# What makes a pc better than a mac?



## Bamgag

So what is it that makes it better to buy a pc over a mac? compare the two. are you able to give me some specifics?


----------



## DarthJonny

this is one of the biggest arguments ever. lol

i like pc better cause its less expensive. with a mac you have to use their parts and they dont give rights to third partys and they charge you crazy amounts for new parts. pc however there is many different third parties out there making parts for pc's. its one of the reasons i like pc better. but im not going to say anymore cause i dont want people to yell at me


----------



## gamerman4

That's like saying what makes a Ford better than a Chevy. You have to find your own reason.


----------



## Chasingu

There isn't really alot of bad you can say about the mac and windows debate because for all those reasons that PC is better than mac, the mac has boot camp, for running windows on a mac.


----------



## aviation_man

It's a preference as well.... And it also depends on what you want to do.... What would you like to do on your computer (Assuming that you're looking into buying a new computer)?


----------



## StrangleHold

Different reasons. mac has three, Warm, Fuzzy and what just happen. PC has three, Tranquility, Rage and Anger.


----------



## NeoDude86

i love these discussions... truth is when a mac is out of date you have to replace it but when a pc goes out of date you can replace parts (in most cases hard drive and ram) and it is a lie when they say that macs never get viruses because they do they are about the same except that you can upgrade a pc but you cannot upgrade a mac oh but macs are in some cases more stable making them bettor for photo and video editing (as long as you are willing to pay over $1000 for a computer)


----------



## Twist86

I have never used a Mac of my own but I tried a few before and this is my biggest beef with it.

Price.


*edit*
2.66GHz Intel Core i5
4GB memory
1TB hard drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics with 512MB 

Price
$1,898.00 Free Shipping (wow fantastic deal)

I built the same system for $1,400 that includes Windows 7 and I chose higher priced items just to be fair if Apple actually has any quality control. This includes everything on the list + after market cooler for overclocking.



excelformey said:


> I am not going to say anymore cause i dont want people to yell at me



You never said anything though


----------



## Machin3

You know what I love best? When people say, "I'm gonna get a Mac because no viruses!" I'm pretty sure I've had a PC for my whole life and I've never gotten a virus. If people were smart about what they download and what they "view" on the "internet" they wouldn't have problems. Besides, there's far more that you can do with a PC that you can't do with a MAC.


----------



## linkin

Bamgag said:


> So what is it that makes it better to buy a pc over a mac? compare the two.



Games.


----------



## Bodaggit23

They have different target markets.

Mac uses all high end components and the best manufacturing design and assembly techniques. Most users don't need a Mac. Most users that use Mac's
probably don't need a Mac. 

PC's are more mainstream, and there's affordable ranges of components for everyone.


----------



## ganzey

Midnight_fox1 said:


> You know what I love best? When people say, "I'm gonna get a Mac because no viruses!" I'm pretty sure I've had a PC for my whole life and I've never gotten a virus. If people were smart about what they download and what they "view" on the "internet" they wouldn't have problems. Besides, there's far more that you can do with a PC that you can't do with a MAC.



there is viruses for mac, just less of them. apparently when ilife09 came out the torrent versions were packed full of viruses(or virii, not sure about correct word usage) and guess what, no antivirus for mac at the time. so ppl were screwed if they downloaded it. the reason there is less viruses for mac is because mac are only like %5 of the computers in the world.


----------



## Jet

Twist86 said:


> I have never used a Mac of my own but I tried a few before and this is my biggest beef with it.
> 
> Price.
> 
> 
> *edit*
> 2.66GHz Intel Core i5
> 4GB memory
> 1TB hard drive
> 8x double-layer SuperDrive
> ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics with 512MB
> 
> Price
> $1,898.00 Free Shipping (wow fantastic deal)
> 
> I built the same system for $1,400 that includes Windows 7 and I chose higher priced items just to be fair if Apple actually has any quality control. This includes everything on the list + after market cooler for overclocking.



Did you include a 27" IPS Screen (practically a 30" due to its resolution--same width but just a bit less height because of the aspect ratio)?


----------



## neavissa

its not so the os that bothers me, its the people that use macs. they are such arrogant artsy fartsy and think they are sooo cool because they are not using a "normal" pc, they are using a mac. what a bunch of morons. just like people that drive range rovers. those people think they don't drive a "normal" car, they drive a range rover. they are sooo cool...at least that's how it is in los angeles. the worst place on the planet...


----------



## premierxxx

Bamgag said:


> So what is it that makes it better to buy a pc over a mac?




Monopoly.


Mac is a monopoly..  It's not better than a PC, no way, it's just propaganda by Mac people.  There is no monopoly in PC, so you get the best technology for the buck bang.


----------



## mep916

premierxxx said:


> Monopoly.
> 
> 
> Mac is a monopoly..  It's not better than a PC, no way, it's just propaganda by Mac people.  There is no monopoly in PC, so you get the best technology for the buck bang.



You understand that the OS and software is what separates a PC from a Mac. The majority of PCs run Windows, so how does Microsoft not have a monopoly? Yes, there are Linux alternatives, but very few machines ship with, say, Ubuntu, so wouldn't you say that M$ has a solid monopoly as well? Now it's true that you cannot really build a Mac, and that you do have a variety of hardware options, if you build it yourself, with a PC, but that doesn't change the fact that, if you want full functionality, you would have to run a Windows OS.


----------



## Bodaggit23

mep916 said:


> if you want full functionality, you would have to run a Windows OS.



But, who's fault is that? There are no viable alternatives to Windows.


----------



## tlarkin

If you want to be fair and compare a Mac to a PC, that you custom build you must include all specs.  We won't count the OS at this point either, but here is a quick comparison:

The latest iMac:
# 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5
# 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
# 1TB Serial ATA Drive
# ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
# 8x double-layer SuperDrive
# Built in ABGN Wireless (broadcom chip)
# Built in iSight Web Cam
# Built in Bluetooth 2.0 EDR
# Built in FW 800 ports
# 27inch TFT LED back lit screen with IPS support

* Not really a feature, but the Mac computers are all rated as "Green Technology"

Price:  $1,999.00

Someone want to build a PC spec for spec (including the 27" display) on a PC to compare prices?  I don't frequent Newegg.com every day so it would take me some time to find all the good prices.  

Also mind you that the motherboard in that iMac is pretty top notch.  For example, the CPU (all cores) have a direct bus to the memory, ie there is no memory controller slowing down the process.  Now some of this new technology ties into OS 10.6 and their Grand Central Station technology, but that is something that I will keep out of the comparison at the moment.

So, any newegg wizards want to build a desktop that compares spec to spec?


----------



## tlarkin

premierxxx said:


> Monopoly.
> 
> 
> Mac is a monopoly..  It's not better than a PC, no way, it's just propaganda by Mac people.  There is no monopoly in PC, so you get the best technology for the buck bang.



What is a buck bang?  I kind of want to look it up on urban dictionary but part of me tells me I don't want to know.....

Apple is not a Monopoly, they are a different business model.  Is Sun a Monopoly?  They build high end desktops that run their OS, Solaris.  Even though Sun systems can run different flavors of Unix/Linux but then again so can a Mac and a Mac can run Windows.

In fact, Apple is in direct competition with Microsoft and the PC manufacturers, so how is this exactly a monopoly.  I think you need to redefine what that word means in your vocab.


----------



## mep916

I accidentally posted in a mac vs. pc thread.  



tlarkin said:


> In fact, Apple is in direct competition with Microsoft and the PC manufacturers, so how is this exactly a monopoly.  I think you need to redefine what that word means in your vocab.



that's right.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

I bought myself a Macbook Pro just this week. While the price is a bit steep, it's obvious you get what you pay for. Amazing design and build quality is noticeable right from the start. Apple have created a lot of interesting things that PC's don't have. Like the multitouch feature on Macbook's, for example. Not really a huge thing when you think about it in passing, but it's really quite innovative. The OS is great for stability, and the software that comes with Mac OS X is very clever and intuitive. 

However, I would never own an iMac myself. I have my PC desktop with all of my games and documents and work and so on. I spend most of my time on my PC, so organizing files and stuff like that isn't a big deal. I wanted a laptop that just worked when I turned it on, with rock solid stability, and will also last me ages. I don't want to spend ages on my laptop organizing and moving around files. I want to just chuck everything in and let the OS do the organizing. And I wanted something I could use time to time for music or photo editing on the go, while keeping a great battery life. The only solution was a Macbook Pro. 

