# Buying Advice For Mac?



## Doctor Varney

I've been using PCs since 1991 and I'm completely fed up with the crap they constantly dish out.  Problems upon problems - forever!  A friend of mine bought a Mac and said it's brilliant and it can't even get a virus from the internet.

My problem is, I wouldn't even know where to buy one!  Of course, I'm sure I'm about to find out... but certainly Macs don't seem as popular in the average local high street.

Ideally, I need to go second hand to allow enough for software, as all of the stuff I have is Windows based.  Was wondering about checking Ebay for a machine.

The thing is - being a PC user, I don't have much idea about the specs Mac offers. What would I expect to pay for one which is roughly equal to my Windows XP machine and have decent graphics and sound?  It doesn't necessarily need to be brand new.  I figured that with a slightly older machine I wouldn't notice it's shortfalls, if I am not used to the highest spec of today.

With a PC it's easy to build one on the cheap and I can do that but I feel I need something more reliable and trouble-free and everywhere I go, I keep hearing good things about them while I hear people constantly complaining about the performance and errors on their PCs.

I don't need something 'up to the minute' just something which works better than my Athlon Windows XP machine, which is totally rubbish.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## plutoniumman

It depends what you’re going to use it for.
I usually say, PC is for games, mac is for everything else.  If you plan-on gaming on it a lot, I suggest staying away from mac and sticking with PC.  Or have a cheap PC around for your games and use the mac for everyting else.  That’s what I do.  Mainly because on all macintosh models (except the mac pro; not to be confused with mac book pro) the graphics card is soldered onto the main board; for the few models you can upgrade the graphics card, the selection is limited.  And the game selection is quite poor, though it has been improving lately.  

Macs are considerably more expensive for its performance if you live outside the United States.  Ie a mac can sell for €800 in the US but €1000 in Germany for the same exact thing, retail.

As far as actually finding one to buy, a couple of computer stores sell them.  I assume you live in the US.  Bestbuy (sometimes) and Fry’s electronics tend to have a small selection.  Your best bet would be to visit an actual Apple store or go to www.apple.com, though ebay has used (and new) ones for sale.  I know compUSA usually had a nice selection, but I don’t think they’re around anymore.  (I miss compUSA!!!)


If you do decide to make the switch, I think you’ll find some of this software below useful:
Perian.  (http://perian.org/)  Is a video codec package that makes quicktime not suck.

VLC. (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/)  Plays everything else Perian won’t.

NTFS-3G (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/system_disk_utilities/ntfs3g.html)
Software allows you to write to NTFS (windows) based hard drives/flash drives. (Mac can read out of box, but not write)

And a whole ton more apps you may or may not find usful:
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/100-free-useful-applications-for-mac-part-i/

EDIT:  Also, don’t download mac software on a Windows machine.  It won’t work.  Windows breaks mac software.  You need to download it on mac in order for it to work on mac.  I’m pretty sure linux doesn’t break mac software, but I’ve never tried it.


----------



## Doctor Varney

Thank you, Plutoniumman.  I don't play games, it's going to be a tool for my work.  The machine will be used in the field of graphics, music sequencing and internet surfing; collecting images for artwork purposes.

Additionally, since I download a lot of softporn for figure reference, a PC is far more at risk from viruses.  I'm aware it's probably only a matter of time before Macs can get infected but on the whole, there seems to be a whole lot less fuss involved with internet security on the Mac platform.  There are also many issues surrounding compatibility and performance of internal hardware.  I'm not necessarily as interested in 'fast' performance, as I am in reliable, smooth and consistent performance, at the level that it's meant to and expected to operate at.  For instance, a PC can have any number of potentially conflicting bits and pieces inside and when conflicts and bugs occur, it's very hard to find out exactly what's wrong.  Whereas, with the Mac, it only contains Mac hardware, which is all designed to work together.   As for the OS, a PC can start off feeling quite smooth but it doesn't take long before it starts to slow down and feel quite clunky.  There are a lot of superflous pieces of 'bloatware' supplied with Windows, which it seems the Mac doesn't seem to require, in order to do it's job.  All of these factors are things I've considered, which cause me to arrive at this choice.


----------



## Okedokey

You can install Windows on a Mac.  THere is actually no difference between the hardware usually, however you are paying a premium for the apple logo.  If you want the operating system (which is all you getting different), then fine.


----------



## Doctor Varney

bigfellla said:


> You can install Windows on a Mac.  THere is actually no difference between the hardware usually, however you are paying a premium for the apple logo.  If you want the operating system (which is all you getting different), then fine.



Okay, so then presumably, it would be possible to run the Mac OS on PC hardware?  Is that correct?


----------



## plutoniumman

Just to clear things up, macs are a bit different than PCs.  But they’re pretty much 90% the same.  As far as running different operating systems on them, they’re pretty much identical.  

Viruses can exist for any system.  It’s just that Apple has a better setup all-round than MS as far as security goes.  Plus they typically get security fixes out pretty quickly.

As far as “reliable and smooth”... Macs are reliable; and in my experience often have so many fewer errors than Windows.  I can’t recall the last time my mac has given me an error message.  To be honest, I’ve only experienced a GSOD (grey screen of doom) only once, out of all 3 of my macs since 2007.  The last time, and pretty much only time I got an error, is when I take out my USB flash drives without ejecting, which technically isn’t even an error...

As far as ‘smooth’, they stay smoother a lot longer than PCs (Windows).  Windows sometimes gets so bad that once it starts running slow, that you might as well format the thing and get it over-with.  Er, defragging would be better...  However this is naturally occurring on any system running on a magnetic based storage device, regardless of its operating system.  Though mac handles the HDD in such a way that it takes a lot longer for it to become slow, and when it does become slow, it handles it much much better.  It’s actually bearable.  To totally avoid this crap, you could go with a solid state drive.  I’ve had my OS installed on my SSD for about 2 years now, and it’s about as fast as when I first installed the OS. Still.  Plus all your apps load a lot faster; photoshop loads in 7 seconds, everything else is under 2 seconds.  Computer loads from off to Safari in about 30 seconds.  A lot of the newer mac laptops come standard with an SSD now.

The bloatware isn’t the fault of Windows.  It’s the manufacturer of the computer that supplies the bloatware.  Windows comes with...  Media Player, Windows Games, Calculator, Windows Movie Maker...  And Internet Explorer?  It’s not a whole lot.


It is possible to get OS X to run on a PC, but it’s against the forum TOS, and I heard that it doesn’t run as well on a PC as it does mac.  I suppose if one has the same CPU, similar motherboard and RAM specs as in a mac, that it should run about the same...


----------



## Doctor Varney

Thanks Plutonium.  That's a very informative answer.  Actually, I had pretty good idea of the answer to my own question, posed to 'bigfella'.  I found that post somewhat misleading.  There has to be some difference, somewhere (most likely in terms of firmware at least) or you would simply build a *generic* computer and then decide if you wanted it to be a Mac or a PC, depending on what operating system you installed - and I don't think it's as simple as that.  I might not be very knowledgable, but I'm not stupid.  My question is - apart from firmware and the name (obviously)... what exactly is it that distinguishes a Mac from a PC?

On Saturday, I discovered one of the fundamental differences between the Mac OS and Windows - the registry, on which Windows is based and without which it would not work.  I was told the Mac doesn't use any such nonsense and if you want to remove a program, you drag it to the trash can - and it's gone.  On Windows, many traces can be left after an uninstall and the registry just keeps getting bigger and bigger.  I've since learned it's Windows biggest flaw.  Now I come to look at it from this perspective, it seems absolutely ridiculous.  

Incidentally, the guy who told me this, did actually build his own Mac.  He runs the local PC store in my area, so I'd expect him to know what he's doing.  He has said that although it's actually less endowed than his PC system, it still out-performs it in some important areas.  Obviously then, it is possible to 'build your own Mac'.  I'd be interested to find out more about that.  Is it worth it?  I can just about throw a PC together - but I wouldn't want to get in a mess with building something I'm not so familiar with.

I don't quite buy the idea that Macs simply cannot or ever will get a virus.  Some people are saying it's only a matter of time - though by and large, I think it is probably a safer bet.  You say they have better security but somewhere I read that Macs don't have or need security... which might make them vulnerable some day in the future.  I don't know what to think about that.

Anyway, thanks again.  You've been very helpful to me.

Dr. V


----------



## Okedokey

In terms of hardware, there is no difference.  Just the OS.  You can run either on either system if you are cluey.  And to be honest, the criticism of Windows is faily mute these days especially with the stability of Win 7.


----------



## Mishkin

I agree that the times are pretty good OS-wise right now for PCs, due to Windows 7.

Due to the current solid OS situation, I would say the #1 reason why people have trouble with PCs IS because of hardware.  But I put all of the blame on the OEM companies for selling systems with low quality parts.  I don't know much concerning what typically comes standard on various Mac models, but I'm assuming they use better hardware components (like the mobo, psu) than some of the low-end budget OEM crap that many brand PCs are.

Other than that, yeah the hardware should be basically the same.  Macs ... "Intel Inside." 

Other than the OS, the only real difference between the two is that you pay considerably more for a Mac, and the logo.  Quality, in regards to problems, would vary from worse than to better than when it comes to a PC compared to a Mac, depending on if you go OEM, which OEM, or build your own system.

Personally, I am a PC guy all the way.  In my mind, Macs are for sheep who were ensnared by Apple's marketing and pay way more than they should. (and 12 yr old girls)  Then again, I can't rightly judge people who want a Mac because they like the OS better, or any other "legitimate" reason.


----------



## Demilich

Mishkin said:


> I agree that the times are pretty good OS-wise right now for PCs, due to Windows 7.
> 
> Due to the current solid OS situation, I would say the #1 reason why people have trouble with PCs IS because of hardware.  But I put all of the blame on the OEM companies for selling systems with low quality parts.  I don't know much concerning what typically comes standard on various Mac models, but I'm assuming they use better hardware components (like the mobo, psu) than some of the low-end budget OEM crap that many brand PCs are.
> 
> Other than that, yeah the hardware should be basically the same.  Macs ... "Intel Inside."
> 
> Other than the OS, the only real difference between the two is that you pay considerably more for a Mac, and the logo.  Quality, in regards to problems, would vary from worse than to better than when it comes to a PC compared to a Mac, depending on if you go OEM, which OEM, or build your own system.
> 
> Personally, I am a PC guy all the way.  In my mind, Macs are for sheep who were ensnared by Apple's marketing and pay way more than they should. (and 12 yr old girls)  Then again, I can't rightly judge people who want a Mac because they like the OS better, or any other "legitimate" reason.



I believe the main reason there are so many "issues" with Windows and PC's is as obvious as this: Microsoft: ~90% market share-Mac OS: ~5%. If the PC and Mac roles were reversed, Mac would be the company with the most issues, and PC would be the opposite. Simply put, Mac hasn't received the publicity that the PC has had to show the Mac's "flaws" (I can assure you Doctor Varney, if the Mac OS were as perfect as you believe, it would be the most popular OS; but it's not, and it isn't.)

@Doctor Varney; it is unfortunate that you are no longer able to function with Microsoft Windows, and wish you happy days with the Mac OS. However smart you claim to be, you're mislead on many things. Mac's will slow down over time, as much as a PC does, if not properly maintained (which it seems you did a fairly good job with). Mac's get updates out fast and frequent, because, as I stated before, they are quite a small company compared to you-know-who. PC's and Mac's are built the same way in terms of hardware. Plain and simple. The operating system obviously being the difference. And lastly, not using a registry has it's flaws, and severe flaws at that.

As for your soft porn delima, you will have just as many issues virus wise with Mac looking at pornographic sites, as you do with your PC.
If you're having trouble comparing Mac's to PC's, go to a certified Mac and PC shop, ask the clerk what the average price on each brand of computer costs, and ask the average cost to maintain each brand. Use a search engine and compare prices to hardware. Call around. Ask owners. Buying an expensive computer should be done on your terms, not on the opinions of others. Use the computer you are currently sitting in front of, and *look around*. Here's a start: Newegg, TigerDirect, Mac's website, etc. Also, I wonder why you're having issues with your computer, hmm? Probably because it is outdated. I believe the main thing that attracts many PC users to Windows is the ability to swap out hardware whenever we want. I know what parts I'm using in my PC, and I know what parts I'm going to attach to my PC in the future. If you don't appreciate this, then go Mac. A Mac is probably perfect for someone such as yourself. Who just wants a computer.


----------



## Rocko

bigfellla said:


> In terms of hardware, there is no difference.  Just the OS.  You can run either on either system if you are cluey.  And to be honest, the criticism of Windows is faily mute these days especially with the stability of Win 7.



agreed.


----------



## C4Radon

Best advice: Don't buy it


----------



## Doctor Varney

C4Radon said:


> Best advice: Don't buy it



Don't buy what?  Windows 7 or a Mac?  It would help if you qualify that advice with a reason.  Thanks.

Dr. V


----------



## Doctor Varney

@ Demilich.  Thank you.  That is possibly among the best posts I've read on the subject so far.  It certainly answers a lot of my queries.

No, I'm really not the sort of person who "just wants a computer".  I went with PCs originally because they were cheaper - yes - but the reason I stuck with them was because I knew what was in them; I could build to my own specifications and budget.  In many respects. you could say I really am a PC sort of guy - it's just that I have had many headaches with broken systems and am looking to the other side of the hill, to see if the grass is greener.  I'm also very open minded.

Now you mention Windows 7.  Is 7 more stable and 'smooth' than XP?  Could it be that by going with a Mac without trying Windows 7 first, could be foolish?  My first question would be whether all the software I currently have for XP would run properly on Windows 7.

Anyone be able to give a comparrison between Windows 7 and Mac OS please?  You might say "_Depends which Mac OS_" but I'm not savvy with the different versions of Mac OS - so any insight into that dept. would be helpful.

Of course, there will always be users' bias.  They like to have a go at the other fraternity - calling them 'fools' or 'sheep' etc... I don't buy into the rivalry. I'm much more interested in the computer as a tool.  I just want the best tool for the job.  In a totally practical sense.   I'm not interested in 'having an experience' or a 'relationship' with my computer.   I'm just someone who has gotten to the end of his tether with Windows XP and is looking for better quality and reliability.  The Mac adverts I see on the 'net bug the crap out of me - but I'm trying to look past the superficial issues.

By and large, nearly all of the answers to this thread have been interesting and helpful and thank you all very much for taking the time.

Cheers!

Dr. V


----------



## Doctor Varney

Mishkin said:


> I agree that the times are pretty good OS-wise right now for PCs, due to Windows 7.
> 
> Due to the current solid OS situation, I would say the #1 reason why people have trouble with PCs IS because of hardware.  But I put all of the blame on the OEM companies for selling systems with low quality parts.  I don't know much concerning what typically comes standard on various Mac models, but I'm assuming they use better hardware components (like the mobo, psu) than some of the low-end budget OEM crap that many brand PCs are.
> 
> Other than that, yeah the hardware should be basically the same.  Macs ... "Intel Inside."
> 
> Other than the OS, the only real difference between the two is that you pay considerably more for a Mac, and the logo.  Quality, in regards to problems, would vary from worse than to better than when it comes to a PC compared to a Mac, depending on if you go OEM, which OEM, or build your own system.
> 
> Personally, I am a PC guy all the way.  In my mind, Macs are for sheep who were ensnared by Apple's marketing and pay way more than they should. (and 12 yr old girls)  Then again, I can't rightly judge people who want a Mac because they like the OS better, or any other "legitimate" reason.



These all seem like pretty good points.  Except I've heard the part about 'sheep', 12 year old girls and Apple marketing all too often... If anything, it's rather the other way around.  I don't actually get to see any Apple marketing, so I haven't been affected by it.   In the UK, we don't see them advertised on TV until about 2 weeks before Xmas - yet Windows is constantly being marketed at us.  Also, I personally think there are 'sheep' on either side of the fence.  People tend to become comfortable with what they are used to.

Other than that, I totally appreciate what you're saying...

So, the bottom line is - do you think if I am looking for better reliability, I would be better off just getting Windows 7 and increasing the quality of some of my PC internals?  Just HOW MUCH better is Windows 7 than XP?  Is it better or equal to the Mac OS?

A lot of people say get a PC for gaming and a Mac for creative stuff.  I'm definitely in the latter group.  Not interested in gaming at all.  I use the computer solely for art, DTP and music making, not entertainment.

Like I say, I'm totally open minded on this.

Thanks again

Dr. V


----------



## C4Radon

Well, to justify my point you need to know about how I choose things. Every substantial purchase I make is simply based on specifications and price. I kinda do a price/benefit "analysis" in my head while choosing.

If benefit = things such as RAM, HDD size, screen size, processor, graphics card, ect...

And Price = the price

PC's almost always end up being more bang for you buck. Here is an example I pulled off amazon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product: Apple MacBook MC516LL/A 13.3-Inch Laptop

Price: $935.94 

Specs: 


2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 
NVIDIA Graphics
250GB Hard Drive, 8x Double-layer SuperDrive 
10-hour Battery Life, Glass Multi-Touch Trackpad
13.3-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen display with support for millions of colors
Processor, Memory, and Motherboard
Hardware Platform: Mac
Processor: 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Number of Processors: 1
RAM: 2000 MB
RAM Type: DDR SDRAM
Hard Drive Size: 250 GB
Type: Serial ATA
LCD Native Resolution: 1280 x 800
Weight: 8 pounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product: Acer AS5253-BZ684 15.6-Inch Laptop (Mesh Black)

Price: $437.69

Specs:


Processor, Memory, and Motherboard
Hardware Platform: PC
Processor: 3.2 GHz AMD E Series <- it says 2  1.6 GHz processors so...
RAM: 3000 MB
RAM Type: SODIMM
Hard Drive
Size: 320 GB
Type: Serial ATA
Cases and Expandability
Weight: 5.74 pounds
15.6" HD LED LCD Screen

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok so, I'm not going to search around to find all the specs for all these things. But's its clear you could potentially spend half as much on a PC which (in terms of specs) is clearly superior. To me, the three most important things are: (in order)

Processor

RAM

Hard drive (size)

Graphics card           

Screen

In general everything else isn't too important. So lets so who has superior specs for each of these things. highlighted red means it "won" on the right is the Mac on the left is the PC. (remember this is all my opinion and not fact.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Processor:* 3.2 GHz AMD E Series |  | 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor

*RAM:* 3GB |  | 2 GB

*Hard drive (size):* 320 GB |  | 250 GB

*Graphics card:* ATI Radeon HD 6310 graphics card |  | NVIDIA Graphics

*Screen:* 15.6'                   |  |                 13.3'

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the graphics card wasn't specified and I didn't want to bother and go check, I can't say which one could be considered "better"

Now in general the only thing that could be debated here could be screen size and OS. For screen size, I use my laptop like a desktop so The bigger the screen the better. If you travel frequently a smaller screen could be more logical. And for OS, for me I don't like the Mac OS simply because there are too many moving parts and eyecandy. You move to one corner, and all of your windows pop up you click one way and this little thing happens. With windows xp, click this and there it is. But you may also think, pshhh those specs were close, but you have to realize, the laptop that "won" each "round" was half the price of the macbook! Also, I consider myself a "power user". Also...you cant run exe's!!! DUN DUN DUUUN
Anyways You decide for yourself, as for security it's only a matter of time before macs are just as vulnerable as PC's if not more because the mac community wont be as "prepared" as the windows community considering they've been "battling" viruses for years now. My main point is numbers don't lie.
 I'm sure there will be much debate over the OS's quality and integration with the rest of the machine. In the end regardless of the OS, 3GB of RAM can handle 10 programs running better then 2 GB of RAM. 320 GB of hard drive space can hold 70 more GB than a 250 GB hard drive. A penny saved is a penny earned, same goes for $498. 498 dollars saved is 498 dollars earned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope you make the _correct_ decision


----------



## Doctor Varney

Thanks.

In the time since I made my last post, at least a hundred new posts have been made, by people asking why their PCs are acting so stupid.

I've just reinstalled Windows and I can't even type an 'at' symbol without getting a " mark.  Yet it was fine yesterday.  Same computer - same setup disc.

Are Macs that hard to set up?  My bro-in law says he did this: "Opened the box.  Took computer out of box.  Plugged computer in.  Switched computer on.  Everything worked.... PROPERLY!!!

Now, the above scenario has never been part of my computing experience - ever.  I've been using these things for all these years - and I still hate them.

Perhaps it is time to simply stop banging my own stupid head against a brick wall.

I think the next person who tells me a Mac is simply an expensive name and no different to a PC, is going to get a keyboard rammed up their arse - sideways!!!

Don't take it to heart... It's just the way I'm feeling at the moment.  However - is it right that an inanimate object, such as a computer, should cause this much frustration to millions of users?  My trouble is that because of it's price - I WANT the PC to be better.  Thing is... Oh, I've had enough...  I just don't know what to think any more.

Dr. V


----------



## Doctor Varney

C4Radon said:


> And for OS, for me I don't like the Mac OS simply because there are too many moving parts and eyecandy. You move to one corner, and all of your windows pop up you click one way and this little thing happens.



Actually, you're right.  Last time I looked at a Mac OS, I thought it was rather irritating.




> Also...you cant run exe's!!! DUN DUN DUUUN



Question is... why would you want to?  I want to run useful applications, like Photoshop.  Last time I touched something with the .exe extension, my computer crashed.



> In the end regardless of the OS, 3GB of RAM can handle 10 programs running better then 2 GB of RAM



From what I've heard - this isn't always the case.  It seems logical but someone who sells PCs for a living near me, owns a Mac which has less memory than his power-PC... yet he says it simply works faster and smoother and enables him to do more with the available RAM than with the PC.

Obviously RAM is essential - and the more the better - but surely it makes sense, that it's not always what you do.... but the way you do it, that counts?

Seems to be the case in this scenario... no?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


> Hope you make the _correct_ decision



I'm sure I will.  In the end.  I don't make hasty decisions (if you hadn't noticed - LOL!).  I've read and taken on board all you've said and it is definitely helpful.  As for the choosing... well, the chase is often as good as the kill. 

Dr. V


----------



## C4Radon

Doctor Varney said:


> From what I've heard - this isn't always the case.  It seems logical but someone who sells PCs for a living near me, owns a Mac which has less memory than his power-PC... yet he says it simply works faster and smoother and enables him to do more with the available RAM than with the PC.
> 
> Obviously RAM is essential - and the more the better - but surely it makes sense, that it's not always what you do.... but the way you do it, that counts?
> 
> Seems to be the case in this scenario... no?



Though you have to remember this is for a computer half the price, no doubt a computer priced the same would have roughly 6+ GB of RAM WILL run faster. I don't care how well macs are able to manage RAM, it will come to a point where sheer power will trump _efficiency_. Also, you have to understand I'm just looking at things from a financial point of view. If you are looking for something to use photoshop, premier ect. Go ahead get a Mac. Though you have to realize the transition to use it is completely different. Areas where things are stored is much different imo then how/where it is on Windows PC's. Or just get a PC and install...LINUX!


----------



## Doctor Varney

I started reading about Linux...  Can't run Photoshop with it, so no-go.

Hey - it's not so bad once you're in an application and using it.  You probably can't tell if you're using Mac or Windows, I would imagine.  What I find frustrating with Windows is the failure rate with transfering files, and all the difficulty in setting it up.  Setting up my sound card was an absolute nightmare!  Then applications for absolutely no reason say they've encountered an error and have to close.  It's just crap.  It's been like this since day one... 1992!

Dr. V


----------



## lucasbytegenius

C4Radon said:


> Though you have to remember this is for a computer half the price, no doubt a computer priced the same would have roughly 6+ GB of RAM WILL run faster. I don't care how well macs are able to manage RAM, it will come to a point where sheer power will trump _efficiency_. Also, you have to understand I'm just looking at things from a financial point of view. If you are looking for something to use photoshop, premier ect. Go ahead get a Mac. Though you have to realize the transition to use it is completely different. Areas where things are stored is much different imo then how/where it is on Windows PC's. Or just get a PC and install...LINUX!



Excuse me, but have you ever, ever, EVER even touched a Mac?
I've got a 10 year old PowerMac G4 running OS X 10.5, (which btw is the next to newest OS) and the thing is still snappier than my 5 year old hardly-touched PC running 7. It runs in circles around it.
And everybody I have ever known to use a Mac LOVED it, not like it, not meh it, LOVED it. 
Mac OS X has eye candy, sure, but I find Aero Snap and the window buttons in Windows 7 more irritating than OS X.

Sure, you could get that PC for half the price, but it's also a very low quality PC. Windows takes a lot of stupid tweaking to get it to work right, you got drivers, you got your anti-virus to slow everything down while it doesn't do squat, and you have to do this horrible thing called defragging at least once a month to keep the thing fast, and it doesn't work that well.

Doctor Varney, get that Mac. Run out there and embrace it. Don't let the evil world of PCs chain you down.



C4Radon said:


> You realize pretty much all programs running in windows are .exe files right?
> 
> My_Adobe Photoshop_:
> (check the screen shot)
> 
> Just sayin'


Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## C4Radon

> Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.



If I'm misinformed, can you quickly explain why I'm wrong or "don't know what I'm talking about". If I am wrong, I'd appreciate it if I was pointed in the right direction. 
Thanks in advance

*As far as I know all programs are executed/ran by .exe's just take a look at your processes for example...*


----------



## lucasbytegenius

C4Radon said:


> If I'm misinformed, can you quickly explain why I'm wrong or "don't know what I'm talking about". If I am wrong, I'd appreciate it if I was pointed in the right direction.
> Thanks in advance



Because you are trying to demonstrate that .exe files do not run in OS X, which of course is ok, but you are trying to say that the program can't be found in other forms. You can find many alternatives to common programs, or like in PS CS5's case, even the same program for OS X.


