MAC vs PC, advantages & disadvantages of both?

[NewJeffCT]

We're about at that time where we need a new computer. I've basically used PCs in the past 99 and 44/100% of the time outside of work, and 100% of the time at work. For work, I would like to have things like Word & Excel on my home computer, as I sometimes email myself files and work on them at home. I've heard that you can do that with MACs now, though I have no idea of the price.

I'm trying to look into buying blue, or at least less red, than in the past. So, I'm trying to do this with the next family computer, as I know Apple is considerably more blue than most PC makers (Dell is 100% red, and I think HP is close, if I'm not mistaken)

So, what are the big differences and advantages/disadvantages?

Other than Excel/Word, our current PC is used mostly for internet/email, editing digital photos and playing Medieval Total War.
I'd like to be able to edit video from our DVD camcorder as well.

[wtmusic]

1. Mac

hands down. More expensive, but worth it if you don't have time to mess around with crashes/security problems. (BTW Microsoft is a huge GOP contributor).

[baba]

134. Microsoft also contributes to Dems. n/t

[dpbrown]

166. Steve Jobs ONLY contributes to Democrats

Macintosh is the computer of the revolution.

Nondescript boxes running Windows are the computer of the "management."

[kick-ass-bob]

2. Mac is excellent for everything you listed

except for some gaming. Some are still not out for Macs when they come out for PC, but if you aren't a big gamer, it shouldn't matter.

I play Civ 3 on my iBook ALL the time.

Editing video on the Mac is really easy too - and I think the Macs ship with the program to do that (iMovie).

I love iPhoto too.

[CPschem]

3. love my powerbook n/t

[kmla]

4. Get the popcorn.....

There's gonna be a flame war....

[NewJeffCT]

13. I figured that...

I've been on DU for almost 18 months now and have never been involved in a flame war, and have only started 2 threads that have gotten more than 50 responses.

[kmla]

15. This should be a good one.

Kinda like a Dogs vs. Cats flame war.....

:D

[NewJeffCT]

188. I posted it last week, and it's still going

I did see a few deleted threads down below, too.

[Wickerman]

5. Happy Friday!!!

[MrBenchley]

6. Mac can run Microsoft Office

and is excellent...I find it intuitively easy to use.

[NewJeffCT]

22. MS Office question

Macs can run MS Office products, but do I have to jump through hoops to install it, or get some special software?

edited to add: Meaning, to run the MS Office products, do I have to jump through hoops, etc

[NewJeffCT]

31. anybody on this question?

Thanks

[Lone Pawn]

40. You have to

1. Buy the "Office for Mac" disks
2. Insert into computer.
3. Click "install."
4. Wait.
5. Eject disk (optional, but recommended).
6. Open word/excel/powerpoint.

Seriously, there's fewer 'hoops' to jump through on the Mac version.

[iconoclastNYC]

49. LOL.

Works the same way on a PC!

[Lone Pawn]

58. Almost.

PC installation takes a few minutes longer ;)

[iconoclastNYC]

72. That depends on hardware.

If i set up a test with a MAC with an 1x cd-rom and a slow Hard drive and compare it to a PC with a 42X cd and a fast hard drive the MAC would lose badly.

That's whats missed in all these PC mac/debates. Its hard to compare Apples and oranges. (har har)

The best thing I can say about a mac is that they make the computers to last and the PC manufacturers care less about longevity of thier machines.

[NewJeffCT]

73. to further expand my question...

If I create an Excel file on my PC at work, would I be able to email it to myself at home and work on the same Excel file using Office for Mac Excel?

[ET Awful]

91. Yes you would, the only difficulty would be if you saved the file

to a 3 1/2 inch diskette on the Mac then tried to read it on the PC. Not something you're likely to do these days, but it would be problematic.

[Lone Pawn]

121. Of course, if you're transferring data on a floppy,

I have no idea why you wouldn't PC-format it. Macs can read both PC and Mac disks, whereas PCs can only communicate with their own.