All in all, there are pros and cons to both. I like using Mac OS as a casual user, not so much all of the time. I like Windows as a power user and the fact that I can really push the system. But sometimes I want to just stay in bed in the morning, pop open the laptop and have work quickly and efficiently without waiting for the OS to load up and get 8,000 notifications before I even get to start Firefox. 

Also, it's impossible to find a windows laptop with substantial computing power, sturdy and elegant design, and great battery life. Macbook Pro has all of those things, and they are selling so well because they have no real competition in that area. If I see an aluminum laptop that's quick, beautiful, with 7 hours battery next to a bunch of plastic laptops with GB's worth of bloatware, ugly as can be, and 3 hours battery, which one would be the logical choice? And is it worth the price premium? In my opinion, yes.


----------



## tlarkin

Ethan3.14159 said:


> I bought myself a Macbook Pro just this week. While the price is a bit steep, it's obvious you get what you pay for. Amazing design and build quality is noticeable right from the start. Apple have created a lot of interesting things that PC's don't have. Like the multitouch feature on Macbook's, for example. Not really a huge thing when you think about it in passing, but it's really quite innovative. The OS is great for stability, and the software that comes with Mac OS X is very clever and intuitive.
> 
> However, I would never own an iMac myself. I have my PC desktop with all of my games and documents and work and so on. I spend most of my time on my PC, so organizing files and stuff like that isn't a big deal. I wanted a laptop that just worked when I turned it on, with rock solid stability, and will also last me ages. I don't want to spend ages on my laptop organizing and moving around files. I want to just chuck everything in and let the OS do the organizing. And I wanted something I could use time to time for music or photo editing on the go, while keeping a great battery life. The only solution was a Macbook Pro.
> 
> All in all, there are pros and cons to both. I like using Mac OS as a casual user, not so much all of the time. I like Windows as a power user and the fact that I can really push the system. But sometimes I want to just stay in bed in the morning, pop open the laptop and have work quickly and efficiently without waiting for the OS to load up and get 8,000 notifications before I even get to start Firefox.
> 
> Also, it's impossible to find a windows laptop with substantial computing power, sturdy and elegant design, and great battery life. Macbook Pro has all of those things, and they are selling so well because they have no real competition in that area. If I see an aluminum laptop that's quick, beautiful, with 7 hours battery next to a bunch of plastic laptops with GB's worth of bloatware, ugly as can be, and 3 hours battery, which one would be the logical choice? And is it worth the price premium? In my opinion, yes.



You are looking at overall cost of ownership, which actually makes the Mac cheaper in that regard.  Apple is ultimately a hardware company, they are not a software company.  They spend more money designing their hardware than they do developing their OS or software products.  They use engineering techniques that many other hardware companies do not.


----------



## newguy

tlarkin said:


> If you want to be fair and compare a Mac to a PC, that you custom build you must include all specs. We won't count the OS at this point either, but here is a quick comparison:
> 
> The latest iMac:
> # 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5
> # 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
> # 1TB Serial ATA Drive
> # ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
> # 8x double-layer SuperDrive
> # Built in ABGN Wireless (broadcom chip)
> # Built in iSight Web Cam
> # Built in Bluetooth 2.0 EDR
> # Built in FW 800 ports
> # 27inch TFT LED back lit screen with IPS support
> 
> * Not really a feature, but the Mac computers are all rated as "Green Technology"
> 
> Price: $1,999.00
> 
> Someone want to build a PC spec for spec (including the 27" display) on a PC to compare prices? I don't frequent Newegg.com every day so it would take me some time to find all the good prices.
> 
> Also mind you that the motherboard in that iMac is pretty top notch. For example, the CPU (all cores) have a direct bus to the memory, ie there is no memory controller slowing down the process. Now some of this new technology ties into OS 10.6 and their Grand Central Station technology, but that is something that I will keep out of the comparison at the moment.
> 
> So, any newegg wizards want to build a desktop that compares spec to spec?


 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131606
279.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215
199.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227346
72.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148278
159.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136176
199.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814129138
116.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139004
89.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009165
249.99

ok so this doesnt include a case, bluetooth, wireless, or os but im out of time someone else can look that stuff up. total so far: $1369.92


----------



## bomberboysk

mep916 said:


> I accidentally posted in a mac vs. pc thread.
> 
> 
> 
> *that's right*.


+1, apple is not a monopoly.However, some may consider the OS tied to the hardware an unfair business move(however by doing such the platform can be much more stable than an OS that has to be run on diverse hardware).


----------



## tlarkin

newguy said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131606
> 279.99
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215
> 199.99
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227346
> 72.99
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148278
> 159.99
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136176
> 199.99
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814129138
> 116.99
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139004
> 89.99
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009165
> 249.99
> 
> ok so this doesnt include a case, bluetooth, wireless, or os but im out of time someone else can look that stuff up. total so far: $1369.92



I would say that is pretty comparable.  Except maybe that the PSU may be a bit higher in the Mac since it also supplies power to the built in LCD, but that is debatable.  Apple also uses ungodly expensive RAM, which is why I always buy third party RAM.

I would call this build pretty comparable.  The bluetooth, firewire 800, ABGN wireless are also needed to make a fair comparison.  Even though we are also comparing an All-in-One to a desktop.  

However, I doubt that bluetooth, FW800, a web cam, and ABGN wifi will add up to $600.  

I also left out features that you can't add to a PC like ambient light sensor.  The Mac can sense the brightness level of the room and automatically dim and brighten your display according to the amount of light in the room.  If you wanted to put a dollar value on stuff like that, sure go ahead.

I know a lot of people will dismiss stuff like that, but in all honesty once you start utilizing them you tend to really like them.  I can't stand to touch a PC laptop since they don't have multi touch touchpads, and I don't use an external mouse anymore on my MBP since I am way more efficient with the track pad gestures.  There are a lot of little things you may dismiss with a mac but once you have enough time with it you realize how important these little details can be.

To give you an assessment too, I pretty much did not like Macs at all until about OS X 10.2, which would have been around 2003ish?  That means I would have been using and supporting Macs for about 5 years at that time.  It took me a long time to come around because I also hated all the stupid little pointless things a Mac does.  Once I was given a choice at work to pick my own laptop I chose a MBP, and never looked back.  It is still, in my opinion, the best laptop ever made, and I have owned about every single brand out there.


----------



## Jet

tlarkin said:


> I would say that is pretty comparable.



I would have to disagree somewhat.

Yes, it is a 27" monitor, but the resolution difference is huge--the 27" iMac's monitor has 56% more pixels...and it is an IPS monitor. It's easy to get a cheap TN monitor panel--but you pay money (and lots of it) for a quality IPS.

Also, to reiterate--we are comparing a desktop to an amazing all-in-one--even moreso, we're comparing the cost of a build-it-yourself computer to an iMac. That fact alone is enough to realize that Mac has done something amazing--Apple has made a computer that's on par with other well-known pre-built manufacturers--I'd even argue beating them. 

Back to your part selections--you can cut out quite a bit from the motherboard (~$100+), hard drive ($60+), cut the BR drive ($170), but we're comparing apples to oranges as far as form factors are concerned.


----------



## tlarkin

Oops I didn't notice it did not have in plane switching, I was assuming that the poster researched it spec for spec....

Google shows this as the most comparable screen I can find...maybe someone can find IPS monitor for cheaper?

http://www.adorama.com/VDLA526CABE.html?sid=1259703648227337

###Edit

I can't even find an IPS 27" display on newegg or Tigerdirect.  I can find some larger ones, but they are like nearly $2,000.


----------



## Jet

tlarkin said:


> Oops I didn't notice it did not have in plane switching, I was assuming that the poster researched it spec for spec....
> 
> Google shows this as the most comparable screen I can find...maybe someone can find IPS monitor for cheaper?
> 
> http://www.adorama.com/VDLA526CABE.html?sid=1259703648227337



Even that's only 1920x1200--it's somewhat of an interesting situation, because the only comparable monitor would be a 30" Dell or Apple--the cheapest of which would be the 30" Dell:

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...etail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=222-7175


----------



## mep916

bomberboysk said:


> +1, apple is not a monopoly.However, some may consider the OS tied to the hardware an unfair business move(however by doing such the platform can be much more stable than an OS that has to be run on diverse hardware).



Microsoft sorta does the same with the off the shelf machines, and they have a ton of leverage with hardware vendors. If a truly competitive OS for the PC were released, M$ would apply a ton of pressure on all the vendors and PC manufacturers not to support the product. Is that illegal? Probably, but they've used these methods in the past. 

BTW, I'm not necessarily a Microsoft hater, just pointing out that they, more than apple, are more aggressive and have more power within the entire industry. Without question, though, Apple is the most innovative and they have a great business model and marketing strategy.