----------



## C4Radon

Oh, sorry the way I worded what I was saying I think was a little misleading. First I stated you cant run exe's. The OP replied by saying that running an exe crashes his computer. I was just trying to inform him that he may be thinking of something else as if exe's didnt work, he couldn't use really any program including eexplorer.exe... Excuse me if you thought I meant that there arent alternatives. All I was really trying to state that 





> .exe files do not run in OS X


. At no point was I trying to imply that there aren't alternative to windows programs.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

C4Radon said:


> Oh, sorry the way I worded what I was saying I think was a little misleading. First I stated you cant run exe's. The OP replied by saying that running an exe crashes his computer. I was just trying to inform him that he may be thinking of something else as if exe's didnt work, he couldn't use really any program including eexplorer.exe... Excuse me if you thought I meant that there arent alternatives. All I was really trying to state that . At no point was I trying to imply that there aren't alternative to windows programs.



Yes, it was misleading.


----------



## C4Radon

Unintentional


----------



## lucasbytegenius

C4Radon said:


> Unintentional



That's fine. It just needed to be clarified, thank you


----------



## C4Radon

What a lovely community this is, 
and you sir are very welcome


----------



## lucasbytegenius

C4Radon said:


> What a lovely community this is,
> and you sir are very welcome



And you sir are heartily welcomed to the community


----------



## C4Radon

Also, to the OP, regardless of what you choose what are your general *specifications/price range* of what you want? Laptop, desktop, tablet (<- no idea why) but you should list some of these things. I have nothing to do for the next 4-ish days, and wouldn't mind helping you find a computer that fits your needs.


----------



## Doctor Varney

C4Radon said:


> You realize pretty much all programs running in windows are .exe files right?
> 
> My_Adobe Photoshop_:
> (check the screen shot)
> 
> Just sayin'



Absolutely aware and always have been.  Screenshot not necessary.  Point is, you said "Can't run .exe files on a Mac".  Normally, we do not think of running .exe files when we click on an icon, because that is unecessary to most tasks. Which is why I asked...

Dr. V


----------



## C4Radon

Ahhhh, excuse me again. Guess I have to be more specific next time, too much room for interpretation when dealing with simple text.


----------



## Doctor Varney

C4Radon said:


> Oh, sorry the way I worded what I was saying I think was a little misleading. First I stated you cant run exe's. The OP replied by saying that running an exe crashes his computer. I was just trying to inform him that he may be thinking of something else as if exe's didnt work, he couldn't use really any program including eexplorer.exe... Excuse me if you thought I meant that there arent alternatives. All I was really trying to state that . At no point was I trying to imply that there aren't alternative to windows programs.



That is all perfectly reasonable.  I respect your point of view and admire your attitude.  I'm just saying that I'm aware that when you hit an icon, it runs the .exe under the surface but the meaningful part is that it starts up an application ready for use.  Clicking on some .exes will cause the PC to warn/ ask you if you really want to do that.  Sometimes it turns out to be a bad idea...  Maybe it's best that the Mac doesn't let you 'go there'...?

I really don't want a technical discussion to turn into an argument, or for sure, the nearest mod will come in and close it all down, just while I'm beginning to learn something...  If it's kept light hearted, it's a great discussion.

I know that what happens is simply that people get attached to what they use then feel personally challenged at the suggestion that what they don't have, might be better.  They will defend it to the hilt.  I know, I used to be that person.  Macs are for girls and PCs are for geeks... it's all just talk.  What counts is how efficiently you can spark up a machine, get a job done and get paid for it.  I use computers all the time... and hate them all equally.  I'm just tempted by the notion that a Mac might make life a bit easier, that's all.  I'm probably never going to know that until I actually take the plunge...

Dr. V


----------



## Doctor Varney

C4Radon said:


> Also, to the OP, regardless of what you choose what are your general *specifications/price range* of what you want? Laptop, desktop, tablet (<- no idea why) but you should list some of these things. I have nothing to do for the next 4-ish days, and wouldn't mind helping you find a computer that fits your needs.



That's really cool of you.  Thanks!  :good:

Dr. V


----------



## C4Radon

Oh yeah, another reason I was thinking of bringing up but didn't know how to word. _Another _reason I dislike Macs 





> Maybe it's best that the Mac doesn't let you 'go there'...?


 Though if in the scenario where not opening the file would be the best option yes, this would be better. But I feel as though I shouldn't be restricted by an inanimate object that I paid for. I also have this problem with some antiviruses for example that restrict some files that may be false - positives *cough* 'McAfee' *cough*. But I think in the end it should be up to me whether the file should be opened/modified/removed ect. What I like about Windows computers is that I can do almost anything with no questions asked. Now of course this can lead to problems (as I'm sure you're vividly familiar with) which should def. be factored into your decision. 

If I misinterpreted what you were saying ( again :/ ) excuse me in advance haha 

"If I misinterpreted what you were saying excuse me in advance" <- this should totally be my signature


----------



## Doctor Varney

C4Radon said:


> Oh yeah, another reason I was thinking of bringing up but didn't know how to word. _Another _reason I dislike Macs  Though if in the scenario where not opening the file would be the best option yes, this would be better. But I feel as though I shouldn't be restricted by an inanimate object that I paid for. I also have this problem with some antiviruses for example that restrict some files that may be false - positives *cough* 'McAfee' *cough*. But I think in the end it should be up to me whether the file should be opened/modified/removed ect. What I like about Windows computers is that I can do almost anything with no questions asked. Now of course this can lead to problems (as I'm sure you're vividly familiar with) which should def. be factored into your decision.
> 
> If I misinterpreted what you were saying ( again :/ ) excuse me in advance haha
> 
> "If I misinterpreted what you were saying excuse me in advance" <- this should totally be my signature



Haha... Yes!  I seem to remember these words as though I, myself had spoken them...  of course, you know what a Mac user would say to that, don't you?

What I would say, after having thought about it - is YES - but the meaningful part of computing isn't _running executables_.  No one talks about Norton Antivirus as though it were a wind-surfing holiday... "_Hey, you'll never guess what we did this weekend... We flashed our BIOS and then we slayed some Trojans...!_"  No, what is _meaningful_ is a hard copy or a website or a digital painting or a film we edited... Hopefully, without our operating system saying "_So & so is experiencing a difficulty and needs to close..._"

So having that freedom to "_run executables..._"  I mean... what good is _that_ out there in the real world?  It's like a dog - he has the freedom to lick his bollocks - but it's not as much fun as chasing a stick.  And of course... YOU can scratch YOUR balls through the pocket of your pants and everyone just assumes you're counting loose change. 

Mind you, I did do myself the courtesy of checking out an Apple Mac forum.  Oh, they do have their own share of horror stories...  So I'm not saying Macs are perfect, either.

Dr. V


----------



## Doctor Varney

I must add though... I think having a PC necessarily teaches people how to deal with problems, such as viruses and malware.  Of course, one day, Macs will suffer too (some say they already are) then it's possible their users will get taken by surprise.

It strikes me, you dont' automatically become 'computer savvy' using a Mac.  My PC is hand-organised.  That is to say, I know where everything is and can get to it manually, without having to use a wizard or helper.  It doesn't help that I don't excell in computer science (quite the contrary) but I can usually muddle my way through and at least know what questions to ask, when things go awry.

Dr. V


----------



## Okedokey




----------



## lucasbytegenius

^hahaha


----------



## Doctor Varney

As stated - I don't play games.  If I did, it would be PC all the way.

Really, I don't need adverts... 

Dr. V


----------



## lucasbytegenius

Doctor Varney said:


> As stated - I don't play games.  If I did, it would be PC all the way.
> 
> Really, I don't need adverts...
> 
> Dr. V



It was a joke lol


----------



## plutoniumman

When I say mac is slightly different than PC (hardware-wise), is because it really is.  Example, macs don’t have a BIOS, not even a BIOS chip (Or CMOS).  They have different power management system than PCs.  In mac the PMU controls almost everything, where as in PC, its power management systems usually just control the big power consumers, like HDD, optics, handle battery charge, etc.  (PMU is kinda like CMOS for mac, as strange as it may sound...)

That’s just a few of the subsytems/differences I can think of between mac and PC.  I don’t imagine there are a whole lot more.  If all you do is install windows/OS X on it, you’d never know there’s any actual difference from mac or PC.  And unless you plan on programming an OS for it or something, it doesn’t really matter a whole lot what’s going on under the hood — just as long as it’s understood there actually is a physical hardware difference.  Not that it’s important...


----------



## lucasbytegenius

plutoniumman said:


> When I say mac is slightly different than PC (hardware-wise), is because it really is.  Example, macs don’t have a BIOS, not even a BIOS chip (Or CMOS).  They have different power management system than PCs.  In mac the PMU controls almost everything, where as in PC, its power management systems usually just control the big power consumers, like HDD, optics, handle battery charge, etc.  (PMU is kinda like CMOS for mac, as strange as it may sound...)
> 
> That’s just a few of the subsytems/differences I can think of between mac and PC.  I don’t imagine there are a whole lot more.  If all you do is install windows/OS X on it, you’d never know there’s any actual difference from mac or PC.  And unless you plan on programming an OS for it or something, it doesn’t really matter a whole lot what’s going on under the hood — just as long as it’s understood there actually is a physical hardware difference.  Not that it’s important...



The Mac has what's called EFI instead of a BIOS. Just to expand on your post.


----------



## Okedokey

plutoniumman said:


> just as long as it’s understood there actually is a physical hardware difference.  Not that it’s important...



You can buy motherboards with EFI for a PC.  The point is as you rightly pointed out, all the difference is to the consumer between a MAC and a PC is the OS, thus, why pay so much more for the same performance?  You don't unless you're a fool.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

bigfellla said:


> You can buy motherboards with EFI for a PC.  The point is as you rightly pointed out, all the difference is to the consumer between a MAC and a PC is the OS, thus, why pay so much more for the same performance?  You don't unless you're a fool.


Hardware-wise, yes PC's and Mac's are nearly identical, but OS X manages the hardware in a completely different, and more efficient way. There is a reason why a 5-year old Macbook Pro laptop is going to be noticeably faster then a similarly spec'd 5-year old Windows laptop. 

You can pile on the high-end hardware, but if the OS manages it poorly it makes no difference. People don't usually consider total cost of ownership, after sales service, user experience, etc. I guess that's why Windows fans only look at the spec sheet when comparing products.


----------



## Okedokey

You are forgetting however that Macs dont do what PCs can.  I cant use a lot of my software on a mac, nor game, nor use MS CRM and the list goes on.  Not to mention the very poor and in most cases non-existent IT support from thrid party organisations such as ISPs.

You cannot compare them, they're not the same.  Also most TCO analysis doesn't factor in the learning curve most people would need to do to become as proficient in using a mac.  This, is a major major cost to a business.  A lot of staff would need training or suffer large downtime.  Not costed in most TCOs

Plus, I game, and sorry, but Macs completely fail at this.

Also please show me empirical data where Mac OS handles hardware more efficiently.  Most information i have seen shows Windows 7 trouncing Mac OS.


----------



## Doctor Varney

lucasbytegenius said:


> It was a joke lol



I know - and I laughed :lol: .  Though it has to be said: the real Mac adverts are stupid IMO.  It's faintly possible the reason we don't see them here in England, is because it's considered 'unprofessional' and 'unbusinesslike' to run down another product while plugging your own.

The idea is for the 'cool people' to identify with Mr. Mac in his casuals and see Mr. PC as the poor unfortunate geek.   This form of rhetorical advertising relies on Pathos and heroism and frankly doesn't wash for anyone familiar with these products.  I should say it's aimed at first time buyers who have never actually used a computer.

If the characters were more accurate (to most cases), we'd see the PC as several different characters in one, with the Mac being confined mainly to just the one.

The first that springs to mind is Mr PC. being a rather earthy, beard 'n' sandals type, wearing a lot of worn out denim, possibly with a heavily customised motorcycle and carrying with him a lot of personal hardware - dictaphone, mobile phone, personal PDA ect... while Mr. Mac seems to have everything sewn up into one single device, which is stylish and easy to use - such as the Apple i-phone.  He'd probably be dressed in a straight laced fashion and appear to all the world as someone's modern dad.

While Mr. Mac drives a 'Smart Car', we'd see Mr. PC driving a genuine 4x4.  Sure, he'd get a lot more punctures but he'd have had more adventures out off the beaten track, while Mr. Mac is confined to the smooth roads.

When it came to servicing their vehicles, we'd see Mr. PC's legs protruding from underneath with the bonnet open - able to fix most problems with his extensive collection of tools... while Mr. Mac would need to phone for a mechanic or Smart Car specialist, just to top up the windscreen wash.

Overall, Mr. Mac would spend more time on the road - going places and meeting his equally 'right-on' friends - but Mr. PC would, on the whole, be much more proficient at fixing and modifying his jeep and know more about advanced driving over rough terrain.

This _might_ have appealed more to me but, it might also NOT fit with how others see the situation.  The point is, if I had only these adverts to rely on to guide me, I would probably never consider a Mac.... because, as it stands, I'm not LIKE Mr. PC and and I don't LIKE Mr. Mac.  Actually, I just feel like I want to smack him across the face, making his smug grin appear on the other side of it.  I just don't happen to identify with either of these pricks.

So it's all about perceptions.  There's far more going on in this thread in the way of intelligent comparrisons, by people who actually use the things.

Dr. V


----------



## Okedokey

^ overthinking it mate....



Doctor Varney said:


> It's faintly possible the reason we don't see them here in England, is because it's considered 'unprofessional' and 'unbusinesslike' to run down another product while plugging your own.



And that is bollocks too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfqgK7izc4g


----------



## Doctor Varney

bigfellla said:


> ^ overthinking it mate....
> 
> 
> 
> And that is bollocks too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfqgK7izc4g



Er... are you sure that's a commercial and not just a comedy sketch, by two well-known British comics?  Because, I've never seen this one come up in a TV commercial break.

EDIT: I just looked it up.  You're right!  So what else do you consider 'bollocks'... too?

Anyway, I wasn't overthinking anything.  It's just something that has always occurred to me.  As a PC enthusiast, I'm surprised you didn't appreciate it.  Keep it friendly at any rate, please... 'mate'. 

Dr. V


----------



## Doctor Varney

bigfellla said:


> You cannot compare them, they're not the same.  Also most TCO analysis doesn't factor in the learning curve most people would need to do to become as proficient in using a mac.  This, is a major major cost to a business.  A lot of staff would need training or suffer large downtime.  Not costed in most TCOs



As it happens, most of the colleges and professional businesses around me, were already using Macs right from the beginning of the IT era.  Two graphic designers I know own Macs for home use.  When I asked why, it just never occurred to them to buy PCs because they were trained on Macs, they use Macs at work and that's all they knew.  His Mac crashed while he was showing me something...  So does my PC...



			
				bigfella said:
			
		

> Plus, I game, and sorry, but Macs completely fail at this.



As I've said, repeatedly... I don't.  I would never even try to contradict this because all the info I've gathered seems to say that Macs don't game.  AFAIK, not because they can't - but because most games aren't published for the platform.  But you know, trends change.  It so happens (so I've been told) that PCs now have the edge over Macs where Photoshop and DTP applications are concerned.  If so, then perhaps the tables are turning on that one?  Maybe this is just old news to you... My graphic designer friends may well be unaware of this.  I've not heard anything about it since.



> Also please show me empirical data where Mac OS handles hardware more efficiently.  Most information i have seen shows Windows 7 trouncing Mac OS.



If I had empirical evidence to show one works better than the other, I probably wouldn't have started this thread.  

(Sorry if that was not aimed at me... LOL).

Dr. V


----------



## FuryRosewood

Mac Pro's run server grade components, and cant be compared to desktop counterparts, unless you plan on grabbing a socket 1366 board and putting a xeon processor...sure compare that to a server. You get what you pay for, you will end up spending *about* the same on a desktop with a server processor, board and ram as you would a PC, also take into effect that software is often provided by Apple for basic things, and is not in the side of the PC market, you get the OS, and then nothing, you will have to hunt for stuff to do what you want to.

What it comes down to, you are paying for design and components that are being selectively picked that will work together, for the most part, effectively, whereas with the PC market, you are on your own, you may get stuck in a corner with a compatibility issue.

(i dont endorse Mac, i build pcs, but eh, thats what their doing.)


----------



## Doctor Varney

FuryRosewood said:


> Mac Pro's run server grade components, and cant be compared to desktop counterparts, unless you plan on grabbing a socket 1366 board and putting a xeon processor...sure compare that to a server. You get what you pay for, you will end up spending *about* the same on a desktop with a server processor, board and ram as you would a PC, also take into effect that software is often provided by Apple for basic things, and is not in the side of the PC market, you get the OS, and then nothing, you will have to hunt for stuff to do what you want to.
> 
> What it comes down to, you are paying for design and components that are being selectively picked that will work together, for the most part, effectively, whereas with the PC market, you are on your own, you may get stuck in a corner with a compatibility issue.
> 
> (i dont endorse Mac, i build pcs, but eh, thats what their doing.)



Thank you.  Sensible advice (at last!).

When I switch my PC on, it sometimes says: "Keyboard error or no keyboard present.  Press F1 to continue or delete to enter set-up".

If that's not the stupidest thing ever said by a computer... How am I supposed to press anything, if there's no keyboard?  Stupid.  Just plain stupid.

These things are not good computers.  People with PCs have them  break down far more often than people with Macs.  This is direct experience here... not statistics.  Me - and everyone I know.  Hands up if there's anyone here who has never had a PC break down catastrophically on them or at least offer stupid messages which mean nothing and ask you to click "OK" to things that really are just NOT "OK", making the whole machine basically useless.

When I built this machine, it was 'cutting edge'.  Now I would probably get more for it in scrap metal than as a computer.

I heard Macs keep their value.

I would rather - much rather stick with PCs... I don't really want to buy a Mac - but it's just not economical any more to keep messing with these PCs.  Just to get any semblance of stability, I keep having to rip parts out and replace them.  I connect hardware - there's some kind of problem.  I install drivers and software - there's some kind of problem.  I can't work with this crap.

Alternatively, how can I build a PC which will be as reliable as people say their Macs are?  What would I have to buy?  Where should I shop for parts?  What about OEM?  Who is decent?  I don't trust Dell or HP Compaq.  So what's the answer?

Dr. V


----------



## Dystopia

This has probably been said already...however, your friend is incorrect when saying Macs don't get viruses. While the OS on a Mac IS indeed more secure, it will still get viruses. One of the reasons Macs do not get viruses as often as PCs is because the hackers writing the viruses are not targeting the Macs as often as they do the PCs...simply due to the fact that there are way more PCs than Macs.

If you plan on gaming on the Mac, be prepared to be disappointed.

Also be ready to shell out $1000 for a Mac with same/similar specs for a $500-700 PC.

I'm not saying Macs are bad. They are built better than PCs, the hardware is all tested, for each computer. There is a reason Apple charges more for their computers.


----------



## Doctor Varney

31!m!n80r said:


> If you plan on gaming on the Mac, be prepared to be disappointed.



I have a console for gaming.  Where games belong.

I planned to work with my PC.  I'm already disappointed.  Over and over...  As far as being prepared goes, well, you kind of become resigned to it.



31!m!n80r said:


> This has probably been said already...however, your friend is incorrect when saying Macs don't get viruses. While the OS on a Mac IS indeed more secure, it will still get viruses. One of the reasons Macs do not get viruses as often as PCs is because the hackers writing the viruses are not targeting the Macs as often as they do the PCs...simply due to the fact that there are way more PCs than Macs.



Oh, I'm aware now - and I expect it to get worse as the number of Macs increases... but surely it has to be an improvement over the PC situation?



31!m!n80r said:


> I'm not saying Macs are bad. They are built better than PCs, the hardware is all tested, for each computer. There is a reason Apple charges more for their computers.



Thank you.  Is that the reason they charge more?  I've lost money due to downtime with the PC.  If individual testing and gauranteed compatibility is what you get for your money, then it hardly sounds like a _bad_ deal!  Actually - I expect that with any tool I buy for my workshop.

Also, I've heard it ships with software, which you don't get with the PC and isn't the OS inclusive in the price with the Mac?  Whereas, you still have to purchase Windows on top of that $700 spend.  Yes, I suppose i-life sounds a bit pedestrian but then what I have downloaded for the PC is mostly unstable rubbish and has to be promptly uninstalled (or patched in order to work) anyway.  Can't see how it could get much worse.

I haven't decided yet.  I'm still considering Windows 7.  I don't hold out too much hope for it, considering all the broken promises of XP... but we'll see.  That would certainly save money in the short term - and I'm open minded.  So the jury's still out...

Dr. V


----------



## Okedokey

Firstly, that wasn't a comedy routine, but an Apple ad on television.

Secondly I wasn't talking to you regarding gaming.

Thirdly, if you are so convinced, why start this thread?

Fourth, PC makes up over 90% of the business market, thus the problem with trying to get technical support for third party software.\

The simple fact is that there is nothing a mac can do that a PC cant, but plenty a PC can do that a mac cant (read software compatiability).

Also, don't try and upgrade a mac, you wont be able too, at least not for anything other than massive markups, remember, Apple is a hardware company.


----------



## Doctor Varney

bigfellla said:


> Thirdly, if you are so convinced, why start this thread?



Who ever said I was convinced?  I certainly wasn't when I started it and not fully now, either.

There are nicer ways of saying "You're wrong" or "I don't agree" than "Bollocks".

You must be somewhat interested in the subject or you would be here yourself.  You also wouldn't have bothered to discover anything about Macintosh Computers.  Which is what I'm doing here.  Question is, how much do you actually know first hand, from buying or using one?  I don't have that experience yet.  But in learning, everyone has to start somewhere.

Thanks for your info.  I'll bear it in mind, as I make the decision.

Dr. V


----------



## Dystopia

Doctor Varney said:


> I have a console for gaming.  Where games belong.
> 
> I planned to work with my PC.  I'm already disappointed.  Over and over...  As far as being prepared goes, well, you kind of become resigned to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm aware now - and I expect it to get worse as the number of Macs increases... but surely it has to be an improvement over the PC situation?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Is that the reason they charge more?  I've lost money due to downtime with the PC.  If individual testing and gauranteed compatibility is what you get for your money, then it hardly sounds like a _bad_ deal!  Actually - I expect that with any tool I buy for my workshop.
> 
> Also, I've heard it ships with software, which you don't get with the PC and isn't the OS inclusive in the price with the Mac?  Whereas, you still have to purchase Windows on top of that $700 spend.  Yes, I suppose i-life sounds a bit pedestrian but then what I have downloaded for the PC is mostly unstable rubbish and has to be promptly uninstalled (or patched in order to work) anyway.  Can't see how it could get much worse.
> 
> I haven't decided yet.  I'm still considering Windows 7.  I don't hold out too much hope for it, considering all the broken promises of XP... but we'll see.  That would certainly save money in the short term - and I'm open minded.  So the jury's still out...
> 
> Dr. V



 Blasphemy! 

Yes, right now it is an improvement.

It's one of the reasons. Another reason is the name. They built themselves a rep and a lot of people have the OMG APPLE IS DA SHIT attitude and people owning a Mac think a Mac is better than a PC period. It really boils down to preference, and what you use the computer for.

There is some software that ships with Macs, yes, but it isn't like you get the equivalent to Microsoft Office for free or anything. Also, when buying a computer in the store, it almost ALWAYS comes with an OS. In fact, I have yet to find a computer sold in a store without one. Building a PC is different. 

There is another thing...you cannot build your own Mac the way you build a PC. As bigfella said, upgrading is practically impossible.

And, again, as bigfella said, there is less compatible software for a Mac than windows. For the same reason there are less viruses. Make sure you have a proper substitute for whatever you use on a PC that will work well on a Mac.

Windows 7 is fantastic. I have Vista Ultimate, and rather like it, aside from the fact that I get the occasional IRQL_DRIVER_NOT_EQUAL_OR_LESS due to a driver error, which I believe lies with the bluetooth. But 7 is even better than Vista. And Vista is a huge improvement over XP.

Vista and 7 are both less vulnerable to viruses than XP was. If you are running XP, I recommend you try 7 before making a decision. The new security features are sometimes cumbersome, but can be very effective when used properly.

One of the reasons you may have had issues with your PCs in the past is configuration. For example, I have my computer set up to the point where when I recently did a full system scan for viruses/malware, all that was infected was one file, which was a tracking cookie. On the other and, my parents get viruses on a regular bases. The way I use my computer, knowing which sites to avoid, knowing not to download drivers from say 'Joes Driver Shack', and things like that keep my computer fairly secure. 

Errors and system crashes can often be due to faulty hardware or software. The best way to avoid such issues is to build your own PC, where you can pick out quality parts. And when getting software, make sure you don't download a random file. Recently, my dad downloaded a FLV play


----------



## Dystopia

Doctor Varney said:


> I have a console for gaming.  Where games belong.
> 
> I planned to work with my PC.  I'm already disappointed.  Over and over...  As far as being prepared goes, well, you kind of become resigned to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm aware now - and I expect it to get worse as the number of Macs increases... but surely it has to be an improvement over the PC situation?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Is that the reason they charge more?  I've lost money due to downtime with the PC.  If individual testing and gauranteed compatibility is what you get for your money, then it hardly sounds like a _bad_ deal!  Actually - I expect that with any tool I buy for my workshop.
> 
> Also, I've heard it ships with software, which you don't get with the PC and isn't the OS inclusive in the price with the Mac?  Whereas, you still have to purchase Windows on top of that $700 spend.  Yes, I suppose i-life sounds a bit pedestrian but then what I have downloaded for the PC is mostly unstable rubbish and has to be promptly uninstalled (or patched in order to work) anyway.  Can't see how it could get much worse.
> 
> I haven't decided yet.  I'm still considering Windows 7.  I don't hold out too much hope for it, considering all the broken promises of XP... but we'll see.  That would certainly save money in the short term - and I'm open minded.  So the jury's still out...
> 
> Dr. V



 Blasphemy! 

Yes, right now it is an improvement.