[MrBenchley]

45. No, you don't have to....

Microsoft sells Office for the Mac, and it installs very easily.

[progressor]

172. Better yet...

You can always download OpenOffice (from openoffice.org) which is completely free and almost always integrates with MSOffice documents seamlessly.

And it's free, open-source software (for Windows, OSX, and Linux, I believe) - not $400. Did I mention it's free?

[mondo joe]

7. I'm in the process of converting to mac

And all I can say is for your purposes a Mac should do just fine - I prefer the editing on Mac, and the other things you listed are not appreciably different either way.

But really I'd suggest you just go to the nearest Apple store (if one is nearby at all) and just play around with one.

[SarahB]

8. I'm paying attention here.

I'm getting another computer soon too in the next few weeks and I've about had it with PC's and their crap.

[NewJeffCT]

41. maybe we could go into a local store together...

And see if we can get a discount if we do a 2 for 1?

[SarahB]

52. That'd be nice.

:D
Although I doubt most places would be quite so altruistic.

[no name no slogan]

9. This PC user says get a MAC

I make my living on PCs (tech guy), and if I were to buy another computer right now, I'd get one of the new iMacMinis.

If you already have the peripherals (like a printer, monitor, keyboard, etc) you can get a REAL Mac for only $500. It's a good way to get your feet wet in the Mac world, without having to spend an arm and a leg.

Not a bad deal if you're on a budget.

[NewJeffCT]

11. we need a new monitor & keyboard

The monitor we have was nice when I bought it 6-7 years ago... but, it's getting up there in age.

[immoderate]

20. The new iMac is all-in-one.

And totally loaded!

The picture is the whole computer! (except keyboard and mouse)

--IMM

[NewJeffCT]

21. looks nice

Interesting that we'd have no tower... a whole new area for storage on our computer desk then.

[LincolnMcGrath]

26. Will this perform at the same level as a $2000.00 equipped PC?

Loaded?
20-inch wide screen LCD
1.8GHz PowerPC G5
512K L2 cache
600MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Slot-load SuperDrive

A $2000.00 PC, whether scratch built, or Big Box, would get you higher numbers. (cache, ram, Ghz, etc)

My question is, Will the above-equipped MAC, compete with what I could purchase in PC dollars?

[immoderate]

30. It's not just numbers.

There are some bench marks such as:

http://librenix.com/?inode=6098
I'm often accused of choosing applications that favor the Mac. That makes me chuckle when you consider that, when I first started the "Mac versus PC" shootouts, the G4 Power Mac only won one test: Photoshop "MP." Ironically, in this round of testing, the top G5 Power Mac (dual 2.5GHz) won every CPU intensive test except the Photoshop "MP."

Be aware that hardware numbers do not directly correspond to throughput. Even in PC world an Athlon with a slower clock speed can outperform a "faster" Pentium. Software and OS also has an effect. Linux users will confirm that.

Answer to your question -- it depends. I think most users will not complain about performance in either case.

--IMM

[Lone Pawn]

33. Numbers are misleading.

First of all, as was posted above, there's no fair comparison.
Secondly, for the stated purposes, you simply doesn't need numbers even that high. It'd be sorta like installing a 400-HP engine to get groceries with.

[cheezus]

42. Add in the cost of software

and realize that the important numbers are in productivity, not just clock speed

[ET Awful]

81. No, it will not compete.

If you ignore the numbers and compare the actual performance side by side, the PC (especially if using an Athlon 64 or equivalent processor) will outperform the Mac in pretty much every respect.

A good example of this is the performance of a Mac playing Doom 3 as compared to a PC. The Mac suffers from a huge performance gap.

In other applications, it will be so close as to be indiscernible.

You can get more for less with a PC.

For instance, for that same price, you could have 1 gig of RAM (which would enhance performance well beyond what the Mac could do when it comes to image editing, etc.), you could have twice the hard drive storage space, a better graphics card, a DVD burner, etc.

All of these things would result in better performance all around on the PC, along with more storage space, etc.