----------



## tlarkin

Jet said:


> Even that's only 1920x1200--it's somewhat of an interesting situation, because the only comparable monitor would be a 30" Dell or Apple--the cheapest of which would be the 30" Dell:
> 
> http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...etail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=222-7175



Yup, you're right I can't find one either, so technically the iMac actually ends up being cheaper than what you would pay to build one spec for spec.

hahahaha, that is funny since the whole reason people always blast them on this forum is because they are too expensive.


----------



## Jet

mep916 said:


> Without question, though, Apple is the most innovative and they have a great business model and marketing strategy.



Competition between Apple and Microsoft is amazing--one of the reasons I love Apple so much. Without Apple's competition, there's a very good chance we would be missing quite a few of the features that Windows 7 has.


----------



## mep916

Jet said:


> Without Apple's competition, there's a very good chance we would be missing quite a few of the features that Windows 7 has.



haha. Yup, they copied a lot from OSX. Even in Vista they borrowed the sidebar from Apple's gadget feature. I love my iPhone, which would not have happened if jobs didn't come back.


----------



## bomberboysk

mep916 said:


> Microsoft sorta does the same with the off the shelf machines, and they have a ton of leverage with hardware vendors. If a truly competitive OS for the PC were released, M$ would apply a ton of pressure on all the vendors and PC manufacturers not to support the product. Is that illegal? Probably, but they've used these methods in the past.
> 
> BTW, I'm not necessarily a Microsoft hater, just pointing out that they, more than apple, are more aggressive and have more power within the entire industry. Without question, though, Apple is the most innovative and they have a great business model and marketing strategy.


Yeah, the entire operating system market is a cutthroat business barring open source Ive been called a microsoft hater myself,as even though my main os is windows i realler prefer OSX to windows. Honestly i couldnt care less what happen to microsoft if apple were to bring OSX out to the PC market, id be the first one in line at the store to buy a copy.


----------



## mep916

bomberboysk said:


> Yeah, the entire operating system market is a cutthroat business barring open source Ive been called a microsoft hater myself,as even though my main os is windows i realler prefer OSX to windows. Honestly i couldnt care less what happen to microsoft if apple were to bring OSX out to the PC market, id be the first one in line at the store to buy a copy.



I've never really used OSX. I've thought about buying it and installing it on my PC (don't give me an infraction ), but I really want a macbook pro. I'd love a laptop and that would def be my first choice. When I go to the mall, I always go to the Apple store play around with it for awhile.


----------



## bomberboysk

mep916 said:


> I've never really used OSX. I've thought about buying it and installing it on my PC (don't give me an infraction ), but I really want a macbook pro. I'd love a laptop and that would def be my first choice. When I go to the mall, I always go to the Apple store play around with it for awhile.


*issues infraction*


----------



## tlarkin

mep916 said:


> I've never really used OSX. I've thought about buying it and installing it on my PC (don't give me an infraction ), but I really want a macbook pro. I'd love a laptop and that would def be my first choice. When I go to the mall, I always go to the Apple store play around with it for awhile.



Unix > Windows, that is pretty much a fact.  OS X = Unix, therefore by transitive property, OS X > Windows.  See, math is very important kids!


----------



## Jet

mep916 said:


> I've never really used OSX. I've thought about buying it and installing it on my PC (don't give me an infraction ), but I really want a macbook pro. I'd love a laptop and that would def be my first choice. When I go to the mall, I always go to the Apple store play around with it for awhile.



I love my 13" Macbook Pro--once you get used to multitouch, everyone else's trackpad seems horribly cheap and low quality.


----------



## bomberboysk

Jet said:


> I love my 13" Macbook Pro--once you get used to multitouch, everyone else's trackpad seems horribly cheap and low quality.


Before college i think im going to get myself a mac of some kind for a laptop, i love the aluminum construction hehe.


----------



## tlarkin

Jet said:


> I love my 13" Macbook Pro--once you get used to multitouch, everyone else's trackpad seems horribly cheap and low quality.



I know exactly how you feel, no multi touch track pad = trash - DO NOT WANT


----------



## mep916

tlarkin said:


> Unix > Windows, that is pretty much a fact.  OS X = Unix, therefore by transitive property, OS X > Windows.  See, math is very important kids!



But will unix run Crysis? omgomg!


----------



## Respital

mep916 said:


> But will unix run Crysis? omgomg!



But will unix run Crysis, *while doing a wheelie* omgomg!


----------



## ScottALot

People say "video editing, video editing, great customer service, no viruses..."

But with a PC, you can easily:

Get better parts to edit video faster than a mac.
Get _quality_ components and get that great customer service w/o paying an extra 50$ for what should be free.
Firewall or something.


----------



## bomberboysk

ScottALot said:


> People say "video editing, video editing, great customer service, no viruses..."
> 
> But with a PC, you can easily:
> 
> Get better parts to edit video faster than a mac.
> Get _quality_ components and get that great customer service w/o paying an extra 50$ for what should be free.
> Firewall or something.


Try beating apples service, their service is great even if it is a bit, well, idiot oriented.

Most of the major studios use mac to edit video, as there are alot of programs only out there for mac.


----------



## ScottALot

Yah, program orientation is a major factor.
I wouldn't pay an extra 400$ for a computer for excellent customer service when most of my PC parts will be RMA'd for just shipping costs.


----------



## Stoic Sentinel

ScottALot said:


> no *viruses*...



If I'm not mistaken, Macs can still acquire trojans?


----------



## tlarkin

mep916 said:


> But will unix run Crysis? omgomg!



oh touche!


----------



## tlarkin

Stoic Sentinel said:


> If I'm not mistaken, Macs can still acquire trojans?



Any system can acquire malware/trojans/spyware if the user installs in unknowingly.  I could package up a pirated version of a Mac application and slip a launch daemon in there that rooted the machine.  When the user runs the installer and puts in their password to run, their machine is then rooted.  Those kinds of attacks are can not be stopped by any OS security from any OS or platform.  

Now, OS X, and Unix for that matter has zero, in the wild self propagating viruses.  Actually the nature of a virus is to self propagate.  Also, when you follow best practices on a *nix box, the chances of you being remotely exploited are pretty much nil, to zero.  There is a reason why Unix runs the Internet and all of the cached DNS servers, because it is very stable and very secure.

Windows, is not a secure OS since there is no authentication to install software at all.


----------



## tlarkin

After a bit of looking this is the best list of IPS LCD TFT monitors I could find.  The price range varies but anything comparable to the iMac 27" is going to be in the $800 to $1,000 or more range.  I found a NEC one that was $1900 with the same specs as the Apple display.

http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/s-ips-lcd-list.php

So, it seems really the iMac is going to actually be a lot cheaper part for part and spec for spec.

#edit 

Seems the NEC was over $2,000 actually

http://www.buildyourowncomputer.com/page/B/PROD/78616G

It has the same specs and same resolution as the iMac 27" IPS monitor.  I think that this one is a bit better in other areas, justifying it's high price.


----------



## Drenlin

bomberboysk said:


> Most of the major studios use mac to edit video, as there are alot of programs only out there for mac.



Indeed, but this is due as much to Mac's clever advertising as it is to software.

In Audio, however, it's still a hotly debated topic. A bit of a moot point though, as Linux has them both beat with its malleability, and Ubuntu Studio's ability to function as a real time OS. You'd be amazed at how much that helps with latency.


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> Indeed, but this is due as much to Mac's clever advertising as it is to software.
> 
> In Audio, however, it's still a hotly debated topic. A bit of a moot point though, as Linux has them both beat with its malleability, and Ubuntu Studio's ability to function as a real time OS. You'd be amazed at how much that helps with latency.



I have worked for several studios fixing their digital equipment.  All of them used Macs with M-Audio equipment and Pro tools, with the exception of one studio that was Macs and Logic Audio.

Sure, you can do it on a PC, but as far as I can tell with my experience the preferred platform is the Mac.


----------



## feyarts

maybe combining pc and mac is a good idea... because they both have weaknesses... but if they develop a computer together then this question doesn't need an answer.... why can't this Gates and Raskin/Apple team combine? a better computer may someday we use under both name... Microsoft and Apple.. lol...


----------



## linkin

feyarts said:


> maybe combining pc and mac is a good idea... because they both have weaknesses... but if they develop a computer together then this question doesn't need an answer.... why can't this Gates and Raskin/Apple team combine? a better computer may someday we use under both name... Microsoft and Apple.. lol...