It's one of the reasons. Another reason is the name. They built themselves a rep and a lot of people have the OMG APPLE IS DA SHIT attitude and people owning a Mac think a Mac is better than a PC period. It really boils down to preference, and what you use the computer for.

There is some software that ships with Macs, yes, but it isn't like you get the equivalent to Microsoft Office for free or anything. Also, when buying a computer in the store, it almost ALWAYS comes with an OS. In fact, I have yet to find a computer sold in a store without one. Building a PC is different. 

There is another thing...you cannot build your own Mac the way you build a PC. As bigfella said, upgrading is practically impossible.

And, again, as bigfella said, there is less compatible software for a Mac than windows. For the same reason there are less viruses. Make sure you have a proper substitute for whatever you use on a PC that will work well on a Mac.

Windows 7 is fantastic. I have Vista Ultimate, and rather like it, aside from the fact that I get the occasional IRQL_DRIVER_NOT_EQUAL_OR_LESS due to a driver error, which I believe lies with the bluetooth. But 7 is even better than Vista. And Vista is a huge improvement over XP.

Vista and 7 are both less vulnerable to viruses than XP was. If you are running XP, I recommend you try 7 before making a decision. The new security features are sometimes cumbersome, but can be very effective when used properly.

One of the reasons you may have had issues with your PCs in the past is configuration. For example, I have my computer set up to the point where when I recently did a full system scan for viruses/malware, all that was infected was one file, which was a tracking cookie. On the other and, my parents get viruses on a regular bases. The way I use my computer, knowing which sites to avoid, knowing not to download drivers from say 'Joes Driver Shack', and things like that keep my computer fairly secure. 

Errors and system crashes can often be due to faulty hardware or software. The best way to avoid such issues is to build your own PC, where you can pick out quality parts. And when getting software, make sure you don't download a random file. Recently, my dad downloaded a FLV player, multiple in fact. He just downloaded random programs. His AV program caught them both as viruses, but my dad installed one anyway, thinking, perhaps the AV program is wrong. Well, his computer was screwed, literally. Had he known what to search for, and what sites to download from, this would not have happened.

Do you see what I am getting at? A lot of computer errors are user errors.


----------



## Demilich

31!m!n80r said:


> While the OS on a Mac IS indeed more secure, it will still get viruses. One of the reasons Macs do not get viruses as often as PCs is because the hackers writing the viruses are not targeting the Macs as often as they do the PCs...simply due to the fact that there are way more PCs than Macs.
> 
> If you plan on gaming on the Mac, be prepared to be disappointed.
> 
> Also be ready to shell out $1000 for a Mac with same/similar specs for a $500-700 PC.
> 
> I'm not saying Macs are bad. They are built better than PCs, the hardware is all tested, for each computer. There is a reason Apple charges more for their computers.



I apologize, however, I could not help but dog you a little here, because there are contradictions, and opinions that you're attempting to pass as facts. First, stating "While the OS on a Mac IS indeed more secure" is an opinion. The only time quoting something is safer is with cars, when we crash them, and experts give each car ratings based on their crash test. But we're not crashing computers into walls at 60MPH, and there is no efficient method of proving that a Mac is safer than a PC. Also you answered your own question, that I already posted earlier, by the way, of why PC's get more viruses than Mac's. And obviously, because PC's make up *~90% of the market share*.

Second, if Mac's are "built better than PC's", please elaborate on why Mac's can't "play games". I have a feeling that statement is crap, because Macs are built just as any computer is built. On an assembly line. If Mac uses superior techniques to PC manufacturers, then why can't Mac's apparently play games? Does Mac test each and everyone of their computers for functionality? I don't know, and I don't think you do, either. IF Mac is able to test each and everyone of their computers, as you say, it wont last long, if they wish to make money and expand. Because as Mac grows, there will be a point where testing each and every Mac will be time consuming, and money wasting, because labor would be through the roof, and well, it just wouldn't work. Mac would be behind in getting their Mac's out in an orderly fashion, and fast enough for peeps to buy them. Why do you think they have 30 day manufacturer warranties, and then limited 1 year warranties for PC's? Think about it. It's not that simple. I think Mac is at all "popular" because of those false advertisements you posted. Mac is simply good at creating the illusion that their "stuff" don't stink, as they say. Which is of course fair play, and I have to say they are exceptionally well at doing it.


----------



## Dystopia

Demilich said:


> I apologize, however, I could not help but dog you a little here, because there are contradictions, and opinions that you're attempting to pass as facts. First, stating "While the OS on a Mac IS indeed more secure" is an opinion. The only time quoting something is safer is with cars, when we crash them, and experts give each car ratings based on their crash test. But we're not crashing computers into walls at 60MPH, and there is no efficient method of proving that a Mac is safer than a PC. Also you answered your own question, that I already posted earlier, by the way, of why PC's get more viruses than Mac's. And obviously, because PC's make up *~90% of the market share*.
> 
> Second, if Mac's are "built better than PC's", please elaborate on why Mac's can't "play games". I have a feeling that statement is crap, because Macs are built just as any computer is built. On an assembly line. Does Mac test each and everyone of their computers for functionality? I don't know, and I don't think you do, either. IF Mac is able to test each and everyone of their computers, as you say, it wont last long, if they wish to make money. Because as Mac grows, there will be a point where testing each and every Mac will be time consuming, and money wasting, because labor would be through the roof, and well, it just wouldn't work. Mac would be behind in getting their Mac's out in an orderly fashion, and fast enough for peeps to buy them. Why do you think they have 30 day manufacturer warranties, and then limited 1 year warranties for PC's? Think about it. It's not that simple. I think Mac is at all "popular" because of those false advertisements you posted.



Yes, that's pretty much what I go on to say...due to the fact that there are so many more PCs, more hackers write viruses for the PCs, that is the bigger target, easier target. 

The built better does not come from specs. My Dell XPS is of better quality than a cheaper computer of the same specs. My XPS would also cost more. When you examine the case of the average PC, it is usually quite cheap. Not always, but often. If I built myself a PC, and my parents bought a computer from the store, both had the same specs, I can almost guarantee that my computer will be better. The Macs are not. The material used is of higher quality.  I do not remember if Apple tests ALL the hardware or not, but I am thinking they do. They also test the PARTS, I do not know about the computers, that I agree would be impractical. That is also one of the reasons they can charge more. If you think about it, people buy less of the Macs partially because they cost more...this gives Apple more time. Like you said, PCs hold 90% of the market share.

Also, you should know that I am not coming up with this, or just have that opinion. I learned this recently from my instructor who has been in IT for 20 odd years.

I am also not giving false advertisements. I am listing cons and pros. My personal opinion on Macs are that they are a luxury. They often look fancier, (externally) sleeker.


----------



## Demilich

31!m!n80r said:


> Yes, that's pretty much what I go on to say...due to the fact that there are so many more PCs, more hackers write viruses for the PCs, that is the bigger target, easier target.
> 
> The built better does not come from specs. My Dell XPS is of better quality than a cheaper computer of the same specs. My XPS would also cost more. When you examine the case of the average PC, it is usually quite cheap. Not always, but often. If I built myself a PC, and my parents bought a computer from the store, both had the same specs, I can almost guarantee that my computer will be better. The Macs are not. The material used is of higher quality.  I do not remember if Apple tests ALL the hardware or not, but I am thinking they do. They also test the PARTS, I do not know about the computers, that I agree would be impractical. That is also one of the reasons they can charge more. If you think about it, people buy less of the Macs partially because they cost more...this gives Apple more time. Like you said, PCs hold 90% of the market share.
> 
> Also, you should know that I am not coming up with this, or just have that opinion. I learned this recently from my instructor who has been in IT for 20 odd years.
> 
> I am also not giving false advertisements. I am listing cons and pros. My personal opinion on Macs are that they are a luxury. They often look fancier, (externally) sleeker.



I understand your point. I'm sure your Dell XPS is quite a nice computer. To be honest, I don't consider Mac's luxurious at all, but I would definitely consider your Dell luxurious. Also, I'm sure your IT instructor is an intelligent person, and knows what he's doing better than most anybody else. However, as I see in this forum much more than I like, even experienced professionals have sometimes opinions they wish were facts, because they are loyal to one brand. A prime example is the Hard Drive section of this forum. There are constant raves, and posts by forum Mods, VIP members, and forum users of how one hard drive is better than the other, *based on their experiences with that manufacturer*. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Every hard drive in the world is produced on an assembly line, the same way, and marketing is key. Same goes for Mac's and PC's. Mac throws some shiny armor on their computer, throws out a couple slanderous commercials, state Macs never get viruses, wallah, it gives it that luxurious feel. In my experience, for example, I own 5 PC's currently, 2 of which are over 6 years old, pre-built, and run like new. Only one has recently broke, and it was a newer PC, but it happens, I realize. If I owned the same amount of Mac's, I believe it would be the same result. I just paid much less for those PC's.


----------



## Dystopia

Demilich said:


> I understand your point. I'm sure your Dell XPS is quite a nice computer. To be honest, I don't consider Mac's luxurious at all, but I would definitely consider your Dell luxurious. Also, I'm sure your IT instructor is an intelligent person, and knows what he's doing better than most anybody else. However, as I see in this forum much more than I like, even experienced professionals have sometimes opinions they wish were facts, because they are loyal to one brand. A prime example is the Hard Drive section of this forum. There are constant raves, and posts by forum Mods, VIP members, and forum users of how one hard drive is better than the other, *based on their experiences with that manufacturer*. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Every hard drive in the world is produced on an assembly line, the same way, and marketing is key. Same goes for Mac's and PC's. Mac throws some shiny armor on their computer, throws out a couple slanderous commercials, state Macs never get viruses, wallah, it gives it that luxurious feel. In my experience, for example, I own 5 PC's currently, 2 of which are over 6 years old, pre-built, and run like new. Only one has recently broke, and it was a newer PC, but it happens, I realize. If I owned the same amount of Mac's, I believe it would be the same result. I just paid much less for those PC's.



I love my XPS  

Anyway, yeah, some of the guys are are somewhat biased. Kind of like I am somewhat biased towards the Cooler Master Storm Scout case. I loved it. So whenever someone wants to spend $100~, I recommend.

You've probably maintained your PCs, which is exactly what I was pointing out to the OP, a lot of errors are user errors. My computers run for quite sometime even when dated like crazy, whereas I hated using my parents computer because it was NOT maintained.

While all hard drives are essentially manufactured the same, and built the same, that doesn't mean they are all the same quality. Buying some random brand versus a Western Digital Caviar Black, for example. The WD is going to be better. Or against the Seagate Barracuda line. Some people don't like that line, because one of their sets of hard drives had a rep for failing. I on the other hand, had a Barracuda, which lasted 4 years until I sold my computer and probably still works great. I also owned the WD Caviar Black. I would recommend the Caviar Black over a Barracuda though, for two reasons, one, it was faster than my Barracuda (even though they were both 7200RPM, another reason people insist on a certain product), and two, it has a good rep for lasting long.

People will automatically recommend products that they had a good experience. Kind of like if you go out to eat, if the food is good, comes out fast, the restaurant is clean, nice waitress/waiter, you are more likely to recommend that over a restaurant that was dirty, food sucks, and has a grumpy waitress/waiter. The problem is when people claim it is automatically the best...


----------



## FuryRosewood

still it boils down to the reasons that pcs cost less...is their using cheaper parts.....macs are using premium server grade hardware.... really comparing mac to pc is like comparing a ford f150 to a peterbuilt.... their just differing hardware sets, and if you want to compare them you need to start comparing similar sets of hardware... at least where the mac pro is concerned.


----------



## Demilich

FuryRosewood said:


> still it boils down to the reasons that pcs cost less...is their using cheaper parts.....macs are using premium server grade hardware.... really comparing mac to pc is like comparing a ford f150 to a peterbuilt.... their just differing hardware sets, and if you want to compare them you need to start comparing similar sets of hardware... at least where the mac pro is concerned.



I would have to disagree. It depends on the PC that you have either built, or you have either bought pre-built. I guarantee you that Dell XPS uses high quality parts. However, if you purchase an Asus, or maybe an eMachines, sure, they use cheaper parts. That doesn't mean they are necessarily shoddy, either. As for the Mac using "premium server grade hardware", I'm not sure if that makes sense. Most people building a server are going to use "premium server grade hardware". I don't understand your reasoning in stating that Mac uses better hardware. Mac orders the Intel Xeon, orders the ATI card, orders the preferred amount of memory, orders the preferred hard drives, receives these items, and then builds the system accordingly. I could order those parts right now on Newegg. I could order the same system from Dell or HP, as a server. I don't think that Mac receives "special" parts from the manufacturer. Not that I could find, anyways.


----------



## Doctor Varney

bigfellla said:


> The simple fact is that there is nothing a mac can do that a PC cant, but plenty a PC can do that a mac cant...



Actually, kinda the whole reason I'm interested in the Mac is because of what it _can't_ do...

Dr. V


----------



## Doctor Varney

31!m!n80r said:


> You've probably maintained your PCs, which is exactly what I was pointing out to the OP, a lot of errors are user errors. My computers run for quite sometime even when dated like crazy, whereas I hated using my parents computer because it was NOT maintained.



Well, I've done my best to maintain this system.  However, some of the stuff I was recommended by certain friends to use, in order to keep it maintained, failed catastrophically - completely ruining the installation.

Oh, the joys of third party software!  If the Mac is more integrated (hardware and software made by the same company) as it claims to be, then it makes a lot of sense to assume it will work better.

I backed everything up onto a USB drive before I did my reinstallation.  Now I have come to open certain files on the new installation, they are either corrupted or the programme trying to access them is.  Well, that's just great.   I'm strangely calm.  Actually, I feel numb.  It appears I may have lost a year's worth of work on one project, which will cost me dearly.  Work that was properly backed up, which I may never be able to get back.

The time it has taken me to get this system anywhere near the previous installation has been ridiculous.  It's been a stop/ start, cart load of monkeys.  Things which worked before, suddenly act differently.

There's no 'user error' here.  You can only do what the system or manual instructs while you are installing.  Windows constantly contradicts itself with nonsensical error messages and offers you  connundrums which cannot be solved.  The times I have tried to load drivers only to be told "No information about your hardware exists at this location" or otherwise installs - then doesn't work.  Or works for a while, then suddenly stops working.  I quite like the idea that software for the Mac is more limited.  The less parts you have, the less there is to go wrong.

The bottom line is, I simply have no confidence in Windows anymore.  Every time I come to do something major, like install a programme - the thought is always in the back of my mind that it might not work properly this time.  I actually dread turning on the machine these days.

The only thing I can do now, is to go somewhere where I can try out a Mac and see for myself.  Or maybe see if I can borrow one off someone.

Dr. V


----------



## tech savvy

FuryRosewood said:


> still it boils down to the reasons that pcs cost less...is their using cheaper parts.....*macs are using premium server grade hardware*.... really comparing mac to pc is like comparing a ford f150 to a peterbuilt.... their just differing hardware sets, and if you want to compare them you need to start comparing similar sets of hardware... at least where the mac pro is concerned.



thats a joke right?they use the same hardware as regular PC uses.Macs are waay over rated IMO.the only reason they cost some damn much is what was said earlier, the name/logo,not because it has superior hardware.

for the OP, for the money your going to spend on a Mac you could build a PC that well out-last/out-perform it by far.


----------



## C4Radon

^ Firstly I totally agree ^

Secondly, Dr. Varney, I suggest you just build a new PC and install Windows 7 and or XP (though I prefer Windows 7). It sounds like your computers specs have become obsolete. And from some of your other posts It seems you computer has just failed on you. just like humans computers can "die". Judging from your other posts on different topics, it sounds like your computer is on its last leg. 

Just my (quick) 2 cents...


----------



## lucasbytegenius

I say get a Mac. Period.
You can walk into an Apple Store and they're more than eager to let you play with the products, so you can get a feel for it there. I suggest doing that, and then deciding.


----------



## C4Radon

Sorry for the double post, but this deserves it... 


This is disgusting. 

17-inch: 2.2 GHz
2.2GHz quad-core 
Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz
750GB 5400-rpm1
Intel HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB GDDR5
Built-in battery (7 hours)

2500 dollars...

Pay about 1100, build a computer with literally double the power. You wont be sorry.


----------



## Okedokey

Exactly, the simple point is, if you are a brand slave, get a mac.  Otherwise, spend half as much and build a PC.  If you have trouble doing that, spend 30% less and get someone to do it for you.  Simple.  The point about Macs having superior parts is just bollocks.  An Intel I7 is and Intel I7, period.


----------



## Doctor Varney

C4Radon said:


> ^ Firstly I totally agree ^
> 
> Secondly, Dr. Varney, I suggest you just build a new PC and install Windows 7 and or XP (though I prefer Windows 7). It sounds like your computers specs have become obsolete. And from some of your other posts It seems you computer has just failed on you. just like humans computers can "die". Judging from your other posts on different topics, it sounds like your computer is on its last leg.
> 
> Just my (quick) 2 cents...



No, that just isn't acceptable.  I have only had the thing a couple or three years.  I know people with old, outdated Macs and they still run as good as the day they bought them.  They are not the latest spec but they still have the support and still function within their intended capabilities.



> It sounds like your computers specs have become obsolete.



No.  How can the specs have become obsolete when I am using software it has run since the day it was built?  Software I was using before I even built it?  It's a self contained system, built to do a specific set of tasks.  It isn't trying to run software that is more advanced than it is.

Dr. V


----------



## Okedokey

Can I just say Doc, you are seemingly a know it all, when clearly you don't know much.  If your system is 2 years old, fix it and run it.  I really am beginning to lose my patience with this thread as it appears that  no matter what advice you get, you reject it.  I mean look at your posts above, everything you say starts with "NO", but that is funny, you are not getting anywhere with your own understandings.  You're new to this forum and you are beginning to look like a 'troll' as you don't actually try anything suggested.  Go away, and try something, then come back.  The simply choices have been presented.

If you want your computer (2 year old) to run well, reinstall windows, preferably Win 7, else, go and spend twice as much again on a Mac.  That is really the equation.  I have old PCs too, that still run brilliantly, why? because I know how to use them.  The hardware is the same mate, thats it, its no magic, but clearly you seem incapable of setting up a PC even if it is only a few years old.  XP is a 10+ year old OS, upgrade with a fresh install of Win 7, clean out the dust and try again.  Simple.

Im unsubscribing to this thread, as 7 pages later, we are no closer to a resolution - even though this must be the most 'forum-ed' topic ever.


----------



## Doctor Varney

bigfellla said:


> Exactly, the simple point is, if you are a brand slave, get a mac.



I suppose it's better than being a slave to Windows.   I'm chained to Windows because of the software I have invested in.  That's definitely a form of 'slavery' if you think about it.  Do you think the freedom to explore an alternative product is 'brand slavery'?


----------



## Doctor Varney

bigfellla said:


> Im unsubscribing to this thread, as 7 pages later, we are no closer to a resolution - even though this must be the most 'forum-ed' topic ever.



Speak for yourself.  I've learned a few things since I started asking around and looking deeper into the subject.  I'm glad you are unsubscribing to this thread because nothing you have said is even remotely helpful - you're very rude and big-headed as well.  I don't ever claim to be a 'know all' yet that's exactly how you come across.   I have not rejected looking into Windows 7 as a possibility.  Everyone else has been perfectly polite and informative, even whilst disagreeing in a fair manner.  I asked you to "keep it friendly" but you have too much of an attitude to deal with it and you've been making cheap shots at me ever since you entered into the conversation.  So yes, I'll be glad if you stop posting here.

Dr. V


----------



## strollin

I'm a little late to this conversation but thought I would input my experience.  I have been using PCs since 1984 and really don't experience many problems with them, they work pretty well for me.  However, I've always heard MAC people go on and on about how wonderful MACs are so about 18 months ago I decided to buy one to see what I was missing.

Talk about sticker shock!  I couldn't believe how expensive MACs were.  I ended up with the MAC Mini.  A 2.0 Ghz Core 2 Duo, 1G RAM and a 120G HDD for $700!  OS X, Leopard.  Snow Leopard was released shortly afterward and I got a free upgrade.  I later added 2 more gig of RAM, and an external 500G HDD.  Altogether, I had invested $1000 (excluding monitor) into this machine which was the equivalent of a $400 PC.

I had to supply mouse, keyboard and monitor as MACs don't come with them.

I would rate it as just OK.  I personally didn't care for OS X as it seemed to be too cartoonish for my taste (especially the Dock, yuk!).  I also felt the OS was very inconsistent.  For instance, in Windows, when you click on the "X" in the upper RH corner of an app, it closes the app.  With OS X, the "X" is in the upper LH corner but clicking on it does different things depending on the app you're using.  Sometimes it closes the app, most times it simply hides the app, other times it's used as a way to close a dialog box instead of having an "OK" button like Windows.

In Windows, the menu bar is at the top of the application window but with OS X the application's menu bar is always at the top of the screen completely disassociated from the app.  I disliked that immensely.

I spent lots of time on MAC forums and was amazed at how technically challenged the MAC community was.  For instance, there were many posts by Mini owners that were bragging because they figured out how to open the case and add some RAM!  There's really only 2 things you can do to upgrade a Mini, add RAM or change out the slow (5400rpm) 120G HDD.

There were no server quality components in the Mini.  Standard, off-the-shelf components just like in any other PC.

I realized that much of my dislike of OS X was due to my familiarity with Windows so I put up with the differences but eventually came to the conclusion that the MAC was no better and no worse than any of my other PCs, just substantially more expensive.  I used the MAC less and less until it sat collecting dust unused.  I gave it to my daughter, she used it for several months then begged me for another Windows PC.

I experienced more system hangs requiring reboots on the Mini than I had ever experienced on other machines.  It may have been due to the external HDD I had attached to it which was not an Apple product but was a MAC specific product.

I decided to sell it.  MAC people will tell you how well MACs hold their value.  What a crock!  I couldn't sell it for anywhere near what I had invested in it.  I was asking $500 for a 6 month old machine that I had $1000 invested in and was getting offers of $200.  I eventually traded it for a Windows laptop with better specs (2.25Ghz Core 2 Duo, 4G RAM, 300G HDD, Vista) then sold the laptop to my sister for $350.

I doubt I will ever consider a MAC again.


----------



## BlackDawg

My advice is to buy the Mac and check it out for yourself. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. I have both and both have their merits. I like PCs for their flexibility in hardware and upgrade potential along with far more advanced configuration possibilities. Of course along with this comes the headaches of hardware and driver conflicts, but that is the price we pay. Macs seem to have a more polished appearance and feel and OSX does work quite well and stable compared to older versions of Windows. Windows 7 is a huge improvement over XP so if you went that route , I'm confident you would be impressed as well. My advice? Buy the Mac and a copy of windows 7 to try on your PC and you'll have the best of both worlds.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

BlackDawg said:


> My advice is to buy the Mac and check it out for yourself. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. I have both and both have their merits. I like PCs for their flexibility in hardware and upgrade potential along with far more advanced configuration possibilities. Of course along with this comes the headaches of hardware and driver conflicts, but that is the price we pay. Macs seem to have a more polished appearance and feel and OSX does work quite well and stable compared to older versions of Windows. Windows 7 is a huge improvement over XP so if you went that route , I'm confident you would be impressed as well. My advice? Buy the Mac and a copy of windows 7 to try on your PC and you'll have the best of both worlds.



That's a good well-constructed statement taking both worlds into consderation, BlackDawg  Good job :good:


----------



## BlackDawg

lucasbytegenius said:


> That's a good well-constructed statement taking both worlds into consderation, BlackDawg  Good job :good:


Thanks bud.


----------



## Aastii

Why not go Ubuntu on your current system instead?


----------



## Doctor Varney

Thank you, Blackdawg.  I echo what Lucasbytegenius just said.  That was a really good post.

Thank you, Strollin, too.  I needed that sort of realistic overview of the Mac.  Nothing beats first hand experience.  I've read it several times to makes sure I take everything in.  I get what you're saying there.

My problem is having to spend on Windows 7, just to try.  Don't forget, when XP came out, I thought I was getting something great.  It promised to be more stable.  I suppose it has been, compared with '98 but really, it does seem to have fallen short on so many of it's promises...  I think most users will appreciate what I'm saying.

I notice the Mac users seem to get good deals on OS upgrades - something like £29 for Snow Leopard if you're already a user.  I only breezed over the Apple site and caught something like this.

But if I can be sure Win7 will clear up my problems I'll be more than happy to give it a go.  What I'm not too pleased about is having to spend over £100 just to get a decent OS after having experienced so many problems with XP.  It's like, with most products - someone sells you something you don't like, you don't go back to them for more.  The problem is, we're kind of tied to Bill Gates and his products because we know damn well, (and he knows it!) we can't run most of our professional grade software without him.

It's true, you do have to know what you're doing with PCs.  There is so much software to choose from but you can't always trust it not to screw things up.

On the other hand, there is certain software I will not be able to run on the Mac.  This calls for a complete upheaval from digital audio software I've become comfortable with, over to a completely different product and the steep learning curve that implies, too.

Aastii - I don't know anything about Ubuntu.  Now what would I be able to do with it?  I mean, would it run Photoshop and FL Studio for instance?  What about Microsoft Office?  I love to find out about alternatives - but this sounds a bit alien...

I'm going to ask around and see if I can get a good deal on Windows 7 and see where I go from there.  The Mac will have to come later, since it's a big investment.

Thank you to all of you for your patience.  It's a tough decision.

Dr. V


----------



## Aastii

Ubuntu is a free operating system based on Linux. You can get just about every program to work on it, however as it is free and there are a lot of different linux distro's, with Ubuntu being just one of them, often to get it work you will need to find a work around, or will need another program to act as a platform for the program.

There are, however, free alternatives to everything you have that either come with Ubuntu by default or that will work with Ubuntu straight away. For instance, it comes with Open Office, which is a free office suite very similar to Microsoft office. The only downside is that MS Office can't read certain Open Office files, to view say a written document in MS Office that was created in Open office, you would have to copy + paste the content into a non-rich text document format, such as notepad, and then copy the content into MS Word.

