dual-boot Mac OS and Windows simultaneously. You can't do that with any other brand of machine without, as was said earlier, breaking several parts of the DMCA. So yes, people do buy them for their hardware.Uhm...

But buying it because the hardware is capable of running MacOS is still buying it for Mac OS o.O

If you would have taken the aesthetics angle I would have agreed with you.

[ExAm]

Uhm...

But buying it because the hardware is capable of running MacOS is still buying it for Mac OS o.O

If you would have taken the aesthetics angle I would have agreed with you.
To an extent, you've got a point, though I wouldn't buy a Mac that could only run OSX. I would buy a mac that could dual boot both Mac OS and Windows. I'd be buying it for its versatility, not the specific OS it can run. The point still stands that you cannot make a Mac, not a Mac. Even if you installed OSX on a PC it'd still be a PC, because it was not made by Apple and not branded with the name, "Macintosh".

[Jean-Luc]

My college has both Macs and PCs, and after using a Mac for six months, I've come to a decision that PC is still my favorite.

One of the things about the Mac that bugs me is the main interface. I know a lot of people like it. It's streamlined, sure, but something about it just doesn't hit home for me.

The general lack of compatabilty with many programs is what really turns me off to them though. I like being able to use hundreds of programs without having to worry "Will this work for me?"

[FRain]

We are to avoid personal vendettas in this thread. My opinion wholeheartedly is:

What the hell do you want to do with them?

PC: Games. More software. Unstable.

MAC: No games*. Some software. Stable.

Do you want to do very core-programs like word processors and image editors? Mac. Do you want to be able to build your own computers and play high-end games? PC.

It's funny how both of those came out almost the same # of characters.


People are like: macs cant play games* lol fail - To argue this point:
What about a businessman who just needs word processing and document editors? Mac wins. Much more stable.

In other situations: pcs have viruzez! lul! - You can't play graphically intense games, however. There comes a price.

Winner: Linux.

Winner out of those two: PC. PC wins by a fraction of a margin. They have the upperhand by being able to play games*, but you have deal with software glitches and such.

*Actually, macs CAN play games, but not graphically intense games such as Halo 2, if ported at high resolution.

[Disaster]

I just voted for mac so I could be the first person :P

I'd go with a PC though lol

[Atty]

I voted for Mac simply because I love my Macbook Pro.

I will always love using a PC for gaming or building my own PC but I've become quite accustom to OS X and the relative ease in doing whatever I want on OS X.

[Dwood]

About the advertising.

http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/20060513.jpg






The truth:


http://www.applegeeks.com/comics/issue97.jpg


There's another mac one in there somewhere but this is the jist of it.

[DarkHalo003]

I'm not a Mac computer fan. No right click is what really bugs me, but it's also the needing to find exclusive apps for Mac that bother me, not to mention everything is extremely expensive. With PC, I can just go to any common retailer, pic up whatever I want to install, and it's done. I also just plain don't like Apple, mainly because I'm content with the Zune and for other reasons.

I have used a MacBook before and the only feature I liked was the visual tabs on the bottom to various apps. Other than that, I really didn't care to use it.

[FRain]

You know you can buy fucking mice with right clicks for mac. You don't need to vendetta them because they don't have a right click.

[flibitijibibo]

You know you can buy fucking mice with right clicks for mac. You don't need to vendetta them because they don't have a right click.This. When I'm forced to use a Mac at my internship, I bring my own mouse just to keep from accidentally single clicking and going "FFFFFFFFFFFFF" in front of the students. >.>

[MetKiller Joe]

Windows has about 90% market share; Mac and Linux share the remaining 10%.

Mac is not "better" it just works better for some people. Or they like the "feel" and design of the Mac. It seems pretty stupid for me to buy a machine for its design and status. I use my Windows machine to do the same thing a Mac user can do (and much more).

Windows has more applications built for it. There is a larger group of people giving out tech support for it, but you get many viruses because the majority of computers run it and give the attacker the greatest success rate.

Mac I have never understood why anybody would buy: it is an expensive machine which has a limited set of applications made for it. It isn't used by many people so nobody feels compelled to do much for the Mac.

I do have an iPod, which really suites my needs. It is very simple and easy to use. It is a portable device, and that's where the design and simplicity of Mac are the best: where they are most needed. When I'm running or driving, I don't want to worry about having drivers for this or application incompatibility with that.

[Dwood]

There is a larger group of people giving out tech support for it, but you get many viruses because the majority of computers run it and give the attacker the greatest success rate.


With SP3 for XP and Sp1 on Vista if you get a Virus on your machine you should be banned from the computer.

All it takes is some commonsense.exe and you would do great at keeping viruses out, making it a non-issue for Windows.