Micro-Apple creates the PC-Mac 

I doubt that will ever happen, although ages ago gates and jobs were friends at some point.


----------



## tlarkin

linkin93 said:


> Micro-Apple creates the PC-Mac
> 
> I doubt that will ever happen, although ages ago gates and jobs were friends at some point.



They still are friends, they had dinner together at some tech conference a few years back.  They sat and talked for hours.






I think they were sharing fishing stories...


----------



## mep916

Yeah, they also sat down for an interview a couple years ago with the WSJ. Here's a link to the multi-part videos. this was just before the iPhone was released. It was sorta interesting. You can tell there was a bit of tension between the two, but for the most part, I think they like and respect each other. 

http://d5.allthingsd.com/20070530/steve-jobs-and-bill-gates-together-part-1-of-7/


----------



## StrangleHold

I like this one.


----------



## Drenlin

tlarkin said:


> I have worked for several studios fixing their digital equipment.  All of them used Macs with M-Audio equipment and Pro tools, with the exception of one studio that was Macs and Logic Audio.
> 
> Sure, you can do it on a PC, but as far as I can tell with my experience the preferred platform is the Mac.




I just can't stay out of arguments with you, can I? Lol.

MAcs do outnumber PC's, yes. But in audio a PC can do everything a mac can do. Larger studios use mac because it's the perceived "standard", but to anyone else who doesn't care about how the studio looks, it's a tossup. Last time my band recorded, it was using mostly Alesis equipment, with a PC running XP and I think Adobe Audition.

My brother's band recorded their whole album using only a PreSonus Firepod and an awesome program called Reaper. Needed better mics though. >.<


----------



## Turbo10

this pretty much sum it up. But in my opinion a pc is more customisable it feels, more of YOUR pc cause you can build it from scratch. Yes the mac may be better for photoshopping, and it may have ddr3 ram and crap but whats the point in this if you cant play a sodding game on it? If macs are so bloody amazing why cant they play games? XD they are also completely overpriced and a fashion item lol.


----------



## tlarkin

Turbo10 said:


> this pretty much sum it up. But in my opinion a pc is more customisable it feels, more of YOUR pc cause you can build it from scratch. Yes the mac may be better for photoshopping, and it may have ddr3 ram and crap but whats the point in this if you cant play a sodding game on it? If macs are so bloody amazing why cant they play games? XD they are also completely overpriced and a fashion item lol.



Actually Macs, especially the new ones have some pretty advanced hardware architecture that PCs do not even use or have available.  Of course I doubt anyone would actually take the time to read up on the facts about each piece of hardware, rather to play into opinions based on misinformation.


----------



## Bodaggit23

tlarkin said:


> Actually Macs, especially the new ones have some pretty advanced hardware architecture that PCs do not even use or have available.  Of course I doubt anyone would actually take the time to read up on the facts about each piece of hardware, rather to play into opinions based on misinformation.



I think that's the best, shortest, well thought out reply I've ever seen. :good:


----------



## ganzey

tlarkin said:


> Actually Macs, especially the new ones have some pretty advanced hardware architecture that PCs do not even use or have available.  Of course I doubt anyone would actually take the time to read up on the facts about each piece of hardware, rather to play into opinions based on misinformation.



exactly what hardware architecture do they have that pc's dont?


----------



## Respital

StrangleHold said:


> I like this one.





Turbo10 said:


> this pretty much sum it up. But in my opinion a pc is more customisable it feels, more of YOUR pc cause you can build it from scratch. Yes the mac may be better for photoshopping, and it may have ddr3 ram and crap but whats the point in this if you cant play a sodding game on it? If macs are so bloody amazing why cant they play games? XD they are also completely overpriced and a fashion item lol.



+1 :good:


----------



## ganzey

LOL


----------



## ganzey

THis also helps sum it up


----------



## Drenlin

ganzey said:


> exactly what hardware architecture do they have that pc's dont?



+1, what do they have that makes them any more useful?
(note the last half of the sentence)


----------



## ganzey

Drenlin said:


> +1, what do they have that makes them any more useful?
> (note the last half of the sentence)



that what i was tryin to get out, macs dont even have i7 yet, and even when they do, you will have to buy a WHOLE new $2000+ computer, cause MACS ARENT UPGRADEABLE.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

ganzey said:


> that what i was tryin to get out, macs dont even have i7 yet, and even when they do, you will have to buy a WHOLE new $2000+ computer, cause MACS ARENT UPGRADEABLE.


Really? Because I upgraded my Macbook Pro from 2 to 4Gb of RAM as soon as I got it, and I plan to upgrade to a 500 Gb HDD in the near future... I guess they aren't upgradeable. 

Also, look up prices before you say dumb things. A 21.5" iMac is $1200. Which has a 3 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of DDR3, 500 GB HDD, a IPS display with 1920 x 1080 resolution, and it's all-in-one. Can you build all of that in a the back of a monitor? Didn't think so. Also, look up how much that quality of monitor will cost you from any other company. Especially try to find an equivalent to the 27" iMac. A 2560 x 1440 IPS based monitor.

And PS. The 27" iMac has Core i5... all-in-one as well.

Oh, PPS... The Mac Pro's have 2 Xeon CPU's.... a little bit better than your average i7.

Another thing... Look at how look a system with those specifications will stay fast on Mac OS X compared to Windows. An iMac will easily last 8+ years, and still be lightning quick because it's using a lightweight UNIX based OS. So, an average person will buy 2-3 computers in that time. So, the cost actually becomes less considering that Mac's have a much longer life compared to Windows computers.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

Mac desktops aren't nowhere as upgradable as PC desktops, but Macbooks and PC laptops are more or less in the same boat - practically the only components you can really upgrade are RAM and the HD.


----------



## Drenlin

^ Me and tlarkin just had a pretty big argument about that. Most of them may not be very upgradable, but PC laptops still allow a lot more stuff to be added than Macs do.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

Okay, but the average computer user has no idea how to upgrade their PC or Mac. So, they'll usually take it somewhere to get it upgraded. (Geek Squad, local computer shop, etc) And there are places to do that for Macs as well. 

And Mac's don't come underpowered for the OS like a lot of PC laptops and desktops do. They all fly through OS X, even the lowest end Macbook.


----------



## Drenlin

^ Sure, but the upgrade options aren't near what they are on a PC.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

Drenlin said:


> ^ Sure, but the upgrade options aren't near what they are on a PC.


And what upgrade options are their for say a BTX Dell, Gateway, or HP that isn't available on a Mac?


----------



## Drenlin

Depends entirely on the model. Could range form something simple like pcie cards, to a full GPU/CPU swap.


----------



## tlarkin

ganzey said:


> exactly what hardware architecture do they have that pc's dont?



First and foremost look up EFI

Second, the latest models of Macs went away with memory controllers and now the CPU accesses the RAM directly though the bus, and not through a controller, and on dual processor units they have two buses, 1 for each processor. Then they have grand central dispatch in the OS to help stream line resource management between the hardware.

Full on 64 and 32 bit support native, with out having to pay extra or add in an extra disk for 64 bit support.  Both library files are present.

No registry.


----------



## Gooberman

can this thread be closed all ready? =]


----------



## gamerman4

> can this thread be closed all ready? =]


That would ruin the fun, I love watching these threads to see how ignorant PC fanboys are. I dislike OSX (the OS, not the hardware) for legitimate personal preference reasons but these guys are pulling out the same things that have been in use for years.

Nothing makes one system better than another system other than the person using it. Just look at Linux, the people that use Linux usually don't mind an extra hour of troubleshooting in order to get simple things to work. Linux guys are usually the troubleshooting type anyways so they find it fun. 

Basing an argument on what OS is superior by ease of use would put Linux at the bottom. There are is single factor that you can grade an OS on. An OS is an OS, it's just a box of tools. Each OS has it's own tools in its box but all the tools are basically the same. How can you possibly grade an OS on prescribed merits when those merits are based on personal opinion? Some argue that one OS is better because it handles networks better, some people couldn't care less about how an OS handles networking. It is the same way with every other ignorant metric of what makes an OS "superior".