There is a program for Ubuntu though called Wine, and what it does is create a platform for Windows programs that will allow Windows programs to work. Take MS Office as an example:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Microsoft_Office

You will need to understand some command line languages, bash and python for instance, because for a fair few programs you will need to create the solution yourself, however for most problems there is a fix on the internet with step by step guides which so long as you can follow them, you can get anything to work.

Because it is free, it truly is a "you have nothing to lose" situation


----------



## Doctor Varney

Aastii said:


> Because it is free, it truly is a "you have nothing to lose" situation



Except for time...

Hell, that sounds like a lot of messing about.  The situation is bad enough I think, without adding more complications.  After reading around, it appears Photoshop might be a problem.  But thanks for the overview.

Dr. V


----------



## wolfeking

what do you need to do with photoshop that Gimp can not do? Gimp is Linux native, so it will work. 
As for photoshop, it can run. You will need to copy the files from the disk to the home folder, then right click, go to permissions and select "run as program". Then right click again and select run with wine. It will install with little to no trouble.


----------



## Doctor Varney

Sorry... who's wiki?

Dr. V


----------



## Doctor Varney

wolfeking said:


> what do you need to do with photoshop that Gimp can not do? Gimp is Linux native, so it will work.
> As for photoshop, it can run. You will need to copy the files from the disk to the home folder, then right click, go to permissions and select "run as program". Then right click again and select run with wine. It will install with little to no trouble.



Uh uh... No way.  GIMP is not professional grade software and carries nowhere near the same functionality of Photoshop.  Been there and done it, so I know.  Besides that, it's unstable and keeps crashing... of course, that was with Windows.  I appreciate it could be more stable under Linux.

When people ask what can you do with PS that you can't with the GIMP, it is because they are not familiar with the full range of functionality of Photoshop, themselves having only scratched the surface of what it can do.  For those sorts of people, any middle of the road photo editor would do - except GIMP offers layering which makes it instantly more versatile than some.

As for Photoshop on Linux, I have done a little research already and found a list of 'known bugs'.  It's very offputting, to say the least.  No, this is not what I'm after.  This is plainly needlessley adding more difficulty and complication to an already imperfect arrangement and I believe it will create more problems for rme than it will solve.  I like the idea of experimentation and the philosophy behind UNIX but I think this is probably more for people who like messing with computers than actually getting any work done with Photoshop.

I'm beginning to think in terms of Windows 7 being the best course of action - for the time being.

Having said that, I am tempted to try Linux on an old machine for myself and just see what it's like - mainly out of interest.

Dr. V


----------



## BlackDawg

I'm pretty sure one can download a copy of windows 7 from the Microsoft download site and evaluate it free for a set period of time, either 10 or 30 days.


*Edit* 
Sorry, the eval offer for windows 7 ended Dec, 31, 2010.


----------



## Doctor Varney

Oh okay. Thanks anyway, Blackdawg.

Dr. V


----------



## BlackDawg

Support in this case usually means security and functionality updates. The XP OS still functions as it always did and users are free to use it at will under the Microsoft license, there just won't be any new updates to it. They are actually not forcing anyone into a newer OS they just wont be selling anymore copies of XP and no new updates. Unfortunately, a common practice among most software vendors.


----------



## Doctor Varney

BlackDawg said:


> Support in this case usually means security and functionality updates. The XP OS still functions as it always did and users are free to use it at will under the Microsoft license, there just won't be any new updates to it. They are actually not forcing anyone into a newer OS they just wont be selling anymore copies of XP and no new updates. Unfortunately, a common practice among most software vendors.



Thank you for addressing my concern, Blackdawg.  You'll probably have noticed I deleted part of that post, as I needed to think about it.  It didn't entirely makes sense when I read it back and I seemed to have answered my own question.

What I should be asking is, will the licencing phone number still work after that time?  Instead of installing countless applications to scan, tune and repar, I have decided to wipe, re-format and re-install each year, to keep everything running properly.  This of course brings it's own probems but once everything's settled down, I seem to be getting that 'good as new' performance' back again.  I thought about buying Windows 7 later this summer but if this system is still working for me, then I may not need to.

My philosophy is "If it ain't broken, don't fix it".  Without taking it to extremes, it means that I upgrade according to my needs, not per fashion or to have the latest thing for the sake of it.

Dr. V


----------



## C4Radon

BlackDawg said:


> My advice is to buy the Mac and check it out for yourself. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. )



Nothing to lose but an absurd amount of money that is... I can't give first hand experience on a Mac and or any of the native mac operating systems as I have spent (relatively) very little time with them, so my opinion would be very biased. But what I can give you first hand experience on is Windows 7 as an operating system. [ I thinks its clear to the OP that, well that numbers don't lie and you can (in fact) build a much cheaper PC for the price of a Mac].So in terms of hardware in my mind at least, this is a "no-brainer". I will tell you this, I have been using windows 7 for about 2 years now. So far I have had 3 blue screens, all of which were hardware related. My computer goes into complete not responding about once every 2 weeks, though this problem can also be attributed with hardware. I have had no issues with certain programs not being able to run. So far, my whole experience with Windows 7 has been a happy one. if Windows XP is a 5/10 I consider Windows 7 to be a at least an 8/10. Since its been out for a while, most bugs have been patched and it runs fine perfectly fine on my current computer. Not much more to say about it...I find it a really great OS and a major step up from XP and no doubt Windows Vista. I really hope you choose a PC (pref. built to save some cash) and with Windows 7 as it really is a big step forward over XP. I mean really there's no comparison to an operating system designed over 7 years ago to one made today. 

Another of my 2 cents...

-you have stolen all of my cents-


----------



## Doctor Varney

^  LOL!

That's brilliant, C4.  Thank you for your honesty! 

So the answer is quite clear.  Save an absurd amount of money and get the bluescreen of death and a computer that goes non-responsive every two weeks?!   Sounds like a bargain! 

Seriously though... All hardware related?  Well, I wonder if that just proves the point that the Mac, whether or not it has _*better*_ components, _*has better matched*_ components?

As you know yourself, unless someone's had first hand experience with both, it's hard to say for sure.  That is just some experience I'm just gonna have to find for myself.  So it will take a while...

Meanwhile, I think I have this XP machine tuned up (actually stripped down) and running the best it can.  Things ain't really so bad at this moment in time but only time will tell, if it will get back into the state that it was when I started this thread.  The next investment (Windows 7 Vs. Mac-Mini) will have to be thought about carefully...

What's funny though, is I have never (not since Windows '95 at least) seen a blue screen.  Just lots of silly stops and error messages and some switching off dead at unexpected and inappropriate times.

Dr. V


----------



## tlarkin

I am not going to read this whole thread, but I skimmed over it.   Here are some key points.

1)  .exe files are Windows binary files, they are windows only, they only work on Windows - PERIOD!  They don't run on Linux, Unix or OS X, or any other OS.  What this usually refers to is that a mac uses a standard set of POSIX permissions.  Which by nature does not allow a normal user to install software into a folder or file path they do not own or have rights to.   This is why some applications will ask for authentication when installing.  This is by far a good thing more so than it is a bad thing.  You never want to run as a root user like in Windows, it is a HUGE security and stability risk.

2)  Initial cost is not paralleled to overall cost of ownership.  After all, you want to be using your computer at all times.   Plus, since Apple is more of a closed system their systems tend to have a longer life cycle.   You can run current software for many years on your Mac.   Also, their resell value is way higher than a PC, so you actually get  more return on your investment.   6 year old PPC desktops still sell for $500.   If you are going to buy a new mac every 2 to 3 years, you can easily pay for over half of the cost of a new mac by simply selling your old one.  Overall cost of ownership is cheaper in the long run.

3)  The myth that macs are only good at graphic design and video editing is very much false.  I do neither and do all my work on my Macs.



> When I say mac is slightly different than PC (hardware-wise), is because it really is. Example, macs don’t have a BIOS, not even a BIOS chip (Or CMOS). They have different power management system than PCs. In mac the PMU controls almost everything, where as in PC, its power management systems usually just control the big power consumers, like HDD, optics, handle battery charge, etc. (PMU is kinda like CMOS for mac, as strange as it may sound...)
> 
> That’s just a few of the subsytems/differences I can think of between mac and PC. I don’t imagine there are a whole lot more. If all you do is install windows/OS X on it, you’d never know there’s any actual difference from mac or PC. And unless you plan on programming an OS for it or something, it doesn’t really matter a whole lot what’s going on under the hood — just as long as it’s understood there actually is a physical hardware difference. Not that it’s important...



This is almost accurate.  It is called a SMU/SMC/PMU depending on which particular model, year and feature you are talking about.   Also, EFI is the firmware that controls the Mac, not PMU.  PMU just controls the power, and it was later called SMU.   The hardware is not physically different the firmware is different.  The boot strap on a Mac goes like this:

power on > POST > EFI > Kernel > launchd > loginwindow 

(in a nutshell to keep it simple)

A PC will boot like this

power on > POST > BIOS > Boot sector (boot apps like GRUB would load here) > boot loader file > kernel > system daemon (different name in Linux and in Windows) > login window



> You are forgetting however that Macs dont do what PCs can. I cant use a lot of my software on a mac, nor game, nor use MS CRM and the list goes on. Not to mention the very poor and in most cases non-existent IT support from thrid party organisations such as ISPs.
> 
> You cannot compare them, they're not the same. Also most TCO analysis doesn't factor in the learning curve most people would need to do to become as proficient in using a mac. This, is a major major cost to a business. A lot of staff would need training or suffer large downtime. Not costed in most TCOs
> 
> Plus, I game, and sorry, but Macs completely fail at this.
> 
> Also please show me empirical data where Mac OS handles hardware more efficiently. Most information i have seen shows Windows 7 trouncing Mac OS.



There is huge IT support for the Mac community and it is ever growing.  Just sign up on the mac enterprise mailing list and watch the emails fly by.   Macs can run Windows in a virtual machine, boot windows, and run windows apps via the WINE API.  There is also CRM software for the Mac.

ISPs don't support Macs?  Dude TCP/IP is a standard, and it works on every single OS out there.   If your ISP does something funky to only support Windows machines that is purely 100% the fault of the ISP.

FYI Google just phased out 100% of their PCs and went with Macs.   So, yeah there may be a cost of a learning curve and training but OS X is pretty intuitive.   There are reasons businesses now allow Macs in their enterprise where as before 5 years ago that was pretty much unheard of.



> Mac Pro's run server grade components, and cant be compared to desktop counterparts, unless you plan on grabbing a socket 1366 board and putting a xeon processor...sure compare that to a server. You get what you pay for, you will end up spending *about* the same on a desktop with a server processor, board and ram as you would a PC, also take into effect that software is often provided by Apple for basic things, and is not in the side of the PC market, you get the OS, and then nothing, you will have to hunt for stuff to do what you want to.
> 
> What it comes down to, you are paying for design and components that are being selectively picked that will work together, for the most part, effectively, whereas with the PC market, you are on your own, you may get stuck in a corner with a compatibility issue.
> 
> (i dont endorse Mac, i build pcs, but eh, thats what their doing.)



Disagree.  A Mac Pro is a high end desktop, just like a Dell workstation or a Sun work station that supports Xeon processors.  Yes these are the same processors in servers you are correct, however, it is still a desktop computer.  Servers have things like redundant power supplies, lights out management, and are rack mountable.  The Mac Pro has none of that.   It is meant for serious work, like heavy 3D work or something along the lines.



> I apologize, however, I could not help but dog you a little here, because there are contradictions, and opinions that you're attempting to pass as facts. First, stating "While the OS on a Mac IS indeed more secure" is an opinion.



No, it is a fact.  Look at how many hacks/exploits and so forth are available to Windows based machines.   Now look at how many viruses are in the wild for Unix based ones.   The difference is proof enough that the Unix POSIX model has not only been around a lot longer than Windows, it has also be tested more and found to be more secure over time.   By nature it is more secure, that is a fact.  However, the end user is the largest security hole, and if the end user doesn't understand certain concepts and safe guards no matter how secure your OS is, the end user can easily bypass all the security by just executing bad practices.



> Second, if Mac's are "built better than PC's", please elaborate on why Mac's can't "play games". I have a feeling that statement is crap, because Macs are built just as any computer is built. On an assembly line. If Mac uses superior techniques to PC manufacturers, then why can't Mac's apparently play games? Does Mac test each and everyone of their computers for functionality? I don't know, and I don't think you do, either. IF Mac is able to test each and everyone of their computers, as you say, it wont last long, if they wish to make money and expand. Because as Mac grows, there will be a point where testing each and every Mac will be time consuming, and money wasting, because labor would be through the roof, and well, it just wouldn't work. Mac would be behind in getting their Mac's out in an orderly fashion, and fast enough for peeps to buy them. Why do you think they have 30 day manufacturer warranties, and then limited 1 year warranties for PC's? Think about it. It's not that simple. I think Mac is at all "popular" because of those false advertisements you posted. Mac is simply good at creating the illusion that their "stuff" don't stink, as they say. Which is of course fair play, and I have to say they are exceptionally well at doing it.



The answer to this is easy.  DirectX.   If developers actually used open standards like Open GL you would see tons of games get ported to OS X and Linux, because every OS supports Open GL.  However, Open GL is a lot harder to code in.  Which is why only a few developers actually code in it.  id and Blizzard are the only two off the top of my head that use Open GL consistently.  They also release their games for every platform.   The DirectX APIs are less robust than OpenGL but are easier to use and until you convince the developers to start making games for OS X and Linux, it ain't gonna happen.

However, some developers are.  Look at Steam, Valve, EA, id, and Blizzard, all developing games for the Mac.  In fact, valve says if you own a PC license to any of their games you can also for free load it on your Mac.  Now, gaming has a long time advantage of being coded for a PC and Windows.   Windows boxes of the same spec will most likely out perform a Mac on the same game with the same settings.  Give it time for developers to take advantage of Apple APIs for video game development, it is all relatively pretty new.

OK last point then I am done


> Sorry for the double post, but this deserves it...
> 
> 
> This is disgusting.
> 
> 17-inch: 2.2 GHz
> 2.2GHz quad-core
> Intel Core i7
> 4GB 1333MHz
> 750GB 5400-rpm1
> Intel HD Graphics 3000
> AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB GDDR5
> Built-in battery (7 hours)
> 
> 2500 dollars...
> 
> Pay about 1100, build a computer with literally double the power. You wont be sorry.



*sigh*, do you know how to compare spec for spec?   Do you realize how expensive IPS screens are?  Go find a LED back lit IPS screen that runs the same resolution as the macbook one and is in the same price range.   You will find that while Apple does mark up some parts like hard drives, optical drives and so forth, they are actually more reasonably priced than you think.  That also is not considering the costs of software that goes with each new mac too.  iLife is probably several hundred dollars of software to get the equivalent on another platform.

In the end, buy the Mac because it is a great computer, or if you really dislike using the Mac then don't buy it.   Having supported, maintained and owned every manufacturer of laptops in existence I can say that my opinion is the Macbook Pro is the best laptop I have ever owned hands down.


----------



## Aastii

@tlarkin, regarding the price of hardware from apple:

1. go to their shop (in person or online)

2. pick any of their mac's and start to customise.

3. Look at upgrade costs. a few examples:

i5 760 to i7 920 - +£164

4GB 1333MHz to 8GB 1333MHz - +£160

1TB HDD to 2TB HDD - +£123

I agree with most of what you said, except for when you say their prices are reasonable. No matter how you look at it, they are not, at least hardware wise. I agree, software wise they are reasonable (at least going by off the shelf prices, which are still ridiculous imo), but how you can even begin to claim 4GB @ £160 is reasonable is beyond me

In case you aren't aware of prices over here for memory:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-257-CS&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=1516

4GB Corsair XMS3 1333MHz, so not el cheapo crap - £45


----------



## tlarkin

I said they do mark up the costs of HDs, optical drives, and so forth, but in regards to other hardware costs, like Xeon Processors, IPS screens, and so forth they are actually very decently priced.  Try to buy or build a PC spec for spec with those type of parts and you will generally get it around or damn near the same price as the Mac.

Every manufacturer also over charges for RAM.  You can buy third party RAM and HD for a Mac just like you can any PC, that is really a moot issues if you ask me.

Like I have said to people countless times, take an iMac and build a PC spec for spec with the same exact parts and then look at the price difference.


----------



## Aastii

tlarkin said:


> I said they do mark up the costs of HDs, optical drives, and so forth, but in regards to other hardware costs, like Xeon Processors, IPS screens, and so forth they are actually very decently priced.  Try to buy or build a PC spec for spec with those type of parts and you will generally get it around or damn near the same price as the Mac.
> 
> Every manufacturer also over charges for RAM.  You can buy third party RAM and HD for a Mac just like you can any PC, that is really a moot issues if you ask me.
> 
> Like I have said to people countless times, take an iMac and build a PC spec for spec with the same exact parts and then look at the price difference.



I don't disagree that if you went and factored in software and what not, prices would be similar, but as I say to my clients that I build/upgrade systems for - what will you actually be using it for?

It is all well and good getting a mac, but is it really worth dropping a couple grand on a system you will only be using for the internet?

I know that is an extreme example, but if you use PS only say, then why not get a PC? You don't need the software that comes with a mac, which would then be considered bloatware, and you don't need the overpriced upgrades, you could build your own on the cheap.

Mac's have their place, and in their place, they can't be touched by a PC, however for the every day user, a Mac isn't a viable option because of the prices and because of the useless features.

Aside from that, there is no way to ever defend 3 times the price for a single component, even if you can say "just upgrade it yourself", that makes getting the system in the first place pointless because you may as well just do the full thing yourself


----------



## Doctor Varney

Aastii said:


> @tlarkin, regarding the price of hardware from apple:
> 
> 3. Look at upgrade costs. a few examples:
> 
> i5 760 to i7 920 - +£164
> 
> 4GB 1333MHz to 8GB 1333MHz - +£160
> 
> 1TB HDD to 2TB HDD - +£123



Upgrading costs.  Well, assuming that upgrading is essential in any way... Supposing with those starting specs, the machine runs in a stable fashion and delivers the performance you expect without so much as a hiccup.  Look around at what happens when people build their own PCs and insert upgrades.  "This doesn't work, that doesn't work... HELP!" etc, etc...

Downtime to a professional costs money.  Downtime to a gamer is just frustrating.

I'm sure they are amazing machines and much cheaper than their Mac counterparts... except they only seem to work half of the time.  To me, it's not about having the fastest, biggest, most up-to-date thing.  There is a saying - and I think it's true: "The bigger they are, the harder they fall".  And I'm starting to see evidence that it is indeed true.



> It is all well and good getting a mac, but is it really worth dropping a couple grand on a system you will only be using for the internet?
> 
> I know that is an extreme example, but if you use PS only say, then why not get a PC?



Yes, it is an extreme example.  Firstly, a modest Mac system needn't cost a couple of grand.  Secondly, we could ask the same question in reverse: is it really worth going to the trouble of custom building such a powerful PC if all you want to do is surf the 'net and play with Photoshop?

tlarkin offers us the fact the Mac system is more secure over the internet.  If this is true then your Photoshop machine will be at less risk of falling over due to the invasion of malware and/ or possible loss of performance implied by the stack of software needed to keep it secure.

Basically, knowing that Photoshop can be relied on to work properly every single time I open it is worth far, far more to me than knowing it can execute a given command several milliseconds faster on someone else's computer.

When it comes to digital audio production, I have heard many professionals speak about the great possibilities with the PC and while acknowledging the price difference, simply cannot run the risk of a computer failing during costly sessions.  If a PC fails during one of these, it could mean a loss of business costing far more than the difference between PC & Mac.  Add the cost up over the long haul and you start to see these PC-pro points and Mac-con points pale into insignificance.  Then there are those things which go beyond mere cash - the embarrassment of having a system fail on you at a crucial moment.  Point being, no amount of extra RAM or a few extra gigs of HDD space at a bargain price is ever going to make up for a hardware/ software failure in the middle of a performance.  There are just times when failure is not acceptable but a little extra cost and lower specs is actually of neglible interest, when weighing up the true value of stability and on-demand performance and the confidence that comes with it.  Perhaps it's in this area where we can start comparing business decisions?  Cue hare and tortoise scenario...

That is, of course, assuming the Mac is actually more stable and reliable than it's PC counterpart.  We can only weigh up the evidence.  I'm not going to use this as conclusive evidence on it's own, but I'm saying that if this was anything to go by:



> I have been using windows 7 for about 2 years now. So far I have had 3 blue screens, all of which were hardware related. My computer goes into complete not responding about once every 2 weeks, though this problem can also be attributed with hardware.



and then...



> So far, my whole experience with Windows 7 has been a happy one.



Well, do you see what I mean?  If my computer went non-responsive on me every two weeks, my experience would be anything but a happy one.

I'm not, by any means, saying my mind is made up.  But comparing evidence of this sort goes a long way towards helping me make my decision.

The bottom line is - someone who says he is happy with his Windows, also tells me his machine stops responding every two weeks.  People who own Macs may not know how to build custom computers but I've yet to hear of one failing this often.  I feel far more pre-disposed to listening to those who own and use both, than those who use money and specs to argue their corner.

But tlarkini does not come across to me as 'technically challenged' because he uses Mac computers.  Quite the reverse.  He seems to know his stuff.

Dr. V


----------



## tlarkin

Aastii said:


> I don't disagree that if you went and factored in software and what not, prices would be similar, but as I say to my clients that I build/upgrade systems for - what will you actually be using it for?
> 
> It is all well and good getting a mac, but is it really worth dropping a couple grand on a system you will only be using for the internet?
> 
> I know that is an extreme example, but if you use PS only say, then why not get a PC? You don't need the software that comes with a mac, which would then be considered bloatware, and you don't need the overpriced upgrades, you could build your own on the cheap.
> 
> Mac's have their place, and in their place, they can't be touched by a PC, however for the every day user, a Mac isn't a viable option because of the prices and because of the useless features.
> 
> Aside from that, there is no way to ever defend 3 times the price for a single component, even if you can say "just upgrade it yourself", that makes getting the system in the first place pointless because you may as well just do the full thing yourself



*sigh*......3 times the price?  That would infer that Macs have the same hardware at triple the costs....Also, where is your proof on this?  I said spec for spec, not the cheapest POS you can find and give to someone.....I guess I will do this for the, I dunno, 500th billion time on this forum.

iMac 27":
# 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5
# 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
# 1TB Serial ATA Drive
# 8x double-layer SuperDrive
# ATI Radeon HD 5750 1GB GDDR5 SDRAM
# Apple Wireless Keyboard (English) & User's Guide
# Magic Mouse
cost:  $1,999.00

Equivalent PC desktop (feature to feature, spec to spec comparison)
CPU $209
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...7&cm_re=core_i5_2,8ghz-_-19-115-067-_-Product

Mobo $149
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131599

Case:  $80 (I just picked a random case)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119137&cm_re=case-_-11-119-137-_-Product

Video card $110
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...8&cm_re=Radeon_HD_5750-_-14-150-528-_-Product

RAM:  $48 (2 sets of this)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145331&cm_re=ddr_3-_-20-145-331-_-Product

PSU $75 (Apple does the green technology thing)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...015&cm_re=power_supply-_-17-371-015-_-Product

Hard drive $80
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136533

Optical drive $20
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135204

ABGN wireless card:  $50
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124342

BlueTooth:  $24
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...203029&cm_re=bluetooth-_-33-203-029-_-Product

BT keyboard and Mouse:$170 (only thing really comparable and in stock)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...oth_keyboard_and_mouse-_-23-126-038-_-Product

Firewire 800 card:  $80
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...060&cm_re=firewire_800-_-00-998-060-_-Product

web cam:  $60 (just picked a random web cam, this one seems decent)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16826104074

26" IPS monitor:  $950 (*disclaimer see below)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...6422&cm_re=ips_monitor-_-24-116-422-_-Product

*This monitor is 1" smaller, runs way lower resolution and is not as high as quality but is the closest thing I can find on newegg and is in stock.  So, really this is probably more in the $1100 range, possibly more.

OS Windows 7 ultimate OEM $180
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...windows_7_ultimate_oem-_-32-116-762-_-Product

Total for PC:  $2,285.00 

This is a spec for spec feature for feature comparison.   Of course you can tweak it and find better deals but as of now the iMac is cheaper.  IPS screens are really freaking expensive and since apple buy a lot of them they get a discount and actually probably take a bit of a loss on reselling that part.  However, they mark up the cheaper parts like RAM and HD (because every computer company has to buy those and in bulk they are cheap) and get a higher profit margin on marking up those items.

The problem is, and always has been, people cannot wrap their head around what is actually in a Mac versus what Apple marks up.  Since the profit margin is way higher on cheaper hardware like RAM, HD, and the like Apple takes advantage of that to make more money than other hardware manufacturers.  In return, their low profit margin items like IPS screens they probably don't mark up at all really.   It is like when you buy a computer from a computer store, they are only making a small percentage mark up.  All the profit is in software and accessories and peripherals.

That being said, taking into account the total cost of ownership the Mac is a great deal.  I will not argue with someone that says they cannot justify buying a Mac because all they want is a cheap piece of crap the surf the web, yeah a Mac is over kill for that.   However, saying a Mac is over priced is sort of ignorant unless you take everything into account.  I did not even touch software, but only included the OS in that build.