[evlbstrd]

98. Plus...

you get all that fun virii, adware/spyware, registry corruption, security patches--FOR FREE!

[ET Awful]

99. Yet another misinformed Mac fanboy.

Hmmm, going on 4 years with no virii, spyware or registry corruption.

Oh, you DID know that Macs have security patches too right? . . . What's that, you forgot to mention that little tidbit. I understand completely.

What's that? You didn't know that all security patches will install invisibly in the background as I work and I don't have to deal with it?

That's what I thought . . . someone who is just repeating what they were told and who has never actually experienced any of it firsthand.

[evlbstrd]

100. Yes, Macs have security patches,

just less often. Can also install invisibly. Just less often. And I do deal with it firsthand. Are you watching me?

[ET Awful]

101. LOL . . . so, if you have to install security updates on your beloved

Mac, how can you criticize PC's for having to do it? Are you familiar with the word hypocrisy? Sorry, but if your Mac has to do the same thing, that's hardly something you can say is superior.

Once again, I don't have to DO anything for security updates to be installed, so it's a non-issue for me.

You've already admitted that your Mac requires security updates.

So once again, how exactly is a Mac that requires security updates superior to a PC because the PC requires security updates?

[evlbstrd]

104. Not claiming superiority--

but I don't even have to worry about viruses, spyware, etc. You may have automated the process, but it still happens. All OSes are vulnerable in one way or another. You hug your PC, I'll hug my Mac, and we'll all try to get along.

[ET Awful]

106. I don't have to worry about spyware or virii either.

Simple common sense prevents infection. For instance, common sense tells anyone, be they using a Mac or a PC, don't launch an executable attachment from an e-mail when it's unsolicited and you have no clue who it's from.

Little things like that are pretty obvious.

I don't hug inanimate objects, I just use them until they wear out :).

[evlbstrd]

109. Common sense is right.

But my Mac is huggable.

[ET Awful]

110. If it isn't soft I don't hug it :)

[Lone Pawn]

117. You ignore proportion.

Macs have patches. So do PCs. But PCs have patches far more often, for far more dangerous things.

And the malware-virus business is a terrible defence. I simply don't want to worry about malware. I don't want to have Virex, Norton, Spybot, and Ad-Aware constantly bailing water. I want my computer clean. And Macs stay clean.

And simply common sense doesn't always prevent spyware infection. Quite a bit of it will background download without first asking. On a PC, that is.

[ET Awful]

130. Wrong again.

Common sense WILL prevent spyware infection. See, if you turn off Active-X and java for all sites except those you know to be trustworthy, you don't get infect. . . really simple eh?

Yet another person that ignores common sense in his desparate need to coddle his Mac.

[Lone Pawn]

138. Coddle my Mac? What the hell does that mean?

Now that's abuse of language, for certain.

And judging by infection rates and numbers, only about 10% of internet users show one shred of 'common sense.' Personally, I've done all the things you've done and still have had spyware infections when a friend or family member uses my computer. I don't want a machine where I have to worry that my girlfriend is too 'stupid' to use it properly because she hasn't memorized the tortrous steps required to play a java game and then put settings back.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone Pawn]

149. Intellectual dishonesty? It actually happened.

My girlfriend wanted to play some java games. I was in the kitchen. I said "so tell the computer to stop disabling java!" So she did--for 'everywhere' and not the one site. Hello spyware!

It's a hassle when I have to be the Computer Wizard for such basic things. Everyone in my family should be able to use my computer without me hovering over to make sure they still have common sense.

[ET Awful]

153. And, common sense would have prevented it.

Have you ever heard of user accounts? Have you ever heard of having a single administrator account that doesn't allow alteration by normal users?

I guess not.