For me, Windows is what I prefer because I like the taskbar and the start menu. Both are useful to me and I can get to what I want faster with those than I can with just a dock and Finder. I found the dock to be a decent app launcher but I thought it shouldn't be the launcher for all the apps on my system but I wanted a quick way of finding other apps that aren't on the dock so I like the Start Menu. In Vista and before, I used ObjectDock because it provided the app launching functionality of the OSX dock but at the same time I could keep the window management funcionality of the taskbar. With Windows 7 I have completely abandoned ObjectDock. The new taskbar provides what I want in an app launcher plus the same window management facility. The start menu lets me type exactly what I want and finds it. If I type even a few letters of the program I want, the search feature starts to narrow down the possibilities. I could actually use OSX in its current state but for one thing. The mouse acceleration is the worst of all OSs I have ever used. Even OS9 had a better acceleration curve. Trying to do slow movement in OSX feels like you're dragging the mouse through frozen syrup, sometimes I think that for every inch my mouse moves, the cursor moves 1 pixel. Of course, the acceleration is fine when moving at a normal pace but as a graphic designer I like the feel of the Windows mouse acceleration curve because it slows my mouse down enough to do slow intricate movements but not so much that I feel like I have to have a 20 foot mouse pad in order to do those movements. 
Again those are all personal preferences and some may enjoy what I find annoying because we all have our own requirements for what we want to do in an OS.


----------



## ganzey

Ethan3.14159 said:


> Really? Because I upgraded my Macbook Pro from 2 to 4Gb of RAM as soon as I got it, and I plan to upgrade to a 500 Gb HDD in the near future... I guess they aren't upgradeable.
> 
> *Also, look up prices before you say dumb things. A 21.5" iMac is $1200. Which has a 3 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of DDR3, 500 GB HDD, a IPS display with 1920 x 1080 resolution, and it's all-in-one*.



Yeah, thats a DUAL CORE. and i7 is a QUAD CORE. a mac with an i7 would cost wayyy more than one with a c2d


----------



## just a noob

the lack of games/hardware is what really kills the mac for me, the price as well, seeing as i can build the same thing for less, essentially(i know you've already discussed this, but i'm saying, i would rather build my pc than go through voodoo, or falconpc)


----------



## Ethan3.14159

ganzey said:


> Yeah, thats a DUAL CORE. and i7 is a QUAD CORE. a mac with an i7 would cost wayyy more than one with a c2d


And an iMac with i5 costs $1700, with a 27" 2560 x 1440 monitor. And it's all in one. Again I'll ask if you can build it for that price in the back of a monitor or do you even know of any PC manufacturer that does?

Do some research.


----------



## tlarkin

gamerman4 said:


> That would ruin the fun, I love watching these threads to see how ignorant PC fanboys are. I dislike OSX (the OS, not the hardware) for legitimate personal preference reasons but these guys are pulling out the same things that have been in use for years.
> 
> Nothing makes one system better than another system other than the person using it. Just look at Linux, the people that use Linux usually don't mind an extra hour of troubleshooting in order to get simple things to work. Linux guys are usually the troubleshooting type anyways so they find it fun.
> 
> Basing an argument on what OS is superior by ease of use would put Linux at the bottom. There are is single factor that you can grade an OS on. An OS is an OS, it's just a box of tools. Each OS has it's own tools in its box but all the tools are basically the same. How can you possibly grade an OS on prescribed merits when those merits are based on personal opinion? Some argue that one OS is better because it handles networks better, some people couldn't care less about how an OS handles networking. It is the same way with every other ignorant metric of what makes an OS "superior".
> 
> For me, Windows is what I prefer because I like the taskbar and the start menu. Both are useful to me and I can get to what I want faster with those than I can with just a dock and Finder. I found the dock to be a decent app launcher but I thought it shouldn't be the launcher for all the apps on my system but I wanted a quick way of finding other apps that aren't on the dock so I like the Start Menu. In Vista and before, I used ObjectDock because it provided the app launching functionality of the OSX dock but at the same time I could keep the window management funcionality of the taskbar. With Windows 7 I have completely abandoned ObjectDock. The new taskbar provides what I want in an app launcher plus the same window management facility. The start menu lets me type exactly what I want and finds it. If I type even a few letters of the program I want, the search feature starts to narrow down the possibilities. I could actually use OSX in its current state but for one thing. The mouse acceleration is the worst of all OSs I have ever used. Even OS9 had a better acceleration curve. Trying to do slow movement in OSX feels like you're dragging the mouse through frozen syrup, sometimes I think that for every inch my mouse moves, the cursor moves 1 pixel. Of course, the acceleration is fine when moving at a normal pace but as a graphic designer I like the feel of the Windows mouse acceleration curve because it slows my mouse down enough to do slow intricate movements but not so much that I feel like I have to have a 20 foot mouse pad in order to do those movements.
> Again those are all personal preferences and some may enjoy what I find annoying because we all have our own requirements for what we want to do in an OS.



You know as far as UI features goes, OS X has probably the most.  The difference is, their keyboard short cuts and methods they use by keystroke or search to find an application or file are just different than Windows.  You are used to windows and you like it, and you admit that is why.  Which is what it comes down to as far as end user preferences.  

Now the technology under each OS, that is a whole different story.  Most people care less though, like you said, they just want it to work, which is another great things Mac does.  In fact, if you had never in your life ever touched a computer and I sat you in front of a Mac and a Windows box, I think you would most likely find the Mac more intuitive.

However, here in the USA, that is pretty damn rare, especially these days where there are computers in pretty much every class room.  Even when I was in school my school had several old computers and once I hit high school we had labs of computers.  

The first school system I worked for had over 10,000 PCs in it.  All running Windows and only about 300 or so Macs.  So, even as a kid you are more exposed to Windows.  However, over the past 7 years or so that has started to change as Linux jumped up a whole percent, and now has about a 2% market share and Apple has just under 10% market share.   

Most people that try Mac or Linux switch back to windows with in a few weeks or maybe a month or two.  They never actually sit down and learn the platform.  To be honest, in my opinion, you will need to sit down with something for at least a year every day to get a full hang of it.  It took me several years to even like Macs, as I didn't like the classic OSes and 10.0 and 10.1 really did not impress me all that much.  10.2 I was like, OK, this is getting better and I jumped into using Macs.

I doubt most people even know the differences like Unix POSIX permissions, and why by design it is, I dunno, 500 times more secure than Windows versions of permissions.  Then again, I don't really expect people to know either, because if they did they would probably lean more towards a Unix like OS.


----------



## bomberboysk

tlarkin said:


> First and foremost look up EFI
> 
> Second, the latest models of Macs went away with memory controllers and now the CPU accesses the RAM directly though the bus, and not through a controller, and on dual processor units they have two buses, 1 for each processor. Then they have grand central dispatch in the OS to help stream line resource management between the hardware.
> 
> Full on 64 and 32 bit support native, with out having to pay extra or add in an extra disk for 64 bit support.  Both library files are present.
> 
> No registry.


The new mac's have a memory controller, it is just on the CPU die, just as the i5 and i7 cpu's that pc's use. You also ge two buses on dual processor xeon 5500 based motherboards.


ganzey said:


> that what i was tryin to get out, macs dont even have i7 yet, and even when they do, you will have to buy a WHOLE new $2000+ computer, cause MACS ARENT UPGRADEABLE.


Mac pro's have i7 cpu's, well technically xeons but they are for all intents and purposes the same cpu.


----------



## LCS/drummer

I have used pc's for 11 years. and I HATED macs. I had friends that had them. I recall using them back in like, 2003/4/5 and just being disgusted. I am a PC/computer NERD. till the end. I love building computers. Its fun.

Want to know what else is fun? Turning something on, and It simply....works

i love to read these arguments cause generally all PC fanboys have never used a mac.

Like i said. I hated macs. and when i would use it. At the last resort;I would. and i was so close minded when i would. anything that i didnt like was Apple's fault. Then in june of 09 when the iPhone 3G was released. I watched the keynote for it. and saw some...interesting..things about macs. I caught myself spending hours learning about them. then for the first time ever, i voluntarily used a mac. at a best buy. I loved it.

The difference? I was open minded. I didnt look at it as something stupid, and lame. I appreciated that it was new innovative technology. I was surprised at how smooth the macbook i was using was running. checked the specs, and they were bout half of the specs of the newest computer I had built.(one that took hours to get working correctly, mind you) OSX has takes advantage of hardware much more than a PC, thats why you dont need 4gb of ram on every machine. and an i7. a mac will work great on whatever you give it. hence one of the reasons they have such a high re-sell rate. even ones that are 4,5, even 6 years old 

I ended up borrowing my cousins mac mini whilst he went to boot camp that winter. since then, macs are something I look forward to using. because it just works, and most of the time, much better/seemless than my pc. and for the record; there are lots of 3rd parts apps/utilities for macs i never knew about. its just as easy to find them as it is to find an app for a PC.

QUESTION:

Dear Mac Haters:

How many of you have sat down and used a mac with an open mind. and actually read something about them. learned what they had to offer. cause when you hate and dont research first. you sound like the "idiots" you call us. 