----------



## mihir

tlarkin said:


> *sigh*......3 times the price?  That would infer that Macs have the same hardware at triple the costs....Also, where is your proof on this?  I said spec for spec, not the cheapest POS you can find and give to someone.....I guess I will do this for the, I dunno, 500th billion time on this forum.
> 
> iMac 27":
> # 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5
> # 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
> # 1TB Serial ATA Drive
> # 8x double-layer SuperDrive
> # ATI Radeon HD 5750 1GB GDDR5 SDRAM
> # Apple Wireless Keyboard (English) & User's Guide
> # Magic Mouse
> cost:  $1,999.00
> 
> Equivalent PC desktop (feature to feature, spec to spec comparison)
> CPU $209
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...7&cm_re=core_i5_2,8ghz-_-19-115-067-_-Product
> 
> Mobo $149
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131599
> 
> Case:  $80 (I just picked a random case)
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119137&cm_re=case-_-11-119-137-_-Product
> 
> Video card $110
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...8&cm_re=Radeon_HD_5750-_-14-150-528-_-Product
> 
> RAM:  $48 (2 sets of this)
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145331&cm_re=ddr_3-_-20-145-331-_-Product
> 
> PSU $75 (Apple does the green technology thing)
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...015&cm_re=power_supply-_-17-371-015-_-Product
> 
> Hard drive $80
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136533
> 
> Optical drive $20
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135204
> 
> ABGN wireless card:  $50
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124342
> 
> BlueTooth:  $24
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...203029&cm_re=bluetooth-_-33-203-029-_-Product
> 
> BT keyboard and Mouse:$170 (only thing really comparable and in stock)
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...oth_keyboard_and_mouse-_-23-126-038-_-Product
> 
> Firewire 800 card:  $80
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...060&cm_re=firewire_800-_-00-998-060-_-Product
> 
> web cam:  $60 (just picked a random web cam, this one seems decent)
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16826104074
> 
> 26" IPS monitor:  $950 (*disclaimer see below)
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...6422&cm_re=ips_monitor-_-24-116-422-_-Product
> 
> *This monitor is 1" smaller, runs way lower resolution and is not as high as quality but is the closest thing I can find on newegg and is in stock.  So, really this is probably more in the $1100 range, possibly more.
> 
> OS Windows 7 ultimate OEM $180
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...windows_7_ultimate_oem-_-32-116-762-_-Product
> 
> Total for PC:  $2,285.00
> 
> This is a spec for spec feature for feature comparison.   Of course you can tweak it and find better deals but as of now the iMac is cheaper.  IPS screens are really freaking expensive and since apple buy a lot of them they get a discount and actually probably take a bit of a loss on reselling that part.  However, they mark up the cheaper parts like RAM and HD (because every computer company has to buy those and in bulk they are cheap) and get a higher profit margin on marking up those items.
> 
> The problem is, and always has been, people cannot wrap their head around what is actually in a Mac versus what Apple marks up.  Since the profit margin is way higher on cheaper hardware like RAM, HD, and the like Apple takes advantage of that to make more money than other hardware manufacturers.  In return, their low profit margin items like IPS screens they probably don't mark up at all really.   It is like when you buy a computer from a computer store, they are only making a small percentage mark up.  All the profit is in software and accessories and peripherals.
> 
> That being said, taking into account the total cost of ownership the Mac is a great deal.  I will not argue with someone that says they cannot justify buying a Mac because all they want is a cheap piece of crap the surf the web, yeah a Mac is over kill for that.   However, saying a Mac is over priced is sort of ignorant unless you take everything into account.  I did not even touch software, but only included the OS in that build.





I completely agree with you But with iMac you don't have an option whether you want the IPS panel with LED backlighting.And also if you don't want the expensive software then PC would be a nice way to go.And a normal net browser or even a gamer does not need an IPS panel.
So why not go with a completely customizable PC in which you can Add all the parts which you need for your purpose rather than paying so much for a screen which you actually don't need and you won't notice a difference in the purpose you would be using your computer for it.

Spec for spec it may be of a comparable price but what about all the things which you don't need in it.


----------



## tlarkin

mihir said:


> I completely agree with you But with iMac you don't have an option whether you want the IPS panel with LED backlighting.And also if you don't want the expensive software then PC would be a nice way to go.And a normal net browser or even a gamer does not need an IPS panel.
> So why not go with a completely customizable PC in which you can Add all the parts which you need for your purpose rather than paying so much for a screen which you actually don't need and you won't notice a difference in the purpose you would be using your computer for it.
> 
> Spec for spec it may be of a comparable price but what about all the things which you don't need in it.



I said that in my post.  If you want a cheap piece of crap made by the cheapest bid of parts to just surf the web, then do so.  What I am saying is that a Mac spec for spec is actually decently priced.  People here on the forums typically go like this:

"Oh Macs are teh suck and I can get 50x the machine for half the price and I can like you know play video games and run exe files..."

(slightly sarcastic)

When in reality their ignorance on the comparison is so much that they just assume people who like to buy Macs are stupid.  It is really ironic since they claim superiority but lack the deduction skills to break down the worth and costs of a PC versus a Mac.

I agree with you that if you want a cheap PC then build one and IPS screens really aren't meant for gaming.   Their refresh rates are slightly slower than regular TFT LED LCDs.   However, the color and picture quality on an IPS screen is top notch, and that is why they are so expensive.

Apple's business model is to keep it simple.  They have three versions of every computer they sell.  Entry, midgrade, and higher end.   So, they tend to keep the hardware upgrades to a minimum.

Plus in reality you cannot even compare that desktop I built to an iMac because an iMac is an all-in-one computer.  However, that is the closest thing I can use for a comparison.


----------



## mihir

tlarkin said:


> I said that in my post.  If you want a cheap piece of crap made by the cheapest bid of parts to just surf the web, then do so.  What I am saying is that a Mac spec for spec is actually decently priced.  People here on the forums typically go like this:
> 
> "Oh Macs are teh suck and I can get 50x the machine for half the price and I can like you know play video games and run exe files..."
> 
> (slightly sarcastic)
> 
> When in reality their ignorance on the comparison is so much that they just assume people who like to buy Macs are stupid.  It is really ironic since they claim superiority but lack the deduction skills to break down the worth and costs of a PC versus a Mac.
> 
> I agree with you that if you want a cheap PC then build one and IPS screens really aren't meant for gaming.   Their refresh rates are slightly slower than regular TFT LED LCDs.   However, the color and picture quality on an IPS screen is top notch, and that is why they are so expensive.
> 
> Apple's business model is to keep it simple.  They have three versions of every computer they sell.  Entry, midgrade, and higher end.   So, they tend to keep the hardware upgrades to a minimum.
> 
> Plus in reality you cannot even compare that desktop I built to an iMac because an iMac is an all-in-one computer.  However, that is the closest thing I can use for a comparison.



I never said people are stupid for buying macs.I personally love MACs and am in love with their Display Panels.
You won't believe me but whenever I see a MAC(which are rare in India)
everytime I am stunned by the beauty of the panel,and the show the OS puts up.And atleast explain the specs of the panel to 10 people standing arround me critiquing the mac for being expensive.
I don't have mac because it is not suitable for my purpose that is it.
I need a TN panel in matte for gaming with High refresh rates.
I do know the excellence of IPS panels may it be e-IPS.


----------



## tlarkin

mihir said:


> I never said people are stupid for buying macs.I personally love MACs and am in love with their Display Panels.
> You won't believe me but whenever I see a MAC(which are rare in India)
> everytime I am stunned by the beauty of the panel,and the show the OS puts up.And atleast explain the specs of the panel to 10 people standing arround me critiquing the mac for being expensive.
> I don't have mac because it is not suitable for my purpose that is it.
> I need a TN panel in matte for gaming with High refresh rates.
> I do know the excellence of IPS panels may it be e-IPS.



Wasn't referring to you specifically but just a general comment is all.


----------



## Aastii

tlarkin said:


> *sigh*......3 times the price?  That would infer that Macs have the same hardware at triple the costs....Also, where is your proof on this?  I said spec for spec, not the cheapest POS you can find and give to someone.....I guess I will do this for the, I dunno, 500th billion time on this forum.



For the upgrades... *looks at post #94* that would be 3 times the cost of a component should you buy it yourself rather than from apple 

=EDIT=

actually, if you look at that post, I made a mistake - I thought I was on the UK site, when in fact it is US, so in $, which would make it, when compared to a decent 2 x 2GB set of memory...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231179

near 5 times more expensive for the 4GB upgrade


----------



## tlarkin

Aastii said:


> For the upgrades... *looks at post #94* that would be 3 times the cost of a component should you buy it yourself rather than from apple
> 
> =EDIT=
> 
> actually, if you look at that post, I made a mistake - I thought I was on the UK site, when in fact it is US, so in $, which would make it, when compared to a decent 2 x 2GB set of memory...
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231179
> 
> near 5 times more expensive for the 4GB upgrade



I also pointed out that harping on the RAM costs is a moot point, because every manufacturer does it.  Dell will charge you $60 for a 2gig upgrade.   You can buy RAM third party and it will work fine cheaper than buying it form a vendor.   That is how it has always worked, and Dell is one of the cheaper ones.


----------



## Doctor Varney

I don't think arguing which costs more is really helping very much.  As I've said - what price can you put on consistent performance and reliability?  What does it cost a professional to have his tools fail at a crucial moment?

The price difference could be neglible, compared with the cost of a catastrophic failure at an inappropriate time.  It has happened to me.

I don't think it's so much about what hardware is in there but how that hardware is matched when the machine is built.  From what I'm hearing, Apple take care of that during the design stage.  Building a PC entails a lot of troubleshooting and screaming on forums when it doesn't go right.  I admire the patience of the PC home builders, I really do!

I've also read that upgrading from an old Mac OS to a new one is a matter of something like £30 quid or so.  When (or if) I want to upgrade to Windows 7, it's going to cost me over £100.  Then eventually they will stop the support when they want everyone on the new OS.  Microsoft has you by the balls in that respect.

What looks economical at first blush might not be, in the long run.

I can understand the Apple costing a little more from the outset, because the Apple Macintosh is a  product, whereas a PC is nearly always a kit.

Dr. V


----------



## Demilich

tlarkin said:


> *No, it is a fact.  Look at how many hacks/exploits and so forth are available to Windows based machines.   Now look at how many viruses are in the wild for Unix based ones.   The difference is proof enough that the Unix POSIX model has not only been around a lot longer than Windows, it has also be tested more and found to be more secure over time.   By nature it is more secure, that is a fact.  However, the end user is the largest security hole, and if the end user doesn't understand certain concepts and safe guards no matter how secure your OS is, the end user can easily bypass all the security by just executing bad practices.*



Sorry, but stating that a Mac is safer than a PC is an opinion.

Fact: A fact is something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: An opinion is what someone thinks about that subject. Look for clues such as: "I believe...", "It's obvious...", or "They should..."

http://www.mrsdell.org/gr2/factopinion.html

*There is no way to test that Mac's are safer than PC's without bias. To prove that a Mac is safer, each Mac in the world would need to be tested for this issue to be a fact. Stating Mac's are safer because they are not as popular is an opinion. Stating the end user itself can cause security issues with the Mac or PC is an opinion, and basically just proved your Mac theory incorrect. Stating a Mac is safer "by nature" is an opinion. Stating that one OS has been out longer than another, and this is the reason why the other OS is safer, is an OPINION. Just because there are more viruses out for one OS than the other, does not make one OS safer than the other. The fact is, one OS being better than another is an opinion, one OS being safer than the other, is an opinion. If there are tests, as you say, post these tests that prove Mac's are safer than PC's. *


----------



## tlarkin

Demilich said:


> Sorry, but stating that a Mac is safer than a PC is an opinion.
> 
> Fact: A fact is something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.
> 
> Opinion: An opinion is what someone thinks about that subject. Look for clues such as: "I believe...", "It's obvious...", or "They should..."
> 
> 
> *There is no way to test that Mac's are safer than PC's without bias. To prove that a Mac is safer, each Mac in the world would need to be tested for this issue to be a fact. Stating Mac's are safer because they are not as popular is an opinion. Stating the end user itself can cause security issues with the Mac or PC is an opinion, and basically just proved your Mac theory incorrect. Stating a Mac is safer "by nature" is an opinion. Stating that one OS has been out longer than another, and this is the reason why the other OS is safer, is an OPINION. Just because there are more viruses out for one OS than the other, does not make one OS safer than the other. The fact is, one OS being better than another is an opinion, one OS being safer than the other, is an opinion. If there are tests, as you say, post these tests that prove Mac's are safer than PC's. *



Uh, yeah it is a fact, no matter how many pretty colors you use in your post.  Unix is a far more proven stable and more secure OS, and has proven to be so over time.

How many viruses are out in the wild that work on Unix based OSes?

How many botnets are ran by Unix based OSes?

POSIX has been proven to be more secure and safer to use in large scale secure environments.   Why do you think the backbone of the Internet, let alone the whole Internet is run by Linux machines?   Everything how all non Unix based systems work, even down the inode level, is more secure by design.

Windows, uses a monolithic old and busted OS design and is not modular or flexible.  As long as things like drivers get access to the kernel via kernel hooks hackers will use that to exploit the OS using the same APIs developers use for legit purposes.  The simple fact that whenever you use any Unix based OS, and you have to access or execute anything outside your user's home folder you are *required* to authenticate as admin to do so.  This ensures the fact that programs, apps, and scripts cannot run by themselves and Unix has been doing this for decades.  It is more tried and proven than any OS out there, period.


----------



## Demilich

tlarkin said:


> Uh, yeah it is a fact, no matter how many pretty colors you use in your post.  Unix is a far more proven stable and more secure OS, and has proven to be so over time.
> 
> How many viruses are out in the wild that work on Unix based OSes?
> 
> How many botnets are ran by Unix based OSes?
> 
> POSIX has been proven to be more secure and safer to use in large scale secure environments.   Why do you think the backbone of the Internet, let alone the whole Internet is run by Linux machines?   Everything how all non Unix based systems work, even down the inode level, is more secure by design.
> 
> Windows, uses a monolithic old and busted OS design and is not modular or flexible.  As long as things like drivers get access to the kernel via kernel hooks hackers will use that to exploit the OS using the same APIs developers use for legit purposes.  The simple fact that whenever you use any Unix based OS, and you have to access or execute anything outside your user's home folder you are *required* to authenticate as admin to do so.  This ensures the fact that programs, apps, and scripts cannot run by themselves and Unix has been doing this for decades.  It is more tried and proven than any OS out there, period.



I'm trying my best not to be rude here, but you're definitely making it more difficult to do so. Sure, it's probably true that Mac's don't get as many viruses as PC's. PROVE IT. Stating that is still an OPINION, until you can PROVE that Mac's don't get as many viruses as PC's. Also, as my buddy here pointed out, doing a Mac to PC comparison is basically the same as comparing the Chinese population to the Lebanese in terms of which country is smarter, or sicker, etc. Chinese population: 1,331,460,000 Lebanese population: 4,224,000. Also, as brought up by my buddy, the computers in the Department of Defense use PC's. Now, as we know the Department of Defense has some pretty fantastic firewalls. Will they get viruses? Probably not. That's not to say they wont. But without the firewall, would a Mac working at the Defense be attacked as much as a PC? Use your imagination. You're comparing a mountain to a hill, and then stating an opinion that the hill is safer, with no evidence. "Windows, uses a monolithic old and busted OS design and is not modular or flexible"....blah blah blah. That's an opinion. Opinion. "It is more tried and proven than any OS out there, period." OPINION. Dude, you need to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, seriously.


----------



## Okedokey

Tlarkin, 90% of what you say is rubbish, however macs by far have less viruses, because virus and malware authors want the virus to spread, and when you have less than 8% of the market, you don't spend much time on it.

The cost of hardware is not a moot point, because unlike a mac, i can upgrade my pc anytime for around 1/5 the cost of a mac where possible.

Also, what we are talking about here is the OS.  That is all.  You can crap on about hardware till the cows come home, but hardware is hardware.  Period.

The choice is between OS's.  And, with little or no support, limited software support, large learning curve and an inability to upgrade to match increasingly higher hardware requirements - macs are a poor choice.

Go ahead, buy a mac for 3 grand, that you can get for 600 bucks that does 1/20th of the tasks.  Wow, that sounds smart.  The virus debate is stupid too, i have never, repeat never lost anything due to malware.  Its an overstated issue.

Get Win 7, install and set it up properly and learn how to maintain your computer.  Period.


----------



## Aastii

Dell may very well charge over the odds for components the same as Apple does, but it is a PC, you can do it yourself for off-the-shelf prices, which you can't do with a mac because of form factors and because of their "quality control", which is just money grabbing, as there are plenty of quality alternatives that are missed out, and they don't use premium parts everywhere.

As bigfella says, hardware is not a moot point, because of upgrades in the future, and also because it is much easier to customise a PC.

Macs come with a lot of useless stuff for the average user, and most of that stuff can be got, or an equivalent can be got, for Windows, because of the massive amount of support. To claim as well that Mac's aren't overpriced:

27" iMac:

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC511LL/A?mco=MTg1ODA4MDM#hardware

$2000

Equal spec system running Windows:

CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115067

Mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157211

Memory: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231179

Hard Drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152185

GPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102865

PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371035

Case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811146061

DVD RW: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827151192

Monitor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009276

+ Copy of Windows

Total - $1062

That doesn't include mouse + keyboard, but a mouse + keyboard for $900?

You can get all of the other software for free or much cheaper as well, because the Windows alternatives appeal to a much greater number of people.

As for moot points, the virus point is a moot point. The majority of virus' on a PC are got from user stupidity, not the Windows OS itself. Yes, it exploits the OS, but it is so easy to avoid them. Not one of the system's in my house house has ever had a virus and all are running Windows, and it is down to proper maintenence and the user's having common sense. Why would you go and click a big, flashy advert saying "click here and win and iPod!!!", or go on sketchy websites? If you do, you are asking for trouble, and you are going to get a virus, that is the user, not the OS.

I do not disagree for a second that Windows has a greater number of vulnerabilities, but I do disagree it is these vulnerabilities that are the cause for the amount of virus'. It is because of the size of the user base, so easier to get to more people, and because of more people, much less experienced users exposing themselves to the virus'


----------



## Okedokey

Aastii, thanks for turning my post into something sensible


----------



## tlarkin

bigfellla said:


> Tlarkin, 90% of what you say is rubbish, however macs by far have less viruses, because virus and malware authors want the virus to spread, and when you have less than 8% of the market, you don't spend much time on it.



That is simply not true.   Almost all malware these days uses browser exploits, which has little to do with the OS itself in some regards.    However, there are still zero known viruses in the wild for any Unix based OS.  Look it up, it is true.



> The cost of hardware is not a moot point, because unlike a mac, i can upgrade my pc anytime for around 1/5 the cost of a mac where possible.


It is not a moot point because every PC person brings it up all the time.  They say Macs are over priced, which actually is not true at all.   Macs have expensive components in them, and the down side is users don't get a choice to buy a Mac with cheaper components.  It is like buying a Volkswagen versus an Audi.   Same hardware, way different design, and way different quality of some parts.




> The choice is between OS's.  And, with little or no support, limited software support, large learning curve and an inability to upgrade to match increasingly higher hardware requirements - macs are a poor choice.



I doubt you have even used a Mac, and I doubt you have had to support them in an enterprise environment.   If they are such crap why did Google just switch it's 10,000+ employees to all Macs?



> Go ahead, buy a mac for 3 grand, that you can get for 600 bucks that does 1/20th of the tasks.  Wow, that sounds smart.  The virus debate is stupid too, i have never, repeat never lost anything due to malware.  Its an overstated issue.
> 
> Get Win 7, install and set it up properly and learn how to maintain your computer.  Period.



Malware != a virus.   A virus self replicates and automatically installs itself on a computer.  Malware almost always has some sort of user interaction with it.  Also, hardware does matter.  Maybe not to some users, but it does matter when calculating the cost of the computer.    Plus Macs hold their resell value and have at least a 5 year life cycle in them.  Show me a 5 year old PC that is running Windows 7?   I have two 6 year old iMacs (1st gen intel) in my office that are running OS X 10.6 and they run it fast and great.   I don't think you are actually reading what I am writing, I am talking about overall cost of ownership here, not just initial costs.

@ Aastii-

Your comparison doesn't hold water, as it is not a comparison to an actual iMac.  For one, you are going to pay near $1,000 for a 27inch IPS screen.  I am not saying you cannot build a PC to do the same jobs you would on an iMac for cheaper.  Obviously if you are only going to use a computer for surfing the web, then getting an iMac may be over kill.   However, your comparison is a really bad one from those parts on Newegg.com.  

Also, upgrading is actually a moot point.   I upgrade my PC about every 3 to 4 years.   By the time I am upgrading I have to buy a new motherboard because the sockets changed for the new processors.  The new motherboard takes a different type of memory so now I gotta buy new RAM.    I don't want to bottleneck my GPU so I gotta buy a new video card.  My new video card requires more power to run, so I gotta upgrade my power supply.   In reality, I am pretty much building a whole new PC every time I upgrade.   For the past 10 years I haven't ever been able to actually upgrade a PC with out rebuilding 80% of it with new parts.



> You can get all of the other software for free or much cheaper as well, because the Windows alternatives appeal to a much greater number of people.











> As for moot points, the virus point is a moot point. The majority of virus' on a PC are got from user stupidity, not the Windows OS itself. Yes, it exploits the OS, but it is so easy to avoid them. Not one of the system's in my house house has ever had a virus and all are running Windows, and it is down to proper maintenence and the user's having common sense. Why would you go and click a big, flashy advert saying "click here and win and iPod!!!", or go on sketchy websites? If you do, you are asking for trouble, and you are going to get a virus, that is the user, not the OS.
> 
> I do not disagree for a second that Windows has a greater number of vulnerabilities, but I do disagree it is these vulnerabilities that are the cause for the amount of virus'. It is because of the size of the user base, so easier to get to more people, and because of more people, much less experienced users exposing themselves to the virus'



You are missing the point.   The whole point of what I wrote is that Windows has a less secure OS design, and Unix based OSes have a more secure.


----------



## Demilich

tlarkin said:


> ...The whole point of what I wrote is that Windows has a less secure OS design, and Unix based OSes have a more secure.



How is this so? How, in comparing a mountain (Microsoft) to a hill (Unix), is Unix safer, and Windows a less secure design? Please elaborate on how that is true.


----------



## tlarkin

Demilich said:


> I'm trying my best not to be rude here, but you're definitely making it more difficult to do so. Sure, it's probably true that Mac's don't get as many viruses as PC's. PROVE IT. Stating that is still an OPINION, until you can PROVE that Mac's don't get as many viruses as PC's. Also, as my buddy here pointed out, doing a Mac to PC comparison is basically the same as comparing the Chinese population to the Lebanese in terms of which country is smarter, or sicker, etc. Chinese population: 1,331,460,000 Lebanese population: 4,224,000. Also, as brought up by my buddy, the computers in the Department of Defense use PC's. Now, as we know the Department of Defense has some pretty fantastic firewalls. Will they get viruses? Probably not. That's not to say they wont. But without the firewall, would a Mac working at the Defense be attacked as much as a PC? Use your imagination. You're comparing a mountain to a hill, and then stating an opinion that the hill is safer, with no evidence. "Windows, uses a monolithic old and busted OS design and is not modular or flexible"....blah blah blah. That's an opinion. Opinion. "It is more tried and proven than any OS out there, period." OPINION. Dude, you need to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, seriously.



*sigh*
No dude it is a fact.  Do you know and understand what POSIX is?   What the OS does to the file system in the inode level?   Do you understand how the kernel works with intricate parts of the OS itself?  I have clearly explained this, and if you did a little google searching you can verify these facts for yourself.  Every security expert in the world will tell you, that Windows is the least secure OS out there.  The argument is that it is used the most and therefore targeted the most is not really the whole reason.   When you allow a technology, like Active X, directly access the kernel via kernel hooks, with out any form of authentication you are asking for your OS to be rooted, period.

Now, most attacks on OSes these days are web based and usually attack some browser exploit.   This is because browsers depend on a lot of different things.  Code like php, html, css, and so forth.  Frameworks like Java, and proprietary support for things like flash.  There is so much code that goes into everything a web browser does there are always security leaks.

As for the DoD using Windows, you are right they do.  It is not because Windows is secure either.  It is because they are the government,and very bureaucratic and slow to adapt new technologies.  Also, each department of hte government does their own thing, there is no unified decision making going on.   The Army understands this, and has actually started to purchase and integrate Macs into their environment.  Like I said, Microsoft did something or didn't do something which made Google switch over to 100% Macs.  I know this because I interviewed with Google for a job to admin the Macs.  They told me this in the interview but would not disclose the reason why.

Sources for you to read:

http://techmiso.com/271/dod-has-no-desire-to-mitigate-windows-dependency/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html

http://www.suite101.com/content/mac-security-vs-pc-security-a1926

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/windows-inherently-more-vulnerable-malware-attacks-os-x-489

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

http://www.biznix.org/articles/winlinsecure.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ft-map-shows-PCs-botnet-infections-world.html


I will try to explain this again, and yes these are actual facts.  Look them up in white papers and read on the inner workings of Windows, Unix, Linux and OS X.    First of all, Windows was never really a multiple user platform until Windows Vista.   In Vista, they got rid of the Documents and Settings folder, and actually started giving users their own home folder.   However, system processes were still spawned under the same users in Vista, and ran as root.   In Windows 7, Microsoft is migrating to more of a Unix platform, and yes security did deeply improve.  The user SYSTEM in Windows is the equivalent to the root user in *nix OSes.   That user can run anything, and has super user privileges, it also has no password.   If you can escalate something to SYSTEM, you have immediately full control of the computer with out it ever asking for a password, which is why script kiddies root Windows boxes.  This is a fact, and it is well documented.

Linux out of the box is not as secure as one would think.  There are tons of things you can do to make your Linux box more secure.  Same thing with a Mac.  Things like POSIX and ACLs to restrict access to certain parts of the system to specific users and groups.   Windows now has this stuff also built in, but it is not fully matured yet.   Previously Windows did not have any of this.

Open source code has way more many eyes looking at it.  Which means bugs are generally found better and *nix based OSes tend to have less security holes than Windows does.  However, I will give Microsoft credit where it is due.  They have the best patching and updating system out there.   They keep their OS up to date and patch their security holes fairly quickly.   After all, they have had plenty of practice doing this.