Opening Spam is comparable to swimming in swamps in the middle of Africa during the evening. You can hope you won't get bit by the mosquitos with malaria but you're an idiot either way.



Mac I have never understood why anybody would buy: it is an expensive machine which has a limited set of applications made for it. It isn't used by many people so nobody feels compelled to do much for the Mac.


Why more people are buying macs: Simplicity (Arrogant stuck up simplicity imho) and no viruses.

[MetKiller Joe]

With SP3 for XP and Sp1 on Vista if you get a Virus on your machine you should be banned from the computer.

All it takes is some commonsense.exe and you would do great at keeping viruses out, making it a non-issue for Windows.

Opening Spam is comparable to swimming in swamps in the middle of Africa during the evening. You can hope you won't get bit by the mosquitos with malaria but you're an idiot either way.



Why more people are buying macs: Simplicity (Arrogant stuck up simplicity imho) and no viruses.

You'd be surprised to know how incompetent people can get and still afford a computer.

Also, people bought more Macs because it was sold to them as an alternative to Vista; I'm sure there are other reasons, but MS screwed up badly. They paid with market share.

It is a stereotype that people who own Macs are elitist, but that simply isn't true. I know many people who are students who just like Mac better for its design and fluidity. It has nothing to do with some pompous mindset they have. Some people have this mindset, but it is unfortunate that Windows fanboys seem to use them as a scapegoat for an OS that they deem either inferior or not up to the Windows standard (which is ironic).

[Phopojijo]

Yeah, more than just some people.

I know because they approach me at work and diss Windows and the people who use it.

At Walmart.

[thehoodedsmack]

Some people turn it into a sort of iLifestyle, and that's what irritates me. It's the same type of people who loiter around in Starbucks with their Blackberrys, chortling at the people buying coffee for 10 times less from the Dunkin' Donuts across the street.

[Bodzilla]

Yeah... the counter point of "It can't run OSX" is simply "Why do you care?"

Sure... people say "But then it can't run Garage Band" and that's true... however it can run Sony Acid.

There isn't anything you can do that cannot be done on a PC running Windows or Linux for a fraction of the cost.

Also Apple has crap backwards compatibility. God help you if you want to run any program for Mac OS9 now that that functionality is gone. Sure, it had Rosetta for the PPC transfer... but there were some programs you had back in the PPC days that did not work on Rosetta... "For most applications, you can upgrade to the Universal version for minimal cost".

Sure that's fine right? Well there's a problem... they're talking about Apple's own products {{Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Aperture, Logic Pro, Logic Express, Shake and Final Cut Express}}.

Since Apple changed CPU vendors... they demanded money for you... on top of buying their new PC from them to keep your old Pro-level programs as you continue to support their platform.

Remember... this isn't simply upgrading version numbers for extra features... this is simply making the programs you once had work on your new PC.

And lord help you if you have a PowerPC and you want to upgrade to Snow Leopard.

And you know what? It wouldn't be nearly an eighth as bad if they wouldn't have made all these Ads stating "how crappy Vista's compatibility is".

C'mon... at least when Microsoft fixed a broken program, they pushed it for free over Windows Update.

They conditioned their customers to accept paying extra for these services... which is actually the same thing that's going on new with micro-transactions on consoles.
love phopo.... just love.

[Lex1337]

I like PC's more because it's fun taking and putting them back together. With Macs I don't know how to even take them apart. I also mistook a Mac Pro as a Garbage Can. I got so much trouble at school for throwing an open gaterade bottle on it.

[Rook]

I find the argument mac is better a bit funny: If you want to actually play games or run some apps install windows on osx! Nice workaround?

[Reaper Man]

I find the argument mac is better a bit funny: If you want to actually play games or run some apps install windows on osx! Nice workaround?
Not with the limited hardware options, it's not. It'd be better to install Mac OS on a custom built machine a-la a "hackintosh" (check out the OSX86 project (http://www.osx86project.org/) for more info). However the effort required to do so hardly seems worth it for Mac OS.

Also, if you're lucky enough and the software you want to run is supported by the Wine project (via Crossover for mac), it's a better workaround in my opinion, as it saves you having to install a whole OS just for a few programs.

[Masterz1337]

Woopie doo, can't play games on a mac. It's why we have game consoles. And PC games are a dying market anyway.

I prefer macs, even though I don't have one, simply due to the ones I've used have always done what they're suppose to do, no where near the hassle of you have to wait for with Windows, and the OS works RIGHT out of the box. Sure with patches windows might work as it's suppose to, but I don't call that a better OS, if you have to wait years for it to work right.