[intrepid_wanderer]

179. AKA make an active effort...

WHY?

and I'd never ask a newbie with computers to have this supposed 'common-sense' as they've just begun & may well never (yes, NEVER) learn much more than the most basic of computer use techniques... much less EVER understand the techniques & processes being used nor going on 'behind-the-scenes' on their computer. ugh

[intrepid_wanderer]

178. So sad.

how many viruses have hit the mac community in the last... uhm... forever?

ask the same question (by looking in the virus definitions in your anti-virus software) about your supposedly great 'virus-free' PEE-CEE...

the clone/Microsoft based PEE-CEE will have a staggering number of attackers, where the Apple/Mac PEE-CEE (yes, both are personal computers despite how many will gripe!) will have a comparatively MINIMAL number of viruses/attacks placed against it.

Just because you have more viruses to patch and defend against... doesn't make your security position ANY better. :bounce:

Now... feel free to flame-on... as that's obviously your trend set here on this topic

[slackmaster]

184. We have an 11-year-old Tandem mainframe where I work

It's never been hit by a virus or hacker either.

Not that it isn't vulnerable, but there aren't many Tandem hackers or virus writers out there. Wintel machines are the primary target mainly because there are so many of them out there.

There's nothing special about a Mac or its OS that make it less vulnerable to attack than any other machine.

[retread]

145. You are saying a multiprocessor machine running threaded code

optimized for 64 bit multiprocessors would be beat by a single processor Athlon 64 running 32 bit code not optimized for it's architecture? Or do you mean an Athlon 64 can beat a mac playing Doom 3?

[ET Awful]

155. Have you looked at the results of Doom3 on a Mac?

It is subpar completely.

An Athlon XP can beat it in Doom 3 Benchmarks. A P4 can beat the Mac in Doom 3. And yes, an Athlon 64 can beat it in Doom 3.

And Doom 3 is by no means optimized for the Athlon 64 architecture. In fact, NOTHING is optimized for this architecture, it's potential has yet to be fully tapped.

Using non-optimized applications and code it can still outperform the Mac.

If you wish to discuss dual processors, let's discuss dual Opterons which will also outperform the Mac.

[retread]

158. Well, are not most PowerMac G5's dual processor? If you wish to

use Opterons are you going to a Tyan motherboard? Macs are burdened by their lack of support for a good high end graphic card. Nothing is optimized for 64 bit Macs either.However, a lot of open source software has been ported to Macs(the Darwin project). I realize that I could dual-boot or have a stand alone Linux box(which I do, I'm running Debian). My basic point is neither is SUPERIOR, both have flaws and limitations.
This architecture has pretty much run its course. Have you noticed we no longer see rapid ramp ups in processor speed? I think the next step will be multiprocessors and threaded code.

[ET Awful]

159. Well, there are recent high-end graphics cards available for the Mac

but unfortunately, even with the same graphics card, the PC will outperform the Mac.

I agree with you to an extent on the ramp up in speed (this is why Intel now uses a numeric rating on their newest CPU's instead of discussing CPU speed).

BUT, I'm not entirely sure dual CPU's are the way it's going to go. Both Intel and AMD have dual-core single CPU's coming out very soon. I think this is the more likely path you will see going forward.

I agree that both have flaws and limitations, BUT, I also believe that for the most universal compatibility and functionality across the board, the PC is the way to go. You have the applicaton and development of hundreds upon hundreds of companies covering the entire spectrum from high-level database development and administration to gaming to add on hardware, etc. This is something sorely lacking with the Mac.

As I've said many times in the past, had Apple licensed the technology to other manufacturers when they had the chance, instead of suing the first company that tried to release a Mac compatible machine into submission, they would very likely have a majority of the market today. But, they did not.

[retread]

174. How much of the 2nd CPU is on the same silicon and what is shared?

I have read the same rumors about Apple/IBM and dual core processors. I also read Apple is coming out with a PowerMac that has more than 2 processors.

I am looking at buying a new computer this summer. I have tried to decide with as open a mind as possible. One surprise I found was the open source software movement(Darwin) bubbling underneath the Mac. Seemed contrary to what I had heard of the closed nature of Apple. The open source is nowhere near as vast or as open as that of Linux, but it is there.