A lot of what I am talking about may not be applicable these days in security.  A lot of what I am talking about doesn't always come into effect when security loop holes are used.  Most of today's attacks are done by socially engineering the end user to click on something or install something that looks legit but is really a piece of malware.  No OS or platform is safe from a dumb user, period.   A lot of attacks don't exploit the OS as they used to, and Windows has gotten a lot more secure over the past 2 releases, and that is because it is adopting a Unix-like file system and starting to limit what a local user can do and require authentication (via the security center, allow, deny) for things to run.  However, I still think Windows has a bit to go to catch up.

In retrospect Apple has a bit to go on getting their exploits fixed in a faster motion.  The DNS exploit and the ARD Admin bug, were both sitting there un-patched for about 6 months and were widely known throughout all the Internets but Apple has never suffered a major hit from an exploit being used to crash and hack machines.

Microsoft does do well on their server side products.  They basically stole NDS from Novell and turned it into their product Active Directory, and it gives system admins robust options for managing users.   It is superior in many ways to use it as a platform to manage users.   Also, they are smart with marketing and they had stiff competition from Novell, since Novell did it first, but Microsoft basically stole their technologies and then stole their business because Microsoft was way better at business than Novell.   Since then, Microsoft has put itself in a permanent place in server infrastructure.   Most businesses do run some sort of Windows server with AD.   And it does it's job great.

However, more recently companies have been switching over to virtualization systems, with Unix and Linux backbones and giving their users a choice of what client the want, Mac or PC.   Universities, some military, NASA, and some major companies are switching to Macs, because for the first time you can integrate a Mac and have it authenticate against an AD server.

Macs, are still by design more secure, period.  I have been in IT and working and administering Linux, OS X, and Windows for over a decade now.  I have hands on and professional experience with all three platforms.  I actually prefer Linux or OS X as my main OS because I think Windows performs the worst and is the most bloated, but I always keep a Windows box in my home to keep up to date, develop code for Windows, and of course to play video games.   I have put in my time, and gone through the trials with all of the platforms out there.   Linux doesn't necessarily have a higher learning curve than Windows does, it is just different.  So many people never take the time to fully understand it.  Furthermore, if you want to argue there is a high learning curve learning how to use a Mac, you maybe should get rid of your computer and get an iPad or the Android equivalent because Macs are by far the easiest computer to use, and there are so many similarities to Windows that if you can use Windows you can use a Mac pretty damn quick.  I have done my time, and I have lived through virus attacks on PCs, even when a PC was deep frozen.....I have never had to deal with a Mac virus in my 10+ years of working in IT.   I have read about them for the old classic OS.  I have also never seen a virus for Linux or Unix either, and there are also zero known viruses in the wild for any Unix based OS.  Unix based OSes run the Internet, why would they not be targeted by hackers?

If you cannot accept that, then I guess this conversation is over.

That being said, to the OP, buy what you want.  It is your money.  I recommend the Macs, they are great machines.  Yes they are more expensive and no they aren't invulnerable to hardware failure, but they are high quality and their OS is light weight, snappy, and runs for a long time on current and older hardware.   The overall cost of ownership of a Mac is cheaper if you take into account everything you get, the resell value, and the life cycle of the Mac.


----------



## patrickv

Demilich said:


> How is this so? How, in comparing a mountain (Microsoft) to a hill (Unix), is Unix safer, and Windows a less secure design? Please elaborate on how that is true.



LOL, that is the most dumbest question one can ask (I mean assuming you're an IT guy). You do know that unix filesystem is by far more secure that windows. Google is your friend, a little research would really help.


----------



## Demilich

tlarkin said:


> *sigh*
> No dude it is a fact.  Do you know and understand what POSIX is?   What the OS does to the file system in the inode level?   Do you understand how the kernel works with intricate parts of the OS itself?  I have clearly explained this, and if you did a little google searching you can verify these facts for yourself.  Every security expert in the world will tell you, that Windows is the least secure OS out there.  The argument is that it is used the most and therefore targeted the most is not really the whole reason.   When you allow a technology, like Active X, directly access the kernel via kernel hooks, with out any form of authentication you are asking for your OS to be rooted, period.
> 
> Sources for you to read:...



You know, in your entire last post, you just single handedly solved _The Microsoft Problem_. We shall soon expect to see the Army, DoD, Microsoft, etc switch to Mac's. Amazing.

I've read most of those articles already; however, most articles can be and will be manipulated in a way to favor one party or the other. Just being realistic. For example, I went to Google, and typed "Are Mac's safer than PC's?" Most of the articles stated that it's "possible" that Mac's are safer than PC's. However, most of the articles stated that many of the "experts" they interviewed told them that the "Mac vs. PC safer" debate is completely ridiculous, and that each OS has their own severe vulnerabilities. So I suppose not every expert, or professional, would agree that a Mac is safer.  Just saying.



tlarkin said:


> In retrospect Apple has a bit to go on getting their exploits fixed in a faster motion.  The DNS exploit and the ARD Admin bug, were both sitting there un-patched for about 6 months and were widely known throughout all the Internets but Apple has never suffered a major hit from an exploit being used to crash and hack machines.



So this couldn't couldn't possibly be because Mac is in 8% of the market, and the bug was much less reported than a similar Microsoft bug? Seriously?




tlarkin said:


> Microsoft does do well on their server side products.  They basically stole NDS from Novell and turned it into their product Active Directory, and it gives system admins robust options for managing users.   It is superior in many ways to use it as a platform to manage users.   Also, they are smart with marketing and they had stiff competition from Novell, since Novell did it first, but Microsoft basically stole their technologies and then stole their business because Microsoft was way better at business than Novell.   Since then, Microsoft has put itself in a permanent place in server infrastructure.   Most businesses do run some sort of Windows server with AD.   And it does it's job great.
> 
> However, more recently companies have been switching over to virtualization systems, with Unix and Linux backbones and giving their users a choice of what client the want, Mac or PC.   Universities, some military, NASA, and some major companies are switching to Macs, because for the first time you can integrate a Mac and have it authenticate against an AD server.
> 
> Macs, are still by design more secure, period....Unix based OSes run the Internet, why would they not be targeted by hackers?



That's a bit of a bold three paragraph post, wouldn't you agree? To state that Microsoft is a thief? Seems almost like you-know-what. Again, just saying.


----------



## Demilich

patrickv said:


> LOL, that is the most dumbest question one can ask (I mean assuming you're an IT guy). You do know that unix filesystem is by far more secure that windows. Google is your friend, a little research would really help.



Says the guy who's profile and signature is "Mac'd out". I have, just as anybody has, Googled the Mac vs. PC debate, and found nothing that has proven anything. All I find is a ton of arguments against one, or for the other. I've even asked IT guys lolz they give me the answer I figured I would get from an actual educated and experienced IT guy: "You can't compare a mountain to a hill" LOLz, or, "sure, Mac's are "safer", for now, but let the roles of M and M be reversed, and Mac will shine it's true vulnerabilities." Not to say I haven't had an "all Mac" response, but most were MUCH more educated than one is "safer" than the other.


----------



## tlarkin

Demilich said:


> You know, in your entire last post, you just single handedly solved _The Microsoft Problem_. We shall soon expect to see the Army, DoD, Microsoft, etc switch to Mac's. Amazing.



You do realize how government works right?  I work for the government, and they make very bad decisions on technology and are generally behind everyone else.    Private companies are almost always ahead of the curve.   If Windows is so superior why did Google just switch over to Mac?  Google is probably one of the few companies that was never platform dependent.   They don't run Mac or Windows servers as their backbone.  They run Linux, and they write their own tools to do their own work, which means they are not locked into any product.    This is rare because most IT departments depend on third party tools to do their job, hardly any of them write their own.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/31...ndows-mostly-to-mac-due-to-security-concerns/

http://www.dutchdailynews.com/google-mac/

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...mpt_google_to_switch_from_windows_to_mac.html

Oh, but wait, Google has biased idiots working in their security department.   They must be Mac fan boys.   You know, because MS is a mountain and Mac is a hill, which is a totally flawed analogy.



> I've read most of those articles already; however, most articles can be and will be manipulated in a way to favor one party or the other. Just being realistic. For example, I went to Google, and typed "Are Mac's safer than PC's?" Most of the articles stated that it's "possible" that Mac's are safer than PC's. However, most of the articles stated that many of the "experts" they interviewed told them that the "Mac vs. PC safer" debate is completely ridiculous, and that each OS has their own severe vulnerabilities. So I suppose not every expert, or professional, would agree that a Mac is safer.  Just saying.



I have already proven my side, you need to counter it.  Prove to me it is less secure or not as secure.   I am not talking about some blogs or people's opinion pieces.  Look at real security teams.  Google has the money to hire the best security consultants in the world, and they made an executive decision to ditch Windows.





> So this couldn't couldn't possibly be because Mac is in 8% of the market, and the bug was much less reported than a similar Microsoft bug? Seriously?



Apple just released a patch last month which killed several known bugs, and patched several unknown bugs.  Some hackers that sit on bugs for years to use them at hacking conventions to get cash prizes were actually admitted Apple is improving it's patching process.  They have only been developing OS X for about 10 years, while Microsoft has had a bit more time perfecting their product.





> That's a bit of a bold three paragraph post, wouldn't you agree? To state that Microsoft is a thief? Seems almost like you-know-what. Again, just saying.



Do you even know what you are talking about?   It is widely known that Novell pioneered modern management of users and network accounts.   NDS came out with zen way before anything else did.   Which is why so many government institutions still use Novell.  They dumped all their money into one platform years ago and do not want to reinvest their money.  Then some years later Microsoft purchased nearly $500 million dollars of intellectual property rights from Novell, why is that?

The bottom line of the enterprise market share is that it is expensive to switch to any platform you did not buy into.  However, some places are starting to do it.  Apple has had a huge increase in market share over the past 8 years.   They now have a 28% consumer market share in the USA.   Most IT departments are locked into a product, and/or too lazy or not concerned to work with something else.  Plus, not every IT person can work outside of Windows.  They don't teach a lot of Unix or Mac in college.   Typically they will scratch the surface with Unix, but they never go into depth and they also don't go into teaching how t code in python, perl, ruby, shell, and the like to help automate processes of being a System's Administrator.

I can code in python, shell, perl, and ruby (though I am very noob in some languages) and I am starting to write my own tools and use them in conjunction with my third party my company buys.   If my boss were to tell me we were going to scrap everything we got and go to something else, I have enough tools I have written on my own I could probably migrate them to a new product.   Since Python and Ruby run on all platforms, it is a good idea to use them.   Most IT people never even bother to learn this stuff, and a lot of them cannot even use the command line.

I agree that most attacks these days target the end user, which doesn't matter how safe your OS is, because the end user is the weakest link.   However, that does not change the fact that Unix based OSes are by design more secure.  Anyone can embed malicious code into a pirated piece of software for any platform and put it out on the web and let suckers download it and root their machines.   Heck, I know a guy who's mac got hacked because he downloaded a crappy flash game that was actually malware.  It had opened up SSH and created a dummy account and his computer was being tunneled in from someone in China.  Of course he had no idea that a simple flash game could do that.    This is by no means the fault of the OS, so security is a moot point these days when attacks like that are the most common.

However, on paper, and by design with things like POSIX, and the lack of things like kernel hooks, Unix based OSes are more secure.   If you don't understand this, then this conversation is done.   You like to argue with me all the time on this subject yet, you never provide any facts, nor do you even always know what exactly you are talking about.


----------



## CdnAudiophile

Don't argue with Tlarkin. He is a paid fanboy of Apple.

Also to answer thread question my advice is don't buy one. There is no point to spend more then $400 on a windows based PC for the average user.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> Don't argue with Tlarkin. He is a paid fanboy of Apple.
> 
> Also to answer thread question my advice is don't buy one. There is no point to spend more then $400 on a windows based PC for the average user.



He's just a philosopher that builds logical structured arguments.

Now, before you start bashing Apple, have you ever used a Mac? Seriously guys, I think quite a lot of people in this thread have never used a Mac and are basing their opinions on what they've heard and mere pictures.


----------



## tlarkin

I am not bashing Windows in the sense no one should use it.  If you hate Linux or hate Mac, then why use something you hate?   I am simply pointing out that Unix is the most tried and tested OS out there, it was originally developed in the late 1960s.  It has been a true multi user platform for many years.  Microsoft is just now catching up.

There are things that are not maybe valid to your average end user.  I totally agree with that.  I doubt end users care about the security model of not having access to anything outside your home folder, nor do they understand the security model that has this by default.   That doesn't take away from the fact it is a superior model from a security stand point.

The fact that Unix has withstood the test of time, and is older than any OS out there and still has the least amount of exploits, tend to prove the fact it is more secure.  Which is why it is such a popular server model.   99% of end users don't need the server model, I agree.  Again, just because an end user doesn't need those abilities does not take away from the fact it is more secure by design.


----------



## CdnAudiophile

lucasbytegenius said:


> He's just a philosopher that builds logical structured arguments.
> 
> Now, before you start bashing Apple, have you ever used a Mac? Seriously guys, I think quite a lot of people in this thread have never used a Mac and are basing their opinions on what they've heard and mere pictures.



I think you have a thing for tlarkin. Also you assume too much. 

Please tell me how a Mac is better than a $400 windows based PC for the average user. The same PC is even capable of running Ubuntu or w/e flavor of linux you wanted to as well.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> I think you have a thing for tlarkin. Also you assume too much.
> 
> Please tell me how a Mac is better than a $400 windows based PC for the average user. The same PC is even capable of running Ubuntu or w/e flavor of linux you wanted to as well.



I don't have a thing for tlarkin. And I refuse to answer such a stupid question when it's been more than answered for you.


----------



## patrickv

Demilich said:


> Says the guy who's profile and signature is "Mac'd out". I have, just as anybody has, Googled the Mac vs. PC debate, and found nothing that has proven anything.



Bro, I'm an IT guy, I am both a PC and Mac user. Stop being dumb for once, between me and you we are discussing file systems, not Macs vs Pc. Grow up for a minute and google about file system hierarchy. Then you'll understand.

The fun thing to notice on CF is that people are so immature, sorry mods but that's a fact. Someone starts a thread about (Macs) just asking one very simple question and the cursed thing ends into a freaking argument.


----------



## patrickv

lucasbytegenius said:


> Now, before you start bashing Apple, have you ever used a Mac? Seriously guys, I think quite a lot of people in this thread have never used a Mac and are basing their opinions on what they've heard and mere pictures.



Amen to that. :good:


----------



## mihir

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> *I think you have a thing for tlarkin. Also you assume too much. *
> 
> Please tell me how a Mac is better than a $400 windows based PC for the average user. The same PC is even capable of running Ubuntu or w/e flavor of linux you wanted to as well.



Guys please don't go personal otherwise this thread would be closed and the OPs question will remains unanswered and there also might be a few temp bans.


As for the debate why do both the sides need to prove that their machine is superior to the other.Since they both know they will never convince one another.There will be nothing like ohh yeah this guy was right and I am wrong on this thread and both of the sides know it.
Both the sides are well educated in the field of computers and while buying their machines all of you must have analyzed it perfectly and also would have compared a lot of other options etc etc.But I have a news flash for you guys "People have different opinions and not all think the same or want the same"
If someone like a MAC over a PC its because all the Pros of a MAC compared to a PC are in his liking and the samething goes other ways.Most of you are just listing the pros and cons of each machines.


----------



## Doctor Varney

Thank you, Mihir.  Very well said.

Did anyone actually read the original post?  It's "Buying advice for a Mac".

If I asked for advice on buying a typewriter, then I want to buy a typewriter.  Telling me I should buy a computer with word processing software would not be advising me on the best typewriter to buy.  It would be trying to persuade me to buy a computer instead of a typewiter.  Many fair points would be made in the process, but I would still be no closer to knowing which typewriter I needed.  Do you see what I'm saying here...?

So - does anyone have any advice for buying a 2nd hand Mac - for a seasoned PC user who requires some introduction to Macs?  I am not in the market for the biggest powerMac - I just need to run Photoshop CS2 and a decent DAW package with VST instruments.

Instead, we seem to have attracted a lot of PC fans who have it in for the Mac.  I do relate to their arguments because I have been there myself with this particular way of thinking.

Let's get something straight:  When I am carrying out important tasks on the Mac platform, I will not be thinking about how much money I could have saved with a PC.  Instead, I will be thinking about how much money I am making...  I have already saved a ton of money by buying (building my own) PC, only to have lost it again, due to unproductive downtime through repeated operating system and hardware failures.

I've come to the conclusion, it's no good asking PC gaming enthusiasts whether it's worth buying a Mac.  They don't think in the same way because of their particular requirements.  If we want a great, reliable and comfortable car for the road, we do not need to know which rally car will shave 0.100056 seconds off the race by the way it takes corners at speed.  We invariably end up with an aggressive info dump instead of a plain answer which is sensitive to the buyers tastes and requirements.

I know that a PC has to be maintained in order to function properly.  Contrary to what has been suggested, I DO know enough about PCs to be able to sort out most of the problems... part of that has included me creating a dual boot system which quarantines my work environment from the Internet.  The point is, that the problems arose in the first place, when really they needn't have.

I don't need to be an expert in computing to understand that a Mac is safer on the internet than a PC.  I will stick my neck out and say it is probably a fact - because there are not as many viruses and malware exploits written for the Mac platform.  We need to distinguish here between viruses that you must click a link in order to contract and those which find their way in without any interaction from the user.  That may be where Macs are safer but the common sense of the Information Age is simply - don't click on anything you don't trust.  So when people DO click on things they shouldn't - that is probably why people are saying Macs are not safer than PCs.  But on the whole, for now, I am willing to believe it, until someone can show evidence to suggest otherwise.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone graciously for their input to this thread.  I both admire your passion and value your information.

Dr. V


----------



## lucasbytegenius

Do you want a desktop or a laptop? You could look into used Mac Minis or iMacs if you're looking for a desktop, or used MacBooks. The last 2-3 years is a good time period to search in.


----------



## Demilich

patrickv said:


> Bro, I'm an IT guy, I am both a PC and Mac user. Stop being dumb for once, between me and you we are discussing file systems, not Macs vs Pc. Grow up for a minute and google about file system hierarchy. Then you'll understand.
> 
> The fun thing to notice on CF is that people are so immature, sorry mods but that's a fact. Someone starts a thread about (Macs) just asking one very simple question and the cursed thing ends into a freaking argument.



Your statement proving this simple theory: Windows/PC*>*OSX/Mac *=* reasonable thinking*>*rebel "I'm always right" or something like that.


----------



## Doctor Varney

lucasbytegenius said:


> Do you want a desktop or a laptop? You could look into used Mac Minis or iMacs if you're looking for a desktop, or used MacBooks. The last 2-3 years is a good time period to search in.



Thank you, Lucas.  I want a desktop.  It's not meant to be portable most of the time but there might well be times when it has to travel and be set up at an event.  That wouldn't be such an issue as to warrant definitely having a laptop unit.

Mac Minis... iMacs and then there are the differences between G3, 4, 5 etc which I need to explore.  Being a PC user for such a long time, I have never really looked at the Mac market before.

So it seems logical for me to take what I have now and compare those specs with the equivalent Macintosh models (either past or present) which are available to me.

Currently I am using:
Athlon 64 4000+ (single core - about to go dual core)
2.41 GHz
1 MB RAM (about to upgrade to 2MB).

So realistically, I think I'd be looking for the equivalent to the post-upgrade PC.

I'll still be keeping the PC for it's ability to use free software and various other features - but the Mac would (in theory) become the more serious workhorse and itself be connected to the Internet.

One thing that would be very useful for giving me a range of modern audio interfaces to choose from, would be a firewire port.  If you could advise on how or if thats possible...?

Then it will be a case of discovering which DAW software available to the Mac platform suits me the best.

Thanks

Dr. V


----------



## tlarkin

Doctor Varney said:


> Thank you, Mihir.  Very well said.
> 
> Did anyone actually read the original post?  It's "Buying advice for a Mac".



Yeah my bad, I just hate it when people like to bash something with tons of misinformation.



> So - does anyone have any advice for buying a 2nd hand Mac - for a seasoned PC user who requires some introduction to Macs?  I am not in the market for the biggest powerMac - I just need to run Photoshop CS2 and a decent DAW package with VST instruments.



CS2 will be a problem for a new Mac.   Older Macs were based off of Power PC technology (PPC) and were written in entirely different code for an entirely different hardware architecture.    CS2 is written for PPC hardware.   You will have to at least get CS3 to get universal binary versions, and even then you are most likely best off with CS4.  This is entirely Adobe's fault, and Adobe is a horrible developer.  I hate supporting their very crappily coded apps.   I get that photoshop is super powerful and a must have tool for some, but supporting it, packaging it, deploying it and dealing with group policy and licensing, Adobe is the worst.     As for DAW, Macs run a plethora of digital audio apps.  Depending on what you want to do you could use Garage Band, MOTU, Pro Tools, Logic, Final Cut Studio, Reason, and so many other apps out there.



> Instead, we seem to have attracted a lot of PC fans who have it in for the Mac.  I do relate to their arguments because I have been there myself with this particular way of thinking.



I hate to say this, but a lot of times the most vocal people are also the most ignorant, or perhaps most misinformed.   



> Let's get something straight:  When I am carrying out important tasks on the Mac platform, I will not be thinking about how much money I could have saved with a PC.  Instead, I will be thinking about how much money I am making...  I have already saved a ton of money by buying (building my own) PC, only to have lost it again, due to unproductive downtime through repeated operating system and hardware failures.



I concur, I switched over to Macs professionally about 5 years ago.   I have been working with Macs and supporting them since 1999 by profession, but never actually ran my personal computer as a Mac.   I found myself being 10x more productive.  With Spaces, Stacks, and the multitasking memory management of OS X, I found myself doing a lot more work more efficiently.



> I've come to the conclusion, it's no good asking PC gaming enthusiasts whether it's worth buying a Mac.  They don't think in the same way because of their particular requirements.  If we want a great, reliable and comfortable car for the road, we do not need to know which rally car will shave 0.100056 seconds off the race by the way it takes corners at speed.  We invariably end up with an aggressive info dump instead of a plain answer which is sensitive to the buyers tastes and requirements.



Again, I hate to say this about gamers because I hate talking in stereotypes, but a lot of them are very misinformed.  i often see them building rigs with 8 to 12 gigs of RAM.  They don't realize that 99% of games are 32bit apps, which can never use or address more than 4gigs of RAM.   Having 8gigs is a waste, unless they are going to do some serious multitasking outside of gaming.   Even the fact that almost all games are 32bit and can only address a maximum of 4gigs of RAM, hardly any of them will actually take 4gigs.   I got 8gigs in my PC (I run virtual machines) and the most I have ever seen a video game take up, is around 3gigs.   Gamers also have the mindset of hardware hardware hardware.   Hardware only becomes really apparent when you actually push it to the level needed.   Performance is not always dictated alone by hardware.  Your OS resource allocation and app performance hold a hand in performance just as much as hardware at times.




> I know that a PC has to be maintained in order to function properly.  Contrary to what has been suggested, I DO know enough about PCs to be able to sort out most of the problems... part of that has included me creating a dual boot system which quarantines my work environment from the Internet.  The point is, that the problems arose in the first place, when really they needn't have.



Computing is just like anything else.  If you take the time to actually read up on the subject and learn it, you can.  It isn't hard, but it is just really boring to some people.  Most people do not care to learn about memory management or perhaps the inner workings of a file system.  I even admit, it gets quite boring and I have to know it for my job.



> I don't need to be an expert in computing to understand that a Mac is safer on the internet than a PC.  I will stick my neck out and say it is probably a fact - because there are not as many viruses and malware exploits written for the Mac platform.  We need to distinguish here between viruses that you must click a link in order to contract and those which find their way in without any interaction from the user.  That may be where Macs are safer but the common sense of the Information Age is simply - don't click on anything you don't trust.  So when people DO click on things they shouldn't - that is probably why people are saying Macs are not safer than PCs.  But on the whole, for now, I am willing to believe it, until someone can show evidence to suggest otherwise.



Lots of security experts would agree that since the Mac has a smaller market share it is less targeted.  I have already laid out the many reasons why Unix based OSes are more stable and secure than Windows, so I won't repeat myself again.



> I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone graciously for their input to this thread.  I both admire your passion and value your information.
> 
> Dr. V



I will be expecting my free beer in the mail.   


To answer your question - If you are going to be doing some heavy audio and video work, I would get an iMac or a Mac Pro, or if you want to go mobile a Macbook Pro.   Some Hollywood videos have been post edited on Macbook Pros.



> I think you have a thing for tlarkin. Also you assume too much.
> 
> Please tell me how a Mac is better than a $400 windows based PC for the average user. The same PC is even capable of running Ubuntu or w/e flavor of linux you wanted to as well.



The average user wants to run Ubuntu?  I don't think so.   You bring nothing to this conversation, you cannot even contribute.  You are simply trolling.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

Doctor Varney said:


> Thank you, Lucas.  I want a desktop.  It's not meant to be portable most of the time but there might well be times when it has to travel and be set up at an event.  That wouldn't be such an issue as to warrant definitely having a laptop unit.
> 
> Mac Minis... iMacs and then there are the differences between G3, 4, 5 etc which I need to explore.  Being a PC user for such a long time, I have never really looked at the Mac market before.
> 
> So it seems logical for me to take what I have now and compare those specs with the equivalent Macintosh models (either past or present) which are available to me.
> 
> Currently I am using:
> Athlon 64 4000+ (single core - about to go dual core)
> 2.41 GHz
> 1 MB RAM (about to upgrade to 2MB).
> 
> So realistically, I think I'd be looking for the equivalent to the post-upgrade PC.
> 
> I'll still be keeping the PC for it's ability to use free software and various other features - but the Mac would (in theory) become the more serious workhorse and itself be connected to the Internet.
> 
> One thing that would be very useful for giving me a range of modern audio interfaces to choose from, would be a firewire port.  If you could advise on how or if thats possible...?
> 
> Then it will be a case of discovering which DAW software available to the Mac platform suits me the best.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Dr. V



Ok, well I wouldn't go with the PPC platform for a few reasons, one is that I had a hard time with a lot of newer software not being supported on that platform, and I think you would like to be able to continue to update your Mac past Leopard, as Leopard is the last version of OS X to support the PPC platform.