Also apple customer support, I work right next to an apple store, and I go in all teh time to look at the new stuff or if I have a problem with an iphone or ipod. It's the best customer service I've seen, plenty of people to help, and none of that bullshit where something isn't their responsibility. I've seen them help people with their windows machines so that they can interface correctly with the other macs in the house, or help get files off a windows system where the system is being a fuckup and isn't working as intended. The customer satisfaction is their #1 priority. I had a defective Ipod Touch, where the battery charge wasn't lasting as long as it should have, they replaced it for free. My 3G iPhone was canceling calls when the headphones were plugged in, they replaced the phone and headphones for free. Then my headphones broke, no questions asked, they replaced them for free. My 2G iPhone dropped, and the screen stopped responding, once again, replaced for free. I could go on how they don't bullshit their customers.

Granted, on a Mac, you won't be able to run as many programs as you can on windows, but can you guys really name any important ones you can't run on a mac?


For general purpose and certain specific things, PC's are still the better system. In my opinion they are also more powerful with support for complete customization (to the degree of parts available).

Mac's are good for certain things... They're gaining in the general area as well, but lack a lot of customization options.


See, this is what bothers me. Sure a PC is more customizable, but all the configurations is why so many problems arise. It's not like you're buying an underpowered mac, that needs upgrading. Mac's are plenty powerful, take a look at the new Macbooks. And you can't even compare them ghz for ghz. The Mac OS uses the technology a lot more efficiently than Vista for example, so if you have only 1 gig of ram, you're going to be running a lot faster and using it more effectively than a windows box with 1 gig of ram. Who really cares about customization? The people who build and upgrade their system are the exception rather than the rule, and the death of PC gaming is going to make the amount of upgrades you want (not need) even more pointless.

[SnaFuBAR]

PC games are a dying market anyway.
uh, no.

[Phopojijo]

I prefer macs, even though I don't have one, simply due to the ones I've used have always done what they're suppose to do, no where near the hassle of you have to wait for with Windows, and the OS works RIGHT out of the box. Sure with patches windows might work as it's suppose to, but I don't call that a better OS, if you have to wait years for it to work right.Well there's a reason why there's so few patches.

Apple fails to patch several security vulnerabilities because they don't care and assume they're not a big enough target. (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Apple+fail+to+patch&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

Microsoft MUST patch EVERYTHING because it'll be exploited frickin' the next day otherwise.

Yeah, there's definitely going to be way fewer patches if they don't give a damn.

[Masterz1337]

Is there really a reason to patch something if it's not exploited? MS leaves plenty of things unpatched when they are aware of the flaw, take a look at IE.

Compare Vista to OSX. How many patches for Vista have there been to actually make the OS perform like an OS should? My experiences with OSX show me that they actually finish the OS before it get's shipped, and you don't need to reply on patches and driver updates 1-2 years later to get the product that you paid for 2 years earlier.

[Masterz1337]

uh, no.

There was an article posted onm thsi website recently talking about piracy and the effect its' having on the PC market industry, which brought up some important points on what's causing the decline of PC games, and it wasn't all just piracy.

It's not even hard to take a look over the past few years, and see the decline in quality on the PC game market. Crysis was a bust, UT3 hasn't sold well, H2v, a game that had the potential to be great, we all know how that went, GTA4, another bust. The only thing the PC market has going for it is Steam, and even then like with GTA4, that doesn't stop the quality of the dwindling number of games from dropping.

[Phopojijo]

You're right... you don't need to rely on driver updates for Mac OSX... for some reason the people who make Apple computers are willing to cooperate with the Operating System developer when it comes to drivers ;)

And yes... Vista adds a lot more patches... because they bothered patching a lot of issues. Apple hasn't.

In AIM we were talking about how Windows 9x was terrible... and it was true... however Mac OS6-9 were worse.

We were also talking about how OSX is vastly different from the old ones... and it's true... University of California, Berkeley wrote a really good operating system.

Microsoft could easily build a Unix-based Operating System... two things prevent them:

1) Microsoft likes to homebrew stuff
2) That would terribly break backwards compatibility.

Apple doesn't care about backwards compatibility. Try to run an MacOS9 program on Leopard... try to run a PowerPC processor with SnowLeopard (when it comes out). It's just not possible.

Apple knew when they switched to OSX that they'll cut out OS9 after just a couple of versions (I believe Tiger was when it died). Microsoft does not have that luxery.

Which is why it annoys me when Apple blames Microsoft for not having good backwards compatibility.

It's like a bank robber calling someone who eats a grape in a grocery store a thief.

[Dwood]

The only thing the PC market has going for it is Steam, and even then like with GTA4, that doesn't stop the quality of the dwindling number of games from dropping.

Actually, Impulse/stardock is doing it right. The main game they release however if you want any support, or multiplay/patches you have to buy the game/download it through Impulse.

Sins Of a Solar Empire came out, 0 DRM and did great for what the Developers had to work with.