[ET Awful]

176. I'm not that familiar with the Intel configuration, but the AMD

has two distinctly different cores on the same wafer for the most part. There are certain things (like the memory controller for instance) that are shared (if I remember correctly, I don't hvae the white paper handy right now).

The open source movement is nice, but only if there are enough people involved in it to make the applications and support via the community available for them.

[intrepid_wanderer]

177. YES

comparable in performance...

BUT!!

minimal if any lost hours dealing with:
-viruses
-multiple weekly updates (vs. ~every other month)
-unexplained crashing of entire system (vs. a single application failing & all remaining data/apps living on prosperously)

- Da Da DA

me :)

[NewJeffCT]

55. how much does it cost?

The one I saw with a 20 inch monitor was $1,899?

[immoderate]

60. That's about right.

A PC can be configured for less. But if you match all the equipment and bundled software, not a lot less.

--IMM

[iconoclastNYC]

51. From slickdeals.net

This is an incredible steal:

The 19 inch monitor alone is worth $400 so you are getting the computer itself for like $150.

I'd buy a DVD burner and another hard drive from another supplier and that would add $120.

-------

Dimension 4700 2.8GHz PCI-E Desktop w/ 19" LCD $549 after $150MIR

Dell Business has the Dimension 4700 2.8GHz PCI-E Desktop w/ 19" LCD Monitor for $549 after $150 rebate + tax. Upgrade to 3.0GHz upgrade for $20 more. Thanks sage.

Pentium 4 Processor 520 with HT Technology (2.80GHz, 800 FSB)
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
256MB DDR2 SDRAM at 400MHz (1x256M)
19 inch E193FP Analog LCD
Integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator
40GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
Integrated Intel PRO 10/100 Ethernet
Single Drive: 48X CD-ROM Drive
Integrated 5.1 Channel Audio
WordPerfect, Powerful Word Processing
1 Year Basic Warranty
Mail- In Rebate $150 Mail In Rebate

[AntiCoup2K4]

136. Seems like a good deal except for one thing....

You might as well just write a check out to George Bush Jr for $549 and mail it to him directly, because that's exactly what that pig Michael Dell is going to do with it.

But if that doesn't bother you, then order the computer, by all means.

And no, I'm not a Mac loyalist. I'm actually a slow convert to Linux as a primary OS and using a PC that I built myself, as I have every one I've owned (except the Commodore 64).

So I can also say I would be more likely to buy a Mac from the allegedly liberal Steve Jobs if he would put a realistic price on the goddamn things. I've thought about the Mac Mini, but there's no realistic capability to expand the damn thing, and even adding RAM looks like it would be a pain in the ass.

Best thing that could have happenned to the Mac (as it was to IBM) was that they allowed clones of their hardware to exist. Yeah, it's been attempted a few times, but only after PC's dominated the market. Let's face it, Apple had a great shot at this market in the late 80's and early 90's. They blew it. And what's really unbelievable is that the same two brilliant minds of Jobs and Wozniak, whose vision allowed them to see a computer that would fit in every home, couldn't also see that Intel, IBM, and a then little known software company out of Redmond WA were about to kick their asses. Even then they could have fought it. Anybody here ever seen Windows 1.0?? I think the GEOS GUI for the Commodore 64 actually ran better. Windows 3.1 was much better, but still just an add-on on top of DOS. Windows 95 was buggy as Hell, and then there was the whole IE4 controversy with Windows 98.

Apple could have spent the entire 90's making up lost ground by opening up the hardware and sending in the clones. They refused to do so and lost the market. Doesn't do you a lot of good to have a better product if nobody can afford it, Stevie.

[TreasonousBastard]

163. I was thinking the best Apple could do...

would be to port the OS to Intel architecture.

Maybe they thought that it would have been a mistake to confront the IBM/Redmond monster face-to-face, or maybe it was too big a job with prior Mac OS's. Or, they were greedy enough to gamble on keeping the whole thing in-house. Maybe they just really believed in an integrated hardware/software solution.