(for the record on a regular basis i use ubuntu/windows 7 and OSX)


----------



## Drenlin

LCS/drummer said:


> QUESTION:
> 
> Dear Mac Haters:
> 
> How many of you have sat down and used a mac with an open mind. and actually read something about them. learned what they had to offer. cause when you hate and dont research first. you sound like the "idiots" you call us.
> 
> (for the record on a regular basis i use ubuntu/windows 7 and OSX)



So is this just a nice way of saying that if you don't like Mac, then you're stupid and don't know anything about it?

I just don't like them. Simple as. Had to use OS X every day when I was in high school...sure it has some interesting features, but I just don't like it. Granted, I'm not exactly an expert on its inner workings, but I don't have to be to know that I don't like using it. I wouldn't really call myself a PC fanboy either, but the only OSes I've genuinely liked using have been Vista/7 and Xubuntu. Slax comes in a close 3rd though.


----------



## ganzey

i dont hate mac, i just like pc better and macs are overpriced


----------



## tlarkin

ganzey said:


> i dont hate mac, i just like pc better and macs are overpriced



$#*%@  They are not overpriced!  Go back in the middle of this thread and then read where I asked anyone to build, spec for spec, part for part an iMac equivalent to the high end i5 one, including monitor since it is an all in one.  You won't be able to build it for cheaper, and keep in mind the iMac has an IPS supported display.

Macs, actually, what you are actually paying for, is a bargain.


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> So is this just a nice way of saying that if you don't like Mac, then you're stupid and don't know anything about it?
> 
> I just don't like them. Simple as. Had to use OS X every day when I was in high school...sure it has some interesting features, but I just don't like it. Granted, I'm not exactly an expert on its inner workings, but I don't have to be to know that I don't like using it. I wouldn't really call myself a PC fanboy either, but the only OSes I've genuinely liked using have been Vista/7 and Xubuntu. Slax comes in a close 3rd though.



Using a manged machine in a professional or academic environment is hardly using it as an end user.


----------



## gamerman4

tlarkin said:


> You know as far as UI features goes, OS X has probably the most.  The difference is, their keyboard short cuts and methods they use by keystroke or search to find an application or file are just different than Windows.  You are used to windows and you like it, and you admit that is why.  Which is what it comes down to as far as end user preferences.
> 
> Now the technology under each OS, that is a whole different story.  Most people care less though, like you said, they just want it to work, which is another great things Mac does.  In fact, if you had never in your life ever touched a computer and I sat you in front of a Mac and a Windows box, I think you would most likely find the Mac more intuitive.
> 
> However, here in the USA, that is pretty damn rare, especially these days where there are computers in pretty much every class room.  Even when I was in school my school had several old computers and once I hit high school we had labs of computers.
> 
> The first school system I worked for had over 10,000 PCs in it.  All running Windows and only about 300 or so Macs.  So, even as a kid you are more exposed to Windows.  However, over the past 7 years or so that has started to change as Linux jumped up a whole percent, and now has about a 2% market share and Apple has just under 10% market share.
> 
> Most people that try Mac or Linux switch back to windows with in a few weeks or maybe a month or two.  They never actually sit down and learn the platform.  To be honest, in my opinion, you will need to sit down with something for at least a year every day to get a full hang of it.  It took me several years to even like Macs, as I didn't like the classic OSes and 10.0 and 10.1 really did not impress me all that much.  10.2 I was like, OK, this is getting better and I jumped into using Macs.



As far as security is concerned, I have little experience in that area so I can't argue, I'll take your word for it.

You are misquoting me, I don't like Windows because I am used to it, I like Windows because it works with me better than Mac OS does. For people that know how to use a computer well, being "used to" something isn't an issue. I can pick up any OS and expect certain things to happen when I handle it. Someone may be "used to" GIMP but give them photoshop and I bet they would use that. If the "used to" argument was even valid, Firefox wouldn't be as popular as it is now.

I've used OS7 to OSX (current version) and Windows 95 to Windows 7. My first computer experience was on OS7 and then OS8, later I got my own computer with Win98 on it. At the time I was too young to care about the differences between the 2. I used Win95 in school because they hadn't upgraded to 98 yet. My next computer was an XP machine (used Win2000 in school for previous reason). 

During high school my computer lab got an iMac (its a little under a couple years old now so its using a previous version of OSX, 10.4 maybe). I used it constantly because every other computer was so old that I couldn't video edit properly on them because of older hardware and lack of RAM. I even got the Mac setup on our Active Directory so you could login with you own username and password. I used that Mac for about a year and a half almost every day. This Mac was setup like a home computer and had no managment/security software on it, anyone with an admin account could do whatever they wanted with it so I took the time to use it and learn about it more. I know the merits of the UI and its nice use of the F keys (various window management functions) yet nothing stood out so much that I liked it any more than my own Home computer. Even with Vista I still put them on even ground as far as functionality goes. I could get around at about the same speed on both of them other than a few things on Mac that always annoyed me and always slowed me down, and even still do. Windows 7 is so far the only M$ OS that I would nail down in my book as "better without a doubt" because I no longer have to use any 3rd party program to add any functionality that I feel is lacking. Literally everything that I want to have in an OS is in Windows 7. But, this is a brand new OS so I can't use it as an example of why I like Windows.

I wouldn't ever call a Mac any more intuitive, I would call it "simplistic" which is different and not necessarily good.
A person that knows nothing about computer would probably get a better hand at using a Mac, yes. But is that what you really want? A pencil and paper is more "intuitive" (definition: knowable by intuition) than a keyboard because there is a learning curve with a keyboard that isn't as high with a pencil. I agree Windows has a slightly higher learning curve than a Mac simply because it doesn't take you by the hand and coddle you like a Mac does with its dock zooming, huge icons, and other OS "fluff".

I dislike OSX for simple reasons, I couldn't care less about performance, security, etc. I like Windows because of the "cut" function, I like an app to close when no more windows are open, I like the task tray to hide apps that are happy running in the background (trillian and utorrent), I like fullscreen maximized programs, I like the Start Menu. I like Windows because it is Windows and not because I am "used to" it.


----------



## tlarkin

Everything you just mentioned you can do, and a lot of it has been in Mac OS since the classic OSes (1 through 9).  Like you want to completely hide an application from the Finder, but keep it running?  Just go to that App, and click cmd + H to hide it.  Done.  The only way to get back to it is cmd + tab and then un-hide it the same way.  Cut, copy and paste are fully in almost all Apple OSes since like OS 5.   

Sounds to me like you are used to it, since you can do all that with the Mac, but perhaps you just were unaware?

The only thing that Windows really seems more intuitive than OS X to me, is the right click menus from the desktop and task bar.  I can access system settings fairly quickly and easily from those right click menus.  Apple has a similar method but they don't use right click, and I actually prefer to use right click, but that is not a deal breaker.  I learned Apple's method and I can use it just as quick, but I prefer right click.  I normally just use keyboard shortcuts but sometimes remote desktop doesn't always like the shortcuts, so having the right click is handy.  If I could only even show you the comparisons of MS's remote desktop versus Apple, man it is night and day difference.  You see Apple takes a certain approach with their products, and yes, Apple definitely flaunts this.  Some people don't like it when Apple flaunts it but I get over it. Apple doesn't just look at doing a task or a job, they look at doing it while enhancing the over all end user experience.  I mean, Time Machine for one, makes backing up data actually fun. How many users back up their data?  Practically none of them, and I have done data recovery before, and when I do it I charge a premium for it because it is such long, tedious and boring ass work.  In all honesty data recovery doesn't take a genius to do, but you do need a bit of basic skills.  Time Machine makes it easy, secure and efficient for an end user to back up all their data.  Ever try to use Windows built in back up utility?  It's rubbish.

So, Apple takes an approach that is way different than most computer users are used to.  Microsoft innovates in different ways.  The whole modern server/client technology (which MS stole from Novell) is pretty much the standard innovations of back end.   MS Exchange is powerful and a great product, probably one of Microsoft's best.  

Only now with Windows 7 do you really see Microsoft try to not only get the job done, but also expand on the whole end user experience.  Apple has had that mindset since the beginning.  I admit I was not fond of the classic OSes, but all the features you claim (minus the start menu, but that can be added!) OS X lacks, actually it has.

When you toss out performance and security you are tossing out some of the biggest features OS X offers.

You say you love Windows 7 because it feels "complete," and well you can thank Apple for creating competition to drive MS to add those features to directly compete with OS X.