The G3 and G4 are old PowerPC processors, G3 came out in 1998 (?) and G4 was 2001-02 I think. G5 came out in 04 iirc. However as I said I think you would be better off with an Intel-based Mac than a PowerPC one.

And btw there is quite a lot of free software available for OS X as well, you're not restricted to Apple's Mac App Store.


----------



## patrickv

Demilich said:


> Your statement proving this simple theory: Windows/PC*>*OSX/Mac *=* reasonable thinking*>*rebel "I'm always right" or something like that.



I kinda feel sorry for your immaturity.


----------



## tlarkin

Also, 10.7 comes out this summer and there is zero PPC support.  No more Rosetta translation.  FYI


----------



## tlarkin

This is why Windows security is inferior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Watch this video!

http://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21st_century_cyberweapon.html

it is mind blowing


----------



## lucasbytegenius

tlarkin said:


> Also, 10.7 comes out this summer and there is zero PPC support.  No more Rosetta translation.  FYI



10.6 doesn't support PPC either.


----------



## tlarkin

lucasbytegenius said:


> 10.6 doesn't support PPC either.



Yeah it does, but you gotta install Rosetta yourself.  It is on the installer DVD as a separate install.  You can either pull the PKG out of the installer disc and install it, or add it as an option when you install the OS, or when building an image to mass deploy.


----------



## Doctor Varney

tlarkin said:
			
		

> Doctor Varney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone actually read the original post? It's "Buying advice for a Mac".
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah my bad, I just hate it when people like to bash something with tons of misinformation.
Click to expand...


No bad.  At least you argued using your own experience to back it up.  Much of which I found informative.  I believe the proof of the pudding is not in numbers, spec sheets and bench tests but in the eating.

I don't know what Rosetta is...  or PPC!

Dr. V


----------



## BlackDawg

Doctor Varney said:


> I believe the proof of the pudding is not in numbers, spec sheets and bench tests but in the eating.
> 
> 
> Dr. V



Exactly! 
I agree with the others here as well, buy an Intel based mac, not because the Intel Arch is better than the PPc, but simply because its newer and will be compatible with so much more software, giving you a far better selection from which to chose your favorite apps for your tasks. Pick one with a core2duo or better processor and you should be good to go. Most all macs have the firewire connection so that shouldn't be a hard issue to work around. Which ever model you do choose, enjoy it and enjoy tasting "the other white meat"! lol


----------



## tlarkin

BlackDawg said:


> Exactly!
> I agree with the others here as well, buy an Intel based mac, not because the Intel Arch is better than the PPc, but simply because its newer and will be compatible with so much more software, giving you a far better selection from which to chose your favorite apps for your tasks. Pick one with a core2duo or better processor and you should be good to go. Most all macs have the firewire connection so that shouldn't be a hard issue to work around. Which ever model you do choose, enjoy it and enjoy tasting "the other white meat"! lol



Actually Intel is far superior to PPC by today's standards. PPC architecture was advancing too slow and the x86 market was advancing way faster.  So Apple made the decision to make the switch, and it was a good decision if you ask me.

After 10.7 comes out PPC will no longer be supported at all, so there is no reason to buy a PPC Mac.


----------



## bengal85

I have had my mac for about to years now and I love it. Yes it is brilliant but the whole they cant get viruses thing is not true there are viruses out there than can infect mac there are just not as many for mac as there is for windows. Another thing I really like about mac is that the OS upgrades are always really cheap to buy unlike microsoft. My suggestion would be to go for it. If you get a used machine be careful and make sure you get a good one because they do take a lot more to repair than a windows PC does.


----------



## tlarkin

bengal85 said:


> I have had my mac for about to years now and I love it. Yes it is brilliant but the whole they cant get viruses thing is not true there are viruses out there than can infect mac there are just not as many for mac as there is for windows. Another thing I really like about mac is that the OS upgrades are always really cheap to buy unlike microsoft. My suggestion would be to go for it. If you get a used machine be careful and make sure you get a good one because they do take a lot more to repair than a windows PC does.



Just to clarify something, there are zero viruses for the Mac in the wild.  That is right zero.  However, there is malware out there, which is actually something different.  In short a virus self replicates from system to system using known or zero day exploits or whatnot, and malware fools the user to install it posing as legit software.

There is an actual difference.  Not nitpicking, but rather trying to inform you the differences.


----------



## Demilich

tlarkin said:


> Just to clarify something, there are zero viruses for the Mac in the wild.  That is right zero.  However, there is malware out there, which is actually something different.  In short a virus self replicates from system to system using known or zero day exploits or whatnot, and malware fools the user to install it posing as legit software.
> 
> There is an actual difference.  Not nitpicking, but rather trying to inform you the differences.



I found this interesting "quote", and many like it researching. Serious question: what is your opinion on this?

"Mac doesn't make an IDE or SDK that gives developers access to as much as MS does. So you are always going to have issues finding people that want to develop for macs. Sure we can develop using Eclipse. But why take the time to learn a generic IDE for a commercial operating system?"

That paragraph might not make much sense, but I get the jest of what he is saying. Basically, there would be more viruses for Mac's if they had more of an open IDE or SDK?

Also, let's say there are no self replicating viruses for the Mac (maybe due to market share, but if you don't believe this, or it isn't fact, as you put it, then how is your opinion on the belief that viruses are going out of style, are steadily decreasing, and Malware is the new "in"); I found many articles claiming that Mac's have plenty of vulnerabilities to Malware, such as Worms, Trojan horses,  spyware, adware, spam, etc. for the simple reason that viruses are decreasing, because stealing the information makes more sense than destroying the information, thus Malware is on the rise. What is your opinion on this, as well?


----------



## tlarkin

Demilich said:


> I found this interesting "quote", and many like it researching. Serious question: what is your opinion on this?
> 
> "Mac doesn't make an IDE or SDK that gives developers access to as much as MS does. So you are always going to have issues finding people that want to develop for macs. Sure we can develop using Eclipse. But why take the time to learn a generic IDE for a commercial operating system?"
> 
> That paragraph might not make much sense, but I get the jest of what he is saying. Basically, there would be more viruses for Mac's if they had more of an open IDE or SDK?
> 
> Also, let's say there are no self replicating viruses for the Mac (maybe due to market share, but if you don't believe this, or it isn't fact, as you put it, then how is your opinion on the belief that viruses are going out of style, are steadily decreasing, and Malware is the new "in"); I found many articles claiming that Mac's have plenty of vulnerabilities to Malware, such as Worms, Trojan horses,  spyware, adware, spam, etc. for the simple reason that viruses are decreasing, because stealing the information makes more sense than destroying the information, thus Malware is on the rise. What is your opinion on this, as well?



Macs get exploited two different ways:

1)  User interaction, via fooling the user to install non legit software that has malware in it

2)  Exploits in java and web browsers (usually affects all OSes)

If you look at any and all pwn to own hacker contests, every time the mac is exploited it is due to webkit or mozilla vulnerabilities with things like java, and require the user to go to a malicious website to be pwned (rooted).   A Mac has never been remotely hacked, ever.   These hacker contests boast $10k up to over $50k in cash prizes if you hack the machines, and you also get to keep the computer you hack.

Viruses are a thing of the past not because of market share or because of hackers want information, it is because users are dumb.  Users are dumb and with the age of the Internet users love to download free software.  Users don't bother to check the validity of the software, they are often fooled by fake anti-spyware apps and so forth.  No OS is immune or even can prevent this because the human element is the weakest link in computer security.  Malware is easier to construct because it fools the user into installing it.  I have enough programming skills to write malware and embed it into a pirated application and seed it on torrent trackers.   That is because it takes little knowledge to add a few scripts into an existing installer package, and if I can do it; it means it is really easy because my coding skills are rudimentary at best.

Also, Apple has plenty of APIs and SDKs.  I have a developer account with Apple and can download all their beta software, and get access to all the developer resources.  I am required to have a dev account to manage iPads, generate APN certificates, and be able to deploy in-house iOS apps.  Plus Apple's dev accounts are cheap.  It only costs $300 a year, for my whole company.  Microsoft developer connections are expensive as all get out.


----------



## Iceyn1pples

I have read this thread and there is so much MAC Vs PC, its actually interesting to read..ahaha

Basically, in my humble opinion - 
Macs: 
- looks good
- makes YOU look cool
- OVER PRICED - mac fanbois can argue all day about user experience and design/style, im not gonna argue. Macs "look" nice. But why pay such premium for Style. 
-Hardware - Old, due to the "pickiness" of MAC design, hardware that Apple finally approves to work with their OS tend to be a little outdated. You can get a mac with brand new highend components, the problem is that you pay a very high premium for the same hardware as a PC. 
- Usefullness: the majority of MAC users in a professional environment tend to run VMWare Fusion so that they can run Windows on a "stylish" laptop that PC manufacturers cant match. 
- Security: Sure, they claim to be more secure...than XP, thats a no brainer, XP sucked. Windows 7 is harder to hack than the Mac OS, proven many years in a row at various "hacking events" the fact that you can gain full control of a MAC laptop using nothing more than the Safari Browser makes me question their security. Internet explorer was compromised as well, but took much longer than the fully patched MAC. 
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn2Own

If you want to surf the Web, spend 400-600 on a laptop or build a nice PC for really cheap. 

Mac Mini - i assume would be the entry level Mac for web surfing and everyday tasks:
copied from apple.com

    * 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
    * 2GB memory
    * 320GB hard drive1
    * 8x double-layer SuperDrive
    * NVIDIA GeForce 320M graphics
    * Mac OS X Snow Leopard
Price: 699

Sample PC build: that From newegg.com
nMEDIAPC Black Aluminum HTPC case: 69.99
COOLER MASTER Elite 460 PSU: 29.99
Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz: 124.99
ASUS P8H61-M: 79.99
CORSAIR Vengeance 4GB: 59.99
LITE-ON Black 24X: 19.99
OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTX50G: 109.99
Western Digital Caviar Green WD10EARS 1TB: 54.99
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit: 94.99

Total:644.91

I tried to keep it Intel. But i can build an even Cheaper PC that can still outperform the MAC. But this one with a Core i3 and a OCZ SSD is far superior to the mac mini, AND you still have 55.08 to go and treat a buddy to a few pints - CANT GO WRONG!!

Thats just 1 example, for 699 i can build endless combinations that will "Process" circles around a MAC. 

I used to work retail back in the day, and if someone walked in and wanted to buy a software to do something, chances were, for 30 dollars or less it was possible to accomplish it...assuming they were on a PC. Mac users however, were often contemplating whether or not to take the risk with compatibility and buy the non returnable software or not. Or buy the much more expensive software title that claims MAC compatibility. 

Once again, just my opinion. PCs....many more choices, at pretty much any price point.

Sorry, just saw this part in your post TLARKIN:


tlarkin said:


> If you look at any and all pwn to own hacker contests, every time the mac is exploited it is due to webkit or mozilla vulnerabilities with things like java, and require the user to go to a malicious website to be pwned (rooted).  * A Mac has never been remotely hacked, ever.*   These hacker contests boast $10k up to over $50k in cash prizes if you hack the machines, and you also get to keep the computer you hack.



You sir, are WRONG!! not only has it been done, it has been done MANY years IN A ROW!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20001126-245.html

"Charlie Miller, principal security analyst at Independent Security Evaluators, *won $10,000 after hacking Safari on a MacBook Pro without having physical access to the machine*. Miller won $5,000 last year by exploiting a hole in Safari, and in 2008 nabbed $10,000 hacking a MacBook Air, all on the same computer."


-Nuff said


----------



## tlarkin

Dude, you have no clue what you are talking about. The hacks involved going to a website and downloading malicious code to escalate privileges and hack the machine.  That is NOT remotely hacking, that is malware.  These hacks REQUIRE user interaction, which is NOT a remote hack.

Also, your post is filled with fail.  Unix is the most tried and tested OS out there and it is the most secure.  Period.   POSIX is superior.   That is a fact.  However, most hacks and exploits target the end user because the end user is ultimately dumb.

the end



> Miller declined to provide details on his exploit, but said the target computer was compromised after visiting a Web site hosting the malicious code.



Of course I am sure you will try to argue this....


----------



## Iceyn1pples

tlarkin said:


> Also, your post is filled with fail.



Please point out the fails. 



tlarkin said:


> POSIX is superior. That is a fact.



Please reference Data to back up your claims  
FACT # 1: Just because I claimed that this is a fact, does not make it a real fact because there is no proven data to back it up. 


The user does not need to download any code. The code is pushed from the website onto the user's computer - only interaction required is that the user visits the malicious site by accident, this is remote, the hacker is not physically at the computer to hack it. A hack is a hack is a hack, no matter how you look at it. Wheather it is done with brute force, or with sneaky code from a webpage, the MAC was hacked and controlled remotely. 

The hacker did not comment about the exploit out of respect for Apple. Apple was informed of the exploit and patched it. If he commented, then he would have apple and their friendly lawyers at his door seeking compensation for the damages caused.


----------



## Demilich

tlarkin said:


> Dude, you have no clue what you are talking about. The hacks involved going to a website and downloading malicious code to escalate privileges and hack the machine.  That is NOT remotely hacking, that is malware.  These hacks REQUIRE user interaction, which is NOT a remote hack.
> 
> Also, your post is filled with fail.  Unix is the most tried and tested OS out there and it is the most secure.  Period.   POSIX is superior.   That is a fact.  However, most hacks and exploits target the end user because the end user is ultimately dumb.
> 
> the end
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I am sure you will try to argue this....



lolz dude, Iceyn1pples totally just rocked your bed. Especially if the word "fail" is the best you can come up with. He even presented facts, which time and time again, you fail to present in any of your arguments.


----------



## Iceyn1pples

Thanks Demilich


----------



## Iceyn1pples

tlarkin said:


> That is a fact.  However, most hacks and exploits target the end user because *the end user is ultimately dumb*.
> 
> the end
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I am sure you will try to argue this....



I cant believe I missed this line, you said it all!


----------



## tlarkin

Demilich said:


> lolz dude, Iceyn1pples totally just rocked your bed. Especially if the word "fail" is the best you can come up with. He even presented facts, which time and time again, you fail to present in any of your arguments.



If you actually read this whole thread and every other thread where I have to argue with fan boys about PC vs Macs, and the people who are always anti-Mac use zero facts.

Do you know what POSIX is?  How about a true multi user environment?   Windows lacks these things, and even in Windows 7 there is for the first time an "almost" multi-user environment.   The fact that the user "System," in every previous version of Windows had no password, means it is by design less secure.



> Please reference Data to back up your claims
> FACT # 1: Just because I claimed that this is a fact, does not make it a real fact because there is no proven data to back it up.



http://forums.serverwatch.com/showthread.php?t=18220

That forum post contains a plethora of links from security experts.  However, let me just touch the basics on why it is more secure:

1)  Everything is contained in that user's environment, the system user (root) has it's own environment and it's own group,usually called wheel.  In Unix based OSes POSIX sets of permissions contain information in the inodes (index nodes) for read, write, and execute.  Then there is a set of permissions for owner, group and everyone.   With out the proper authentication, you cannot go beyond what your permissions are set to, period.  Windows lacks this, so a script kiddie can escalate access once they break into a user account.  This changed in Vista and improved in Windows 7, but just running as "administrator," with no authentication, is still by design less secure.

2)  Self contained environemnts.  If your user account gets hijacked, it doesn't have access to anything outside your home folder, via POSIX standards

3)  POSIX is an IEEE standard, with standard compliance, which has millions upon millions of opens source developers looking at it.  More eyes, means less margin of error.  Which is why security patching, is generally better on open source based systems.  Though, Microsoft has had a lot of experience hot fixing and patching their OS, they aren't bad at it by any means.

4)  Since POSIX uses the index node (inode) bits to determine what a file can do you do not have to rely on file extensions.  Where as in Windows an executable is a .exe and in Unix based OSes, it matters not what the extension is, it matters if the execute bit is enabled or not.   Relying on a single point of failure, like a file extension is never a good idea.   Also, things execute and install with out authentication.

5)  Unix has been around since the late 1960s, and POSIX since the 80s.  It is more tried, tested and proven than any other OS out there.   That is why Unix based OSes run the Internet, they run the DNS servers, and they run high end networks.   Companies have been switching, due to security concerns.  Google just switched all their users to Macs, and while they will not publicly disclose why, if you Google search on it, it was due to Microsoft Windows and security concerns.  It is pretty safe to assume that Google can afford the best security experts in the world, since they are one of the top tech companies in the world.



> The user does not need to download any code. The code is pushed from the website onto the user's computer - only interaction required is that the user visits the malicious site by accident, this is remote, the hacker is not physically at the computer to hack it. A hack is a hack is a hack, no matter how you look at it. Wheather it is done with brute force, or with sneaky code from a webpage, the MAC was hacked and controlled remotely.
> 
> The hacker did not comment about the exploit out of respect for Apple. Apple was informed of the exploit and patched it. If he commented, then he would have apple and their friendly lawyers at his door seeking compensation for the damages caused.



I have already touched on this in many ways.   Most websites these days are driven by CMSes, which are content management systems.  These include millions of lines of code and usually rely on certain set technologies.  Things like:  CSS, Python, Perl, Ruby on Rails, HTML, Java, PHP, .NET and other web technologies.  This is fairly new, and filled with security holes.  The zero day exploit that was used in the webkit browsers, affected all webkit browsers.  It was OS Independent.   Chrome and Safari are the two largest used Webkit browsers.   Firefox had a memory bug, and since Firefox runs on all systems, the bug could have been used to exploit Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows.   When you have a very small hand full of web developers working on something that has 10s of thousands of lines of code, possibly 100s of thousands written in over 5 different languages all playing together you are going to have tons of security holes.

Now, back to POSIX.  This is how it works, and if you cannot understand this I suggest you read up on how open source Unix based OSes work.   If I were to visit that guy's webpage logged in as my user account, which by default is not an admin (since I use a separate admin account to administer the computer via POSIX) and my machine got injected with that malicious code, the only thing that would be hacked is my user account.   The root user, and all system files would be still untouched, because you would then have to escalate code even further to actually fully hack the system.  Though, most malicious code these days hijacks your account and wants to you buy fake software to fix it, so hackers aren't really interested in hacking your system.

Just look at how many Windows machines out there are botnets and look at any other OS.  There isn't any, because it just harder to hack the system.  Also, all those security holes in web browsers are pretty much patched these days and developers are finally getting ahead of the game.

http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/16815/apple-releases-snow-leopard-update-with-56-security-fixes/

Now, if you want to discuss this further I am willing to, but please do your homework before doing so.  Otherwise you can just do a search on this forum for my posts on this subject.  Since I have had to repeat myself a billion times, I really don't want to do it again.   Just to recap.

-There are zero known viruses in the wild for any Unix based OS.  Make sure you know what a virus is over malware or spyware, they are different

-Unix based OSes use a modular approach, and Windows uses a monolithic approach.  Allowing you to easily configure a Unixed based OS to be way more secure by adding so many different levels of security.

-Ultimately, hackers no longer target systems, they target end users.  End users are easily fooled to install malicious software or to go malicious websites and 99 times out 100 hack their own machines.  Another popular one is embedded viruses/malware into pirated software and then let the user download it and install it on their PC.  So, really, you could be running the most secure OS in the world but if you are an uneducated user and install malicious software on there yourself, the OS is not to blame.  The end user is.


----------



## Iceyn1pples

So, I read your reply....although impressive with all your knowledge and fact regurgitation. You are simply trolling this forum with Pro Mac and Anti Windows posts - if thats your thing, power to ya! 

Ok, Unix based Operating systems are more secure than Windows - thanks for the enlightenment. But what does that actually mean for the OP of this thread, who is simply looking for a machine that can surf the web, do the basic computing that he requires, while being secure and reliable for him. 

I pointed out that a Windows based PC can be had for cheaper and contain higher performance components compared to a MAC based PC. 

Security to the End user simply means, the computer turns on, does what he wants, and protects him from being exploited and losing personal information. This is where your argument for security becomes somewhat relevant. But look at it this way:

Mac user: Buys a MAC, thinks his computer cannot be hacked and is more secure against virus and malware and therefore does not want to install any Antivirus or Anti-Malware applications. Sits down at the beginning of the day working along on his Video Editing software fixing up his home movies. Opens up Safari, does a google search for a clipart, and mistypes a search term and (with the mindset that he can click on any link without an afterthought because his MAC is SECURE) clicks on a link thats designed to trick the end user to a site that they think will contain their search results. He hits a site riddled with malware, and now his MAC is rendered useless as the hacker takes control of his MAC through the Safari Web Code - which, based on your "facts" is OS independent. 

How secure is the MAC now? If i was the user, I would be kicking myself for buying this unique looking computer that I paid a huge premium on, just to be affected by the same tactics that affect windows users, but was told it wont affect my MAC by pretty much every MAC user I talked to. 


Windows User: Just finished the custom built PC with high performance parts from manufacturers that stand behind their hardware for 3 years (covers most HDDs, motherboards, PSUs, and various Components) while knowing the Memory is covered for life. Installs Windows, all the patches and a few applications to protect himself from the net (AVG, CCleaner, Malwarebytes - just to name a few FREE ones). Does some video editing, gaming, and surfs the web. Searched for something, mistyped it, but was leery about clicking the link. The user is a bit desperate and clicks on the link anyways, as soon as he clicks, AVG pops up and blocked the site and informs him/her it was not secure, but gave him the option to go there anyways. User gets up and walks away.

Hmm....I wonder which user was better off....


EDIT: Tlarkin - Im still waiting for you to point out my fails, please, as a Windows user i know that software isnt perfect, and that goes for people, so please point out my fails so that I will not fail in the future.


----------



## tlarkin

Iceyn1pples said:


> So, I read your reply....although impressive with all your knowledge and fact regurgitation. You are simply trolling this forum with Pro Mac and Anti Windows posts - if thats your thing, power to ya!



you mad bro?  



> Ok, Unix based Operating systems are more secure than Windows - thanks for the enlightenment. But what does that actually mean for the OP of this thread, who is simply looking for a machine that can surf the web, do the basic computing that he requires, while being secure and reliable for him.



I was talking in reference to other people, I already addressed the OP in several posts earlier.  The OPs preference is a Mac, I was simply saying get what you want.



> I pointed out that a Windows based PC can be had for cheaper and contain higher performance components compared to a MAC based PC.



This is where opinion gets skewed with facts.  PC people always think hardware is the end all be all of system performance, and it is not.  You can have the best hardware in the world, but sub par software won't run efficient or fast on it.  



> Security to the End user simply means, the computer turns on, does what he wants, and protects him from being exploited and losing personal information. This is where your argument for security becomes somewhat relevant. But look at it this way:
> 
> Mac user: Buys a MAC, thinks his computer cannot be hacked and is more secure against virus and malware and therefore does not want to install any Antivirus or Anti-Malware applications. Sits down at the beginning of the day working along on his Video Editing software fixing up his home movies. Opens up Safari, does a google search for a clipart, and mistypes a search term and (with the mindset that he can click on any link without an afterthought because his MAC is SECURE) clicks on a link thats designed to trick the end user to a site that they think will contain their search results. He hits a site riddled with malware, and now his MAC is rendered useless as the hacker takes control of his MAC through the Safari Web Code - which, based on your "facts" is OS independent.



This doesn't really apply. Any users on any OS can have this happen.  It is not exclusive to any platform, period.   That is like saying, what if you have a power surge?  Will a PC or a Mac handle it better.   Also, it is a Mac, MAC is an acronym for something else.  I would also be very hard pressed to find an example of this.  These hacks used, were zero day exploits used by top security people in IT.  They aren't being used in the wild or by other hackers.  There is a difference.  Proof of concept is not proof in application always.



> How secure is the MAC now? If i was the user, I would be kicking myself for buying this unique looking computer that I paid a huge premium on, just to be affected by the same tactics that affect windows users, but was told it wont affect my MAC by pretty much every MAC user I talked to.



Again, POSIX standards won't allow a malicious program to infect anything outside your home folder unless you input your admin user name and password to infect the system.  If you have back ups, worst case scenario should only be down time.



> Windows User: Just finished the custom built PC with high performance parts from manufacturers that stand behind their hardware for 3 years (covers most HDDs, motherboards, PSUs, and various Compenents) while knowing the Memory is covered for life. Installs Windows, all the patches and a few applications to protect himself from the net (AVG, CCleaner, Malwarebytes - just to name a few FREE ones). Does some video editing, gaming, and surfs the web. Searched for something, mistyped it, but was leery about clicking the link. The user is a bit desperate and clicks on the link anyways, as soon as he clicks, AVG pops up and blocked the site and informs him/her it was not secure, but gave him the option to go there anyways. User gets up and walks away.



HD and RAM is no different among platforms.  Apple uses x86 Intel based hardware just like a PC does.  Also, no computer company gives out life warranty, only parts companies when buying direct.  I could buy the same HD and RAM for a Mac, the point is moot.  CClearner is crap cleaner, it got it's name from all the crap Windows OS puts on the system.  Also, the registry is another single point of failure, is very convoluted and bloated.  Self contained apps is where it is at.  Safari and Firefox both have a plethora of built in pop up blockers, plus OS X comes standard with an IPFW, with a full set of security features built in.  You don't have to download other apps for your Mac, except maybe A/V.   There are several free anti virus apps for the Mac and several pay for clients.

http://www.clamxav.com/



> Hmm....I wonder which user was better off....