At any rate, I was talking to a Mac rep who said he knew of people porting OS X to PCs, with varying degrees of success. Apple will not admit this is going on.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

168. Jobs and Wozniak were not involved with Apple when it

made all those fumbles and alienated a lot of people. Things have been going well since Jobs came back.

[stopbush]

10. I run Mac at home, PC at work.

Mac with OSX: boots up in about 20 seconds, shuts down even quicker. Hasn't crashed once. Doesn't get viruses. Has a nicer interface. Is more intuitive. Costs more. It's worth it. A 6G HD with only 1.5G free and it runs quickly and smoothly, day in, day out.

Work: a Compaq with the 2000 Pro Shell & 2003 MS Office: even with an 18G HD and 15G free, it's relatively slow, clunky looking and feeling. MS products (Word, etc) run pretty well on it. Web surfing is less elegant than on a Mac.

I'll always take a Mac, even when on paper the PC looks to be a better choice.

[LincolnMcGrath]

12. #1 Why do they cost so much?

#2 Are they faster/better then PC?

[kick-ass-bob]

16. not trying to be funny here,

but they are slightly more expensive because they are better quality machines. You get what you pay for.

They are better because they have less crash problems - my iMac - 4 yrs old has been on ever since we got OS X on it. It has crashed 2 times.
It just goes to sleep every night.

Faster? I can't really tell a difference between my work computer and my home ones (the newer one anyways).

[SarahB]

17. Do you have to get virus/firewall software?

Does it come with it or is it simply a non-issue with a Mac?

[kick-ass-bob]

23. yes.

Anyone who says its a non-issue is just avoiding the facts. It's just not a very big issue. :)

Virus software is available and there is a firewall inside the OS.

[benburch]

32. Firewall built-in to MacOSX.

So, not an issue at all.

FAR more secure than Windows.

This machine is naked on the internet. It serves many of the White Rose files. People try to crash it hourly as a result.

And nobody ever has.

[kick-ass-bob]

35. wow!

I knew the firewall was there, but I couldn't attest to its strength! Great to know!

[ET Awful]

77. Firewall built into Windows XP SP2 as well.

What's your point?

[benburch]

115. Did they finally do that? Good.

It's about time!

Still, nearly 100% of all worms, viruses, and trojans attack Micro$oft platforms only.

And the bad guys find new ways to get through M$ security patches on a daily basis...

Sure, it is possible that someday, somebody will target Macs, but until that happens, why walk around the forest in hunting season dressed as a deer?

[benburch]

124. Oh yes, and my point was...

to answer the question about if you needed to buy firewall software separately with a Mac.

[Lone Pawn]

34. Firewall is built-in, and while

you probably oughta get virus software, it's not that big of a deal.

[benburch]

38. If you subscribe to a .Mac account, you get Virex for "free".

And you get bulletproof web hosting and blog hosting. And occasional freebie games.

[ET Awful]

25. Really ? It crashed twice in 4 years?

Wow, I have Windows 2000 servers that have been running for longer than that without ever crashing or, for that matter, ever being turned off other than a quick reboot after installing updates to system files.

The stability argument is flawed from the outset.

It's not being a Mac that makes it more stable, it's the build of the machine in question, be it a PC or Mac. I have machines at home that never had a single second of down time until a hard drive failed (hardly an issue with it being a PC, blame Maxtor for that).

[kick-ass-bob]

27. I didn't do any maintenance. At all.

And I do a lot of dumb stuff on it.

I corrupted part of the hard drive and had to fix it.

Plus, it is not a server, it is a home computer.

[ET Awful]

80. You're right, it's not a server, it's a home computer, which means

that it's not subjected to nearly as much stress. Thus, proving my point.

A server being used and accessed by dozens of people at a time as compared to a single PC being accessed by a single user.

Hmmmm, says something about the stability of Windows 2000 doesn't it?

See, when you have a server that houses accounting software, you must install updates. When the server houses payroll software, you must install updates. Need I go on?

[kick-ass-bob]

93. do you know what I do with my computer?