Like I said, most people don't learn all the differences.  There is really little that either OS can't do that the other one can.  The way it does it is what separates the two.  This heavily comes down to opinion, but I do still firmly believe that once you learn how to use the OS (and all of it's features) you form a better opinion.  

XP was a solid OS, probably the most tried and tested OS Microsoft has ever made and their most stable (to date) but XP lacked any awing end user experiences.  Vista changed so much under the hood, and started to adopt the POSIX structure of Unix into the OS.  Windows 7 is just a refinement of Vista, and may turn out to the be the next best OS they put out.  I would say it is a bit early to claim such things because I still read of the horror stories that happen to some users.  Then again I also take that with a grain of salt since everyone's mileage will always vary.


----------



## gamerman4

tlarkin said:


> Everything you just mentioned you can do, and a lot of it has been in Mac OS since the classic OSes (1 through 9).  Like you want to completely hide an application from the Finder, but keep it running?  Just go to that App, and click cmd + H to hide it.  Done.  The only way to get back to it is cmd + tab and then un-hide it the same way.  Cut, copy and paste are fully in almost all Apple OSes since like OS 5.
> 
> Sounds to me like you are used to it, since you can do all that with the Mac, but perhaps you just were unaware?
> 
> The only thing that Windows really seems more intuitive than OS X to me, is the right click menus from the desktop and task bar.  I can access system settings fairly quickly and easily from those right click menus.  Apple has a similar method but they don't use right click, and I actually prefer to use right click, but that is not a deal breaker.  I learned Apple's method and I can use it just as quick, but I prefer right click.  I normally just use keyboard shortcuts but sometimes remote desktop doesn't always like the shortcuts, so having the right click is handy.  If I could only even show you the comparisons of MS's remote desktop versus Apple, man it is night and day difference.  You see Apple takes a certain approach with their products, and yes, Apple definitely flaunts this.  Some people don't like it when Apple flaunts it but I get over it. Apple doesn't just look at doing a task or a job, they look at doing it while enhancing the over all end user experience.  I mean, Time Machine for one, makes backing up data actually fun. How many users back up their data?  Practically none of them, and I have done data recovery before, and when I do it I charge a premium for it because it is such long, tedious and boring ass work.  In all honesty data recovery doesn't take a genius to do, but you do need a bit of basic skills.  Time Machine makes it easy, secure and efficient for an end user to back up all their data.  Ever try to use Windows built in back up utility?  It's rubbish.
> 
> So, Apple takes an approach that is way different than most computer users are used to.  Microsoft innovates in different ways.  The whole modern server/client technology (which MS stole from Novell) is pretty much the standard innovations of back end.   MS Exchange is powerful and a great product, probably one of Microsoft's best.
> 
> Only now with Windows 7 do you really see Microsoft try to not only get the job done, but also expand on the whole end user experience.  Apple has had that mindset since the beginning.  I admit I was not fond of the classic OSes, but all the features you claim (minus the start menu, but that can be added!) OS X lacks, actually it has.
> 
> When you toss out performance and security you are tossing out some of the biggest features OS X offers.
> 
> You say you love Windows 7 because it feels "complete," and well you can thank Apple for creating competition to drive MS to add those features to directly compete with OS X.
> 
> Like I said, most people don't learn all the differences.  There is really little that either OS can't do that the other one can.  The way it does it is what separates the two.  This heavily comes down to opinion, but I do still firmly believe that once you learn how to use the OS (and all of it's features) you form a better opinion.
> 
> XP was a solid OS, probably the most tried and tested OS Microsoft has ever made and their most stable (to date) but XP lacked any awing end user experiences.  Vista changed so much under the hood, and started to adopt the POSIX structure of Unix into the OS.  Windows 7 is just a refinement of Vista, and may turn out to the be the next best OS they put out.  I would say it is a bit early to claim such things because I still read of the horror stories that happen to some users.  Then again I also take that with a grain of salt since everyone's mileage will always vary.



I'm tossing out performance because it is subjective and I have seen both systems run slow, hang, crash, fail, corrupt data, turn off unexpectedly, etc.
I am not arguing security because I have no experience with the inner working of how security works so I have no place in arguing that. I also don't care if anyone stole features from anyone else because if they are there, they are there. 

What's more intuitive? Manually hiding an app when you want it to run in the background or telling the OS that this app should run in the background so when you close or minimize it, it automatically just hides in the background. You can't answer that because they are both equally viable options to the same problem. One way is the "Mac way" and one is the "Windows way". You have to realize that not all people think like you. What appeals to one person may not appeal so someone else.

When you close all windows, OSX tends to leave the app open with a little marker under the app, to close it I have to actually tell it to close, I don't like this. Other people might enjoy the fact that they can leave the app open without any windows in order to bypass loading time later. I just minimize it if I may need it later, if I close a program, I am done with it and don't want it loaded into RAM.

Cut and paste in the file system, to my knowledge, still isn't in OSX.

Maximize is not actually maximizing to full screen, it grows the window to an arbitrary size OSX "thinks" this app should need. If I wanted a window to be an arbitrary size, I would resize it. I like working fullscreen because it removes distractions and helps me focus. Some people might like that OSX resizes the window to the "optimum" size for viewing. I don't care if I'm working in notepad, I want fullscreen if that is all I'm doing. Again, if I wanted any size but fullscreen, i can resize it myself.

There are a few of nitpicky things that I also like about Windows:
I can delete a file with only the delete key.
I can resize a window from any edge or corner
I can run a program with the enter key (OSX renames stuff with that key)
Blindly shoving my mouse to the top right corner of the screen when in a maximized window will always highlight the "close" button so I don't even need to see my cursor to close a maximized window.

You are suggesting that the only reason anyone would ever use Windows is that they are used to it and bow under the will of Microsoft. You suggest that they have no choice in the matter and that is simply not true. Windows is a fine OS with it's own merits. Both OSs can do pretty much the same thing but they do it in different ways, some people may like one way and some people may like the other. You think that given the chance and enough time with it, anyone would switch to OSX which is completely bogus. OSX is not a superior OS, they are both just as usable depending on who is using it.


----------



## tlarkin

gamerman4 said:


> I'm tossing out performance because it is subjective and I have seen both systems run slow, hang, crash, fail, corrupt data, turn off unexpectedly, etc.
> I am not arguing security because I have no experience with the inner working of how security works so I have no place in arguing that. I also don't care if anyone stole features from anyone else because if they are there, they are there.



I know, they all fail.  MS has the blue screen of death and Apple has the beach ball of death.  It seems that the OSes do have the word 'death' in common when a crash occurs.  To make a small note of that, OS X does log almost everything to the system log in /var/log/system.log.  Where when trying to troubleshoot a Windows error message you need to Google, Fx00000a0000100 exception occurred....yeah what?    These are features some people find useful.  Of course I am not really trying to discredit anything you are saying, just pointing out.



> What's more intuitive? Manually hiding an app when you want it to run in the background or telling the OS that this app should run in the background so when you close or minimize it, it automatically just hides in the background. You can't answer that because they are both equally viable options to the same problem. One way is the "Mac way" and one is the "Windows way". You have to realize that not all people think like you. What appeals to one person may not appeal so someone else.



If there is one thing I have learned using a Mac over all the years that I have, is that Apple does seem to have a master plan to make all their features coalesce into an over all state of efficiency.  Just like Windows there are third party apps that let you remap and tweak every drop menu you want.  You aren't 'forced' to use a Mac the "apple way," out of the box.  Apple just recommends you do.  Most Applications you can set the preference to auto hide, if the developer puts that function in.  Is that a fault of Apple?  Nope, not really per se, it is more of the application developer not adding in that feature.  Plenty of Applications in OS X will start hidden, or use menu items instead of icons, or what not.  Apple provides the full API in xcode for the developer to do just this. If it is not available, the end user can do it via keyboard commands or finder preferences.



> When you close all windows, OSX tends to leave the app open with a little marker under the app, to close it I have to actually tell it to close, I don't like this. Other people might enjoy the fact that they can leave the app open without any windows in order to bypass loading time later. I just minimize it if I may need it later, if I close a program, I am done with it and don't want it loaded into RAM.



This has to do with the "Apple way," as mentioned previously.  If you don't like this feature there is not much I can do to argue against it or for it, other than put some logical thought into why it is there.  It is there so users don't accidentally close apps when doing work.  You must quit the app.  It also allows for on the fly memory allocation when multi tasking.  OS X is HUGE on multi tasking.



> Cut and paste in the file system, to my knowledge, still isn't in OSX.