If you actually read my posts here, I already agreed that the end user is the weakest link and that you will ultimately use what you prefer regardless of how good it looks on paper.  The problem I have is the misinformation and the fact that no one bashing the Mac platform knows the first thing about it, nor are they using actual facts.

I own two PCs, and 2 Macs at home.  1 windows box for gaming and minor windows development.   1 HTPC running Linux, because I refuse to pay $100 for an OS to stream media to my HD LED TV, that is just ridiculous.   I have a Macbook Pro and a G5 dual 2.5 desktop.   I am well versed in all of them, use all of them.  I build my PCs, I don't buy them.   However, like I have posted many times a Mac is not over priced, and when you look at overall cost of ownership, they are actually cheaper.  The fact they have resell value makes them a better investment money wise over a PC.   At my work I manage 8,000 Macs, 40 OS X Servers, and around 10,000 PC devices.  You could say I use both platforms on a daily basis.

However, users will use what they want regardless and most of them won't know what is going on under the hood.   

If you want to truly compare a Mac to a PC with out any bias you need to compare it feature to feature, spec to spec, cost to cost, and then evaluate overall cost of ownership.  Otherwise you aren't making a comparison, you are simply stating your opinions.


----------



## paulcheung

bigfellla said:


> Can I just say Doc, you are seemingly a know it all, when clearly you don't know much.  If your system is 2 years old, fix it and run it.  I really am beginning to lose my patience with this thread as it appears that  no matter what advice you get, you reject it.  I mean look at your posts above, everything you say starts with "NO", but that is funny, you are not getting anywhere with your own understandings.  You're new to this forum and you are beginning to look like a 'troll' as you don't actually try anything suggested.  Go away, and try something, then come back.  The simply choices have been presented.
> 
> If you want your computer (2 year old) to run well, reinstall windows, preferably Win 7, else, go and spend twice as much again on a Mac.  That is really the equation.  I have old PCs too, that still run brilliantly, why? because I know how to use them.  The hardware is the same mate, thats it, its no magic, but clearly you seem incapable of setting up a PC even if it is only a few years old.  XP is a 10+ year old OS, upgrade with a fresh install of Win 7, clean out the dust and try again.  Simple.
> 
> Im unsubscribing to this thread, as 7 pages later, we are no closer to a resolution - even though this must be the most 'forum-ed' topic ever.



I agree with you, It is look like troll to me. The OP claim he use pc from 1992 near 20 years and built pc himself yet can't reinstall wondows OS on the same pc? yet can't identify the failling part if it happen?
According to all these posts. (I never own a Mac and never will because I have better place to put my money and I have enough knownadge to deal with any problem it might arise). I got this conclusion that PC is for experience Users and the Mac is for the novices users. ( PCs need to be maintained and the Mac doesn't Due to the PCs flexibilty and the Mac closed system).
I have use pc since the 8088 processor come out with PC(MS)DOS days. Never fail to install any OS unless the hard drive is dead or failling. The PC the the OP own sound like Hard drive is failing. 
Cheers.


----------



## tlarkin

paulcheung said:


> I agree with you, It is look like troll to me. The OP claim he use pc from 1992 near 20 years and built pc himself yet can't reinstall wondows OS on the same pc? yet can't identify the failling part if it happen?
> According to all these posts. (I never own a Mac and never will because I have better place to put my money and I have enough knownadge to deal with any problem it might arise). I got this conclusion that PC is for experience Users and the Mac is for the novices users. ( PCs need to be maintained and the Mac doesn't Due to the PCs flexibilty and the Mac closed system).
> I have use pc since the 8088 processor come out with PC(MS)DOS days. Never fail to install any OS unless the hard drive is dead or failling. The PC the the OP own sound like Hard drive is failing.
> Cheers.



The title of the tread is called _Buying Advice for a Mac._  He didn't come here to ask for questions about Mac Vs PC but that is what he got instead.

Also, this whole Mac is only for simple users thing.....yeah man, you do know I can program with python, perl, shell/bash, and ruby native on a Mac right?   You know how powerful the Unix command line is?   A Mac is hardly for simple users, it is for every user.  You don't have to know Unix to use a Mac, but if you do, you have a whole bunch of power at your finger tips.


----------



## Iceyn1pples

tlarkin said:


> If you want to truly compare a Mac to a PC with out any bias you need to compare it feature to feature, spec to spec, cost to cost, and then evaluate overall cost of ownership.  Otherwise you aren't making a comparison, you are simply stating your opinions.



Please, show me. All you do is back up the Mac using Unix based arguements. Please go build yourself any Mac, and build a equal windows based PC, and prove to me that Mac is better in price, features, specs, and overall cost of ownership. I think you will then be in for a shocking conclusion. 



tlarkin said:


> The title of the tread is called Buying Advice for a Mac. He didn't come here to ask for questions about Mac Vs PC but that is what he got instead.



My advice was to simply buy a Windows based PC and save money instead of wasting it on an overpriced, and ultimately the same level of security to the end user, system that looks good in white. 

Tlarkin, you are the one, and usually are the ONLY ONE to start the Mac Vs PC in pretty much any thread you post in.


----------



## tlarkin

I already have done comparisons top build your own PC versus an iMac on this thread, and the iMac is way cheaper.  For one iMacs have IPS LCD screens, which are expensive.  You won't find an IPS LCD screen that is 22" for less than $500 by itself.

You need to go back and reread the whole thread.


----------



## PixelVandalism

My iMac is awesome, my Macbook Pro is awesome, my dad's friend's brand new MBP is amazing, so much faster than my pc, it cost him $5000 XD. 

I've always used mac, this is my first pc, and I only got it to play games, and the price.

and as tlarkin has said, mac's are more secure, for a virus to do something fatal to a unix/linux based environment, which you need superuser permissions to do, only the first user created on the account can type in terminal 


> SUDO


and get a result. 

and a 12 core fully speced mac pro will out perform everyone's computer on this forum. 

I had to say it.


----------



## Demilich

PixelVandalism said:


> My iMac is awesome, my Macbook Pro is awesome, my dad's friend's brand new MBP is amazing, so much faster than my pc, it cost him $5000 XD.
> 
> I've always used mac, this is my first pc, and I only got it to play games, and the price.
> 
> and as tlarkin has said, mac's are more secure, for a virus to do something fatal to a unix/linux based environment, which you need superuser permissions to do, only the first user created on the account can type in terminal
> 
> and get a result.
> 
> and a 12 core fully speced mac pro will out perform everyone's computer on this forum.
> 
> I had to say it.



Mmm wow, damn, ow, you got us good this time. Your 12 core Mac just, uugh, killer man...haha sorry, bored, or something...I don't know.

You probably didn't read the rest of the thread, did you? Viruses are basically all but dead, because hackers want to steal information with malware (which Mac's are not protected against any better than a PC is), so that point is _almost_ moot, since well, obviously PC's aren't getting as many viruses as malware anymore. Mr. Tlarkin HIMSELF disproved his own theory that a Mac is safer than a PC because *the end user is the issue, not the operating system*. Registry aside (which does have its usefulness), Windows UI aside; if the end user is the ultimate failure, than your theory (not a fact) of a Mac being safer than a PC is a failure. Even if "Windows by design is less secure", that doesn't mean a damn thing if the OS will fail the operator by receiving malicious code. Your argument is kind of like, "yeah, well, airplanes crash way less often, statistically, but, in a car, you're safer, because if you do crash, you're much less likely to die, so I always drive, and never fly". That analogy is probably horrible, yes, but it makes sense to me, and that's all that matters loll

Tlarkin again, you say you built a cheaper Mac, yet, again, you don't give us any example. At least three people have presented PC's that have much better features than the same priced Mac, and you then proceed to attack us for not presenting an example, even though we have shown plenty. Just saying.


----------



## Iceyn1pples

PixelVandalism said:


> and as tlarkin has said, mac's are more secure, for a virus to do something fatal to a unix/linux based environment, which you need superuser permissions to do, only the first user created on the account can type in terminal  and get a result.



When windows is installed, the user that is created does not have full Admin access either...



PixelVandalism said:


> and a 12 core fully speced mac pro will out perform everyone's computer on this forum.
> 
> I had to say it.



Ya, a full spec'd Mac pro is fast...but it also costs over 13k. No one in this forum has spent anything close to that on their PC. But give me 13K, i'd build a PC with better performance, and still have enough money to go on vacation in the dominican!



Tlarkin: I personally think you are a waste of time. Rather than help anyone here, you simply troll the Mac topic. When asked to back up your claims, you simply change the topic, or "I already did this" type of reply. 

You still havent justified all the "fails" in my post. I showed you how a PC was a better value with higher performance, yet you still ask for a comparison. Maybe its time YOU do a comparison.

Demilich, thanks for the backup!


----------



## tlarkin

Someone named iceynipples is calling me a waste of time.  I told you to search the forums.  I have posted on this topic countless times.  However, since you are too lazy to search the forums I searched and found the old thread where I proved this to be true.  I did an updated one about a month ago, though it wasn't in my thread so it was not really findable.

http://www.computerforum.com/175469-if-you-insist-comparing-pc-mac-read-first.html

You fail to do an actual comparison.  People who think they are tech savvy and often don't understand how computers work on a basic level in and out, like to make blanketed statements and use misinformation to make their point.   

point in case:


> Ya, a full spec'd Mac pro is fast...but it also costs over 13k. No one in this forum has spent anything close to that on their PC. But give me 13K, i'd build a PC with better performance, and still have enough money to go on vacation in the dominican!



A Mac Pro isn't some assemble a bunch of parts off of newegg type computer.  For one, it runs dual xeon processors.   Each processor is going to cost you $800 to $1300 a piece.  Next, it uses ECC memory, because it is meant to do super high end work.  Things like audio/video rendering, research crunching, high end calculations and so forth.  It isn't meant for some teenager to play video games on.  You say you can build a higher spec computer than a Mac Pro for half the price?   Let us see you do it.

Again, you aren't comparing spec for spec, part for part, feature to feature.   You will be hard pressed to find a dual xeon work station cheaper than a Mac Pro, and you will find it virtually impossible to build one.   

I have backed up my claims with thought out logical arguments, breaking things down to the minimum to compare them.  Ultimately I do not think a PC and a Mac are comparable, as they are different systems all together.  However, I do think if you are going to compare them, you should at least break everything down and compare them in a manner that is an actual comparison.   

So, you build a desktop cheaper than an iMac and a Mac Pro then.  Prove me wrong.  Remember though you gotta do a full comparison of everything to make it an actual comparison.


----------



## tlarkin

> Mr. Tlarkin HIMSELF disproved his own theory that a Mac is safer than a PC because the end user is the issue, not the operating system.



I agree, that most malicious attacks fool the end user these days over self replicating viruses.  That no OS is immune to them because the user is the weakest link.  That still doesn't take away that on paper and by design OS X is more secure than Windows.

I will come to an agreement though that these types of security concerns are more of a moot point these days, and that market share does in fact factor in.  There are more PC devices running Windows so they will be a larger target.  In that regard a Mac could be considered safer in the sense that it is a less widely targeted system.

I also think that in the end you will use what you prefer, and if you prefer Linux you will use it, Mac you will use a Mac, and Windows you will use Windows.   There really is no right or wrong answer in this, since it is what you prefer.

What I am talking about is that when you really compare a Mac to a PC, feature to feature, spec to spec, and part for part they really aren't that over priced.  You do have to realize when making that comparison Apple does use higher quality builds to sell their products.  Whether you want to use those features or think you would benefit from them is a different story.


----------



## Iceyn1pples

this is Right from the apple.com Mac Pro

# Two 2.66GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” (12 cores)
# 12GB (6X2GB) - is that possible??  I dont think 6gb exist. I assume (for the sake of performance) that they put 3x2gb per CPU to equal 6GB
# 512GB solid-state drive
# 2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
# ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
# One 18x SuperDrive
# Apple Magic Mouse
# Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) & User's Guide

6999.00


Intel Xeon X5650 Westmere 2.66GHz 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 95W Six-Core Server Processor BX80614X5650
2x 1019.99 = 2039.99

TYAN S7002G2NR-LE Dual LGA 1366 Intel 5500 Tylersburg SSI CEB Dual Intel Xeon 5500 Series Server Motherboard
254.99

Kingston ValueRAM 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM ECC Unbuffered DDR3 1333 Server Memory Model KVR1333D3E9SK3/6G
2x 75.99 = 151.98

Kingston SSDNow V+100 SVP100S2B/512GR 2.5" 512GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
1139.99

Western Digital Caviar Green WD20EARS 2TB 64MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
79.99

PowerColor AX5770 1GBD5-H Radeon HD 5770 1GB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card
109.99

LG Black 22X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 16X DVD+R DL 22X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 12X DVD-RAM 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 32X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM 2MB Cache IDE CD/DVD Burner
20.99

GIGABYTE GM-M7700 Noble Black 3+3 Buttons 4 Directional Scrolling 2.4GHz Wireless Laser Mouse for Notebook 
25.99

GIGABYTE GK-K6800 Glossy Black USB Wired Standard Professional Multimedia Keyboard 
25.99

Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 1-Pack for System Builder
179.99

NZXT Phantom PHAN-001WT White Steel / Plastic Enthusiast ATX Full Tower Computer Case
139.99

CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX850 V2 850W ATX12V v2.31/ EPS12V v2.92 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC High Performance Power Supply
139.99


4309.86

No time to argue with you atm, I will once i get home from work.

EDIT:  http://www.expedia.ca/daily/enc4105...inclusive-resorts.asp?dest=Dominican-Republic 

Woot! enough left over to go on Vacation!!


----------



## tlarkin

The standard high end Mac Pro is $4,999.00 not $6,999.00.

Also provide links with your parts please.  You are also missing some features the Mac Pro has.   Dual access to memory from the CPU buses on both processors, not sure if that board fully supports it.  Last I checked the only motherboard that supported it was Intel and it was $400 and change.

You are missing FW800, optical audio, Blue Tooth, built in 802.1ABGN wifi, and a few other minor things to make a good comparison.

What country are you from where the Mac Pro costs that much?

##EDIT##

Oh I see your build has a solid state drive added into it, yeah that is going to cost you more.


----------



## CdnAudiophile

tlarkin said:


> The standard high end Mac Pro is $4,999.00 not $6,999.00.
> 
> Also provide links with your parts please.  You are also missing some features the Mac Pro has.   Dual access to memory from the CPU buses on both processors, not sure if that board fully supports it.  Last I checked the only motherboard that supported it was Intel and it was $400 and change.
> *
> You are missing FW800, optical audio, Blue Tooth, built in 802.1ABGN wifi, and a few other minor things to make a good comparison.*
> 
> What country are you from where the Mac Pro costs that much?
> 
> ##EDIT##
> 
> Oh I see your build has a solid state drive added into it, yeah that is going to cost you more.



Yea because we all know that those parts will cost another $2700 to add


----------



## tlarkin

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> Yea because we all know that those parts will cost another $2700 to add



I don't have time to compare the specs of that motherboard to the motherboard that is in the Mac Pro, though I suspect that Mobo is not comparable, and that you would have to go with the 400 to 500 dollar models that Intel make, which are also dual xeon boards.

The point is, if you want to do an honest comparison you must make them both equal spec wise, then compare the costs.


----------



## CdnAudiophile

tlarkin said:


> I don't have time to compare the specs of that motherboard to the motherboard that is in the Mac Pro, though I suspect that Mobo is not comparable, and that you would have to go with the 400 to 500 dollar models that Intel make, which are also dual xeon boards.
> 
> The point is, if you want to do an honest comparison you must make them both equal spec wise, then compare the costs.



Say we went with a 1000 dollar motherboard, it would STILL be $2000 less then the mac so your point is moot.


----------



## Iceyn1pples

tlarkin said:


> Also provide links with your parts please.



All the parts are from Newegg.com

I will assume you have enough intelligence to find these parts on the site. 

You think the rest of the features you mention can merit the 2600 difference?? I can build a separate Gaming machine for that amount, even if i decide to go on vacation. 

I will add those petty little features that you want so much. I assume the FW800 is firewire? Who uses that old interface when USB3 and Esata are available...

Roughly guessing:

Bluetooth - about 19.99
WIFI card - 39.99  EDIT*  people who use these type of workstations use Gigabit LAN, so wifi and the A/B/G/N is just useless in this aspect. 
soundcard with optical - 100

and lets just add this intel motherbaord that you mention, ill make it the upper limit of you "400 and change" and say it will cost 500

thats a delta of $245 + 19.99+39.99+100 = 405.98


----------



## CdnAudiophile

Also TLARKIN I recall proving to you it is cheaper stat for stat to build a PC but it seems you forgot.

Heres to jog your memory:

http://www.computerforum.com/159251-pc-mac.html#post1316862


----------



## tlarkin

THERMAL-REACTOR said:


> Also TLARKIN I recall proving to you it is cheaper stat for stat to build a PC but it seems you forgot.
> 
> Heres to jog your memory:
> 
> http://www.computerforum.com/159251-pc-mac.html#post1316862



That is still not comparable.....your hardware is inferior, and it is not spec for spec.  I get it, that in some cases it will be tough to match spec for spec, since you cannot always buy retail or direct the same spec parts certain companies use on their products.   After market parts are going to have a variance.

There are features that the motherboard you listed are absent in Mac Pros.   Like I said, I don't have time to research every minor difference, but in the high end hardware world, a minor difference can mean several hundred dollars in cost.

Also, after market parts like hard drives and RAM are moot, since you can buy those from anywhere and save money.  I know Apple marks up their parts cost, just like every other computer company out there.   However, since we are building a PC against a Mac Pro I am going to use the same logic and availability to cut my costs down as well.

Now, comparing an Apple to a Dell or a Sun, or IBM or anyone else that makes high end desktops and servers (since basically a Mac Pro is using server parts) they all cost about the same price.  You cannot say a Mac Pro is over priced compared to a high end Dell Work station, or a high end Sun workstation (though I am not sure if Sun even does hardware anymore after the Oracle merger), and so forth.

You cannot simply just newegg search similar hardware and call it the same thing.   Plus like I said, any RAM, HD, SSD, is universal, so the prices for those will be the same.


----------



## Iceyn1pples

tlarkin said:


> Now, comparing an Apple to a Dell or a Sun, or IBM or anyone else that makes high end desktops and servers (since basically a Mac Pro is using server parts) they all cost about the same price.  You cannot say a Mac Pro is over priced compared to a high end Dell Work station, or a high end Sun workstation (though I am not sure if Sun even does hardware anymore after the Oracle merger), and so forth.
> 
> You cannot simply just newegg search similar hardware and call it the same thing.   Plus like I said, any RAM, HD, SSD, is universal, so the prices for those will be the same.



Ya...but the difference is, if you price out a Dell, and its too expensive, you can go build one. Or pay someone to build it, and still save money. I dont think you can with the Mac.

EDIT: Im starting to think the OP is a troll...havent heard from him in a while....I guess we can only deal with one troll at a time...


----------



## PunterCam

I'll wade on in here! 

Macs run faster for longer. It's a fact based on years of experience. My mac pro is nearly 5 years old and runs like new. It's silent, boots in seconds, runs ALL of the latest software, and is a pleasure to own. I can't even remember what equivalent PC I owned 5 years ago...

On the other hand, windows7 is a million times better than XP was. It's stable, as long as you're sensible (a mad moment downloading and installing the wrong thing will still ruin a system though - user error or not, installing the wrong thing on OSX doesn't ruin anything). 7s window handling is lovely, and everything opens and runs very positively. 

Apple only has a small market share because of the price of their products. Problems with the OS aren't well publicised because there are none, not because of the small share as suggested elsewhere in this thread. And, while a grand for a desktop (imac) is a lot of cash, for what you get I'd say it's a bit of a bargain. 

Business and work, where money and professionalism are paramount, Apple products every time.


----------



## Iceyn1pples

PunterCam said:


> Macs run faster for longer. It's a fact based on years of experience. My mac pro is nearly 5 years old and runs like new.



Are you a scientist? Have you performed experiments to back up your claims?
Just because that is what you experienced does not make it a fact!

...actually, all of your claims are just as ridiculous whether it was pro Mac or Pro windows...



tlarkin said:


> Someone named iceynipples is calling me a waste of time.



So because you cannot trump my arugments, you attack my name?? Are you seriously going there?? I sir, will refrain from name calling. But at least i give you enough respect to spell your name correctly...afterall, it is a name. 

However, i have not seen any counter arguments about the computer I built:



tlarkin said:


> For one, it runs dual xeon processors.





tlarkin said:


> Next, it uses ECC memory, because it is meant to do super high end work.





tlarkin said:


> You say you can build a higher spec computer than a Mac Pro for half the price? Let us see you do it.



I don't recall saying half price....please correct me if im wrong. 

But.......(its a big one)...


Iceyn1pples said:


> But give me 13K, i'd build a PC with better performance, and still have enough money to go on vacation in the dominican!




In this case 6999.00, not 13k.


----------



## paulcheung

tlarkin said:


> The title of the tread is called _Buying Advice for a Mac._  He didn't come here to ask for questions about Mac Vs PC but that is what he got instead.
> 
> Also, this whole Mac is only for simple users thing.....yeah man, you do know I can program with python, perl, shell/bash, and ruby native on a Mac right?   You know how powerful the Unix command line is?   A Mac is hardly for simple users, it is for every user.  You don't have to know Unix to use a Mac, but if you do, you have a whole bunch of power at your finger tips.



PC and Mac are out there well over 25 years. Steve Jobs and Bill Gate are compete with each other over 25 years, The PC is more popular Than Apple is that Apple is a closed system it doesn't even licence other people to build the hardware to use their OS. 
In the other hand because MSdos are licenced from IBM so Bill Gate can't close the door for others to use it. (Am I right with my memory? I stand for correction here.)

The way the OP trash his PC make me wonder. he claim he use them over 20 years and Mac is there all the time, if he beleive Mac is more stable why didn't he change it long time ago?

If you use PC with any version windows and office alone. The guarrantee it never crash. because the amount of the different softwares from different software developer it is almost impossible to make everything work flawlessly all together. it is have to twist and turn to make them work together.

When you compare the two together, one has to ask, what I use this computer for? do i need to pay for the premium price to use a handful software to get my work done? just for a piece of mind that I beleive it is more stable? then have no room to improve in the future? or
I can get even more raw computing power with less price to do my work with tons of software at my finger tip? as an experience PC user I have no problem to get my work done with the less costing pc. SO pc for me all the way.
Cheers.


----------



## tlarkin

@ Icey,

I still haven't verified if all that hardware is to spec and I really don't feel like spending a few hours doing so.  It is your claim, you need to verify it.  I have done build vs a Mac in many different threads.  Use the search function to look them up, as I am tired of repeating myself.  Also, to be fair you need to compare the Mac when it first came out, that model is nearly a year old.   I openly admit that if you buy a Mac at end of life cycle it is a way worse deal than buying at beginning of life cycle.   Since Apple has a set business model, of 3 versions of everything at 3 set price tiers, you get a way better deal when the newest model comes out.   Most people who buy Macs usually wait for a product refresh.   Since that Mac Pro is from Summer 2010 the new Mac Pro coming out that will replace it very soon, for the same price will be the better comparison.

I also haven't included software, support, and warranty yet either.   We are just comparing purely hardware.   If you want my arguments search the forum, as I have done it plenty of times.



> When you compare the two together, one has to ask, what I use this computer for? do i need to pay for the premium price to use a handful software to get my work done? just for a piece of mind that I beleive it is more stable? then have no room to improve in the future? or
> I can get even more raw computing power with less price to do my work with tons of software at my finger tip? as an experience PC user I have no problem to get my work done with the less costing pc. SO pc for me all the way.



This is exactly one of my main points.  This covers overall cost of ownership, since that really depends on your opinions and experiences, and the other half is based upon some simple facts.   

I started building PCs in the mid 90s.  Was a total Windows fan boy 100%, and dabbled in Linux.  My first tech job I got was a warranty repair shop that also supports Macs.  So, I was forced to use them professionally.   I always owned a Mac or two just so I could keep up with them for my job, and a lot of the times my job gave me one.   So, it is not like I was paying for them.

Then once my job got serious and I was managing thousands of machines and servers, Mac, Windows and Linux, I really saw how great the Mac platform was.  I was able to do everything built in.  Telnet, ssh, remote desktop (vnc), to all platforms.  I can write code easily for them in shell/bash and python, and with multiple desktops and the ability to run virtual machines and windows apps on my Macs, I realize I am 10x more productive on my Mac and really my PC is just a toy.   I use my PC for my HTPC at home and my other PC for a gaming rig.  Otherwise I don't do much production work on them.

The fact that I have all these tools and software available out of the box and many easy to download for my Mac really is a benefit that I don't want to give up.   Since Macs can run Windows apps via Crossover and WINE, and dual boot and virtual machines they can literally run petty much every app.   I also need a laptop that is powerful and has a long battery time because out in the field I won't always be able to charge up my laptop.   I also need it to be compatible with every system I work with (which is all three platforms Win/Linux/OS X) and since out of hte box the Mac is more compliant I chose it.

I have some funny stories talking to tier 2 enterprise support with Microsoft and the tech having to transfer me because I was remoted into the servers using their version of remote desktop on my Mac....talk about a waste of money with my support contracts....


----------



## Iceyn1pples

@Tla, 



tlarkin said:


> You cannot simply just newegg search similar hardware and call it the same thing.   Plus like I said, any RAM, HD, SSD, is universal, so the prices for those will be the same.



I can, I did, and you were wrong. 

Im sure i have verified myself and backed up my claim. All i see from you in terms of arguments, are excuses and topic changing sentences. 

I read your other posts....too bad you cant give back the time i wasted reading your useless posts...


----------



## CdnAudiophile

Iceyn1pples said:


> @Tla,
> I can, I did, and you were wrong.



/thread


----------



## tlarkin

Yeah ok man, whatever you say.  Like I said a billion times already search for my older posts where I actually break down the hardware and build a Mac Pro with a current model and it is almost always near the same price.   

You obviously did not go back and search and find the threads I am talking about


----------