I dare say as an IT guy, you would reduce me to rubble for what I do to it. I've hacked that thing to pieces. No doubt that I caused it by my own reckless behavior.

And it keeps going.


How many times does the average windows user see their own computer crash and burn?

Much more.

I should know, I use both. Please don't be so bigoted.
Its a computer.

[ET Awful]

94. I wouldn't reduce you to rubble, I'd laugh at you as I handed you

a bill :)

[kick-ass-bob]

114. HA!!

nice one!

:)

[intrepid_wanderer]

181. Almost as flawed as say...

arguing stats of a server environment vs. that of a user environment machine??

talk of flawed!!!!

think average user... not computer geek with a computer geek level of supposed 'common sense.'

[RatRacer]

14. For everything you mentioned (and several things you didn't)...

...you can't go wrong with a Mac.

It's nice to have a computer just work

It's nice to not worry when an email comes in from someone you don't know with a mysterious file attachment.

It's nice to not have to constantly update some virus software to keep up with the 60,000 plus Windows viruses out there.

It's nice not to worry about spyware, adware, or malware...it doesn't exist on OS X.

It's nice for a computer to be intuitive and not built just for tech heads.

I switched to Mac about 4 years ago and I wouldn't go back for anything.

[edbermac]

18. I'm getting an IMAC very soon!!

I cannot wait!!!

[immoderate]

19. If you don't get a Mac, get a PC built for you.

Stay away from Dell, HP, etc. You can get better components off the shelf.

Macs used to have a clear advantage in ease of use, but they are so powerful now that a bit more effort is required. The Macs are always 5-10 years ahead of their PC counterparts. The Mac OS is based on a full UNIX implementation, and that offers great possibilities. It helps to have a buddy (rabbi) familiar with the system. Fortunately, there is a terrific Mac user group at DU.

--IMM

[ET Awful]

24. If you want to play games (such as the sequels to Medieval Total War)

a PC is far superior. Is "Rome Total War" even available for a Mac?

If you want the widest selection of off the shelf software at your disposal, a PC is superior.

If you want readily available service and replacement parts should any hardware fail, a PC is superior.

If you want to have the ability to upgrade your machine in the future with off-the-shelf parts from hundreds of different manufacturers, a PC is superior.

If you don't need any of those things, and want a simple device that is very simple to use, but has little upgradability to future technologies, a Mac is superior.

If you want to buy a computer based more on hatred of Microsoft than on any of the items mentioned above, go with a Mac.

If you want a machine that works extremely well for video editing, but is subpar when it comes to other video applications (especially gaming), a Mac is the way to go.

If you want a machine that is (arguably) aesthetically pleasing and pretty to look at, go with a Mac.

When it comes to aesthetics, Mac engineering is tough to beat (and has been copied ad nauseum).

For your use, a mini-Mac would be just the ticket if all you needed it for was the internet/office/video apps. However, the gaming aspect, isn't something I believe a mini-Mac is suited for).

My personal choice? A PC with an Athlon 64-bit processor set up with two different OS'es, so I can boot in either Windows XP or Linux (the Linux boot isn't configured at this time simply because I haven't had the time to do it).

Many people will try to argue the "security" of Macs being superior, but I don't believe this to be true, as anyone who practices the least bit of common sense can remain safe from viruses, spyware, trojans and other nasties just by taking simple steps to prevent their infection in the first place.

[immoderate]

29. Hard to argue with a gamer, but...

No doubt that games are written for PC first and relatively few are ported to the Mac. I'm not a gamer, so I don't really know.

The new Macs have the full potential that comes with UNIX and that is an advantage.

Interestingly, Microsoft has more of an application presence in the Mac world than in the PC. There is little competition for MS Office on the Mac.

On expansion, Mac takes the same expansion cards, drives and of course, USB devices that the PC uses. I'm sure there are exceptions, it's usually the extreme cases that are cited.

I'm one of those cases. I do software training, and 99% of my business requires that I have a PC. Particularly now that I've gotten involved with VB.