Ah, I see, you meant with in the OS X file system itself.  I believe you are correct, but I also believe you can turn it on if you wish. Cut and paste to clip boards in Applications itself does exist.  Of course, cut and paste can lead to lots of problems.  You cut data, then copy/cut again by accident, ooops data gone.  This is totally a personal opinion thing.



> Maximize is not actually maximizing to full screen, it grows the window to an arbitrary size OSX "thinks" this app should need. If I wanted a window to be an arbitrary size, I would resize it. I like working fullscreen because it removes distractions and helps me focus. Some people might like that OSX resizes the window to the "optimum" size for viewing. I don't care if I'm working in notepad, I want fullscreen if that is all I'm doing. Again, if I wanted any size but fullscreen, i can resize it myself.



This is also accomplished via a keyboard command built into the OS.  Yeah it bugs me sometimes too, but I don't consider it a deal breaker for myself.



> There are a few of nitpicky things that I also like about Windows:
> I can delete a file with only the delete key.
> I can resize a window from any edge or corner
> I can run a program with the enter key (OSX renames stuff with that key)
> Blindly shoving my mouse to the top right corner of the screen when in a maximized window will always highlight the "close" button so I don't even need to see my cursor to close a maximized window.



Again, this is all possible, just different.  In OS X it is cmd + O (not zero, bu o) to open up an Application.  It has been this way since OS 1, and why should Apple change it?  That is their product.  Apple built it's original OS with the functionality of a mouse cut out.  Back them mice weren't a big deal at all.  So, Apple built keyboard commands for everything.  There is a mouse/gui control for everything too, but I just learned the keyboard short cuts for everything, so I can't counter point it with out googling it first.



> You are suggesting that the only reason anyone would ever use Windows is that they are used to it and bow under the will of Microsoft. You suggest that they have no choice in the matter and that is simply not true. Windows is a fine OS with it's own merits. Both OSs can do pretty much the same thing but they do it in different ways, some people may like one way and some people may like the other. You think that given the chance and enough time with it, anyone would switch to OSX which is completely bogus. OSX is not a superior OS, they are both just as usable depending on who is using it.



I think your post on this whole thread is one of the more level headed ones.  However, I think that while your opinion is yours and very valid, not to mention you are entitled to it; I still think people just are used to a certain way of computing and don't take the time to learn the minor and major differences.  OS X is a superior OS by the numbers, but not by opinion.  It takes less hardware to run, is optimized for the Apple platform, has Unix security and command line under the hood (this is a benefit to any and all users), has zero known viruses in the wild, has every feature and ability built in native (no downloading a codec to play a DVD or a third party media player), plus many more reasons.  

I am not a Windows hater, I am typing this from my Windows box.  I use Windows, but I also use Linux and OS X, with Linux being the least used OS of mine.  Windows excels in video game support, video game hardware and more third party support.  Pound for pound on paper and feature for feature taking in to regard everything each OS has to offer, Apple comes out on top.  Of course this an "on paper comparison," so opinions can weigh in and vary things.  

When I fully switched to Mac at work, my productivity went up at least 200% since OS X is so stream lined with multi-tasking and handling resources.  I am running a 10.6 system in my office now, to just play with it.  Only has 1 gig of RAM in it and a C2D 2.4Ghz process and it runs 10.6 screaming fast.  Windows 7 could not run that fast at all.  However, that is the nature of the business model. 

If you have a second just look at the OS X keyboard command list, it is quite impressive and intuitive.  Add in multi touch laptop track pads and you have the most user friendly multi tasking mobile solution on the market.  No other product can touch it.  This of course is my opinion, and I validate it by also having used and supported every other brand of laptop in existence for the most part.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1343

It's been fun discussing this


----------



## gamerman4

I think OSX has the potential to run faster than Windows because it is optimized for a limited hardware range whereas Windows has to support all of the hundreds and thousands of possible hardware combinations that Windows can be installed on. This performance boost may be present but it isn't obvious. I have used Boot Camp with Windows XP and it was quite snappy running on the same hardware that OSX was running, I didn't see much of a difference in loading times or any other aspect but I really wasn't looking, I expect OSX to be faster for the sheer fact that Windows XP is ancient compared to OSX 10.4+. I have used an ibook with a 1.3Ghz PowerPC CPU, it could barely view low-res youtube videos, an old desktop with an 800mhz Duron could load and view them just fine. I've seen many numbers, some numbers show Windows being faster and some showing OSX being faster. Performance is subject to so many variables that there is no possible way that OSX could definitively be "faster" than Windows. My mom has a $300 custom built computer that loads apps faster than my own custom built gaming computer because there are very few things installed on her computer and nothing is running in the background (it is using Win7) while my own computer has plenty of background apps and many things using resources all the time. Once you start actually running programs, any intrinsic performance an OS has to begin with is immediately lost and the only factor is the raw hardware performance.


Anyways, as a closing statement, I would be more inclined to use both Mac and Windows equally if I could justify spending $1700 on a laptop. Not saying it's overpriced but for the one I want (15" macbook pro) it has way too many features that I am paying for that I will never use.

Anyways, you are welcome to reply but I am done discussing this. I'm glad I can actually have a legitimate discussion though because most people are fanboys for their OS. Until next time (and you know there will be)!


----------



## tlarkin

hardware is nothing with out software and software is nothing with out hardware, however, hardware is limited to how the software controls/interacts with it at an end user level.

Windows has come a long way since windows 95, but Microsoft did not get the market share because they made the superior OS.  They marketed it that way.  Their business model was the most aggressive and their business practices were some of the best in corporate America, probably ever.  Microsoft could have been replaced by any other tech company out there that was developing computers at the time.  Hell, Xerox could be running the market right now.  

I am starting to digress though.  Pure, hardware performance is directly dictated by software, be it drivers, operating system, applications, and so forth.   How an OS is coded to handle resources is very important, and crucial to the performance of the system.

Windows 7 has adopted many Apple-like features.  Why is that?


----------



## TrainTrackHack

> Windows 7 has adopted many Apple-like features. Why is that?


"Spiffy... but I got something better, mate."


----------



## Drenlin

tlarkin said:


> Using a manged machine in a professional or academic environment is hardly using it as an end user.



Managed? Lol. I live in rural Arkansas. The network was barely more complicated than my curent home network.

Even so, I still used it enough to know that I don't like the interface. It looks cool, sure, and I know it works well...I just don't like it.


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> Managed? Lol. I live in rural Arkansas. The network was barely more complicated than my curent home network.
> 
> Even so, I still used it enough to know that I don't like the interface. It looks cool, sure, and I know it works well...I just don't like it.



That is another reason you may not like the Mac.  I doubt any of you know of Mike Bombich (www.bombich.com) but he is an Apple Systems Engineer and he heard so many complaints of how Macs suck at schools.  He was actually at JCCC (a community college in the Kansas City Metro area) when he heard a student say this to him.  So he decided to take a look at the Mac labs, and sure enough they were managed horribly, which took away from the end user experience.  He then sat down and wrote a program called "Netrestore" which allowed IT people to easily managed log in hooks, imaging, and other basics to keep a machine managed and managed properly.  

Apple server products really lacked the tools at the time to do such things, so many Mac labs in academia were horrid.  The poor IT guy had to run from machine to machine constantly fixing the smallest of issues and never had time to sit down and actually improve the end user experience or help update and maintain the Macs.

A lot has changed since then, and enterprise support for Apple computers is a lot better.  Microsoft has this sort of stuff down.  With their server products, AD, WDS, SMS and so forth.  Apple still has a bit to develop on that end to be on par with Microsoft.  They are close, and they are really close with third party support.

So many people out there that have used a Mac at a school system probably never really experienced a Mac how it was meant to be.  At my last job I supported and ran 300 Macs with one other guy.  We also had 10,000 Windows PCs.  We had zero Mac servers and the Macs were spread out across, 10 buildings or so.  We were constantly hacking the Unix parts and running around trying to keep up with updates, and fixing issues because there was no centralized management system.  In fact, those Macs kind of sucked.  I have since moved on from that job and now I manage a lot more, with many server side tools and centralized management which help the end user experience exponentially.  

However, a Mac in my network is pretty managed when it comes to certain things, and we don't allow anyone admin rights.


----------



## Drenlin

You don't get what I'm trying to tell you. I don't like the interface on it. Meaning, I don't like how the OS is laid out. I don't like how it flows when you're using it. Some people do, I don't. I'm not speaking solely from my experience at the high school.

That sounds like an interesting line of work, though. I've recently applied to a similar job, but on a smaller scale. No Macs though...it's all Dell Optiplex and Dimension machines...all running XP, unfortunately.


----------