Unfortunately, some of the software that would be most suited to Mac is slow to market or not available at all in the latest versions, such as Maya, FrameMaker, AutoCAD. But more Mac demand could change that.

If necessary, Macs can run a PC emulator, with some performance hit.

--IMM

[Lone Pawn]

39. I'd disagree with 'service and replacement.'

While more redundant parts exist for PCs, when it comes to quality of service, Apple regularly beats out all PC manufacturers. AppleCare is simply unmatched.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/02/08/apple.no..1.in.support/

And the security of Macs is superior. Can I spend twenty minutes a week downloading the lastest antivirus updates and malware scanners, scanning, and disinfecting my machine? Yes, why, yes, I can. Do I want to? Of course not. That's the advantage of Mac--you don't have to bother with such hassles, and your computer doesn't turn into a sluggish pop-up swamp if you skip a week.

[The Revolution]

64. You don't have to on a PC either

Windows updates, virus updates, virus scans, etc can all be done automatically. I haven't hardly touched my anti-virus since I installed it. It scans, updates, and all that stuff on its own.

[Lone Pawn]

66. Unless you like adware, you do.

Windows does NOT automatically run SpyBot and AdAware on its own. You've got to handle those on your own.

[The Revolution]

69. Scheduled tasks...

Um...you can put AdAware in scheduled tasks and it will run whenever you want it to. Might take a little bit of knowledge to set up, but its not all that difficult.

[ET Awful]

74. Not true.

Mine runs automatically at 8:00 PM every day.

How much do you actually know about PC's? Or, are you just repeating what you were told on a Mac site?

[ET Awful]

85. Twenty minutes a week? I spend less than 20 seconds.

Also, how many Mac service centers are near you that you can have instant service from should a piece of hardware fail?

I can name 20 places to obtain PC hardware within a 15 minute drive of my front door. I can name at least 10 where I can obtain service.

I have never had any spyware on my machines. Not once.

I don't spend 20 minutes a week downloading anything or worrying about it. Hell, I don't even think about it 99% of the time.

Here's a little hint for you . . the reason Apple can claim to be "number 1" in service is that they are the ONLY place that you can get service for a Mac.

[Lone Pawn]

120. Did you read the article?

Apple didn't claim to be number 1 in Mac service. Consumer Reports said that Apple was the best service period. Better service than you could get for any PC. Come on.

I don't have to think about spyware 100% of the time. And, having done both, that 1% really does make a difference.

Finally, having a Mac, I suppose I really don't have to worry about hardware failing as often as you do.

[ET Awful]

132. Little hint. . . considering their lack of market share, they can NOT

be rated other than by the people who use their systems. So, to claim they are number one requires a skewing of any poll.

Oh, btw, when was the last time you had Apple provide a 4 hour on-site service plan?

You don' thave to worry about hardware failing as often? Quick, what's the most common piece of hardware to die? It's the hard drive . . . guess what . . . it's as likely to fail in a Mac as it is a PC, so save your Mac smooching for someone who buys into the marketing hype as much as you do instead of dealing with real world issues.

[chenGOD]

180. PC hardware and Apple hardware can be swapped out virtually at will...

the drive to the hardware store won't be much of a bother.

Unless you need a new mainboard.

Otherwise, HD/RAM/VideoCard/peripherals will be almost identical (I'm sure there are probably a few niche products on either side of the equation).

I dunno, I use both at home, and don't really have any problems either way.

I say get what you want to and get on with it.

[cheezus]

43. If you want a $2000 gaming console, get a PC

or better yet, spend $200 on an xbox

[Lone Pawn]

65. That's what I was just going to say.

When it comes to games, the consoles are all a much better deal than a 'gaming' PC.

[ET Awful]

75. You've obviously never played any real PC games.

Sorry, but an X-Box can't compare to a PC when it comes to gaming, especially when it comes to MMORPG style games.

[cheezus]

78. You're obviously wrong

because I have. True, the PC is better in some cases(especially for games that want a mouse. however, it's not 10x better (for 10x the price)

Besides, the mac will let him play World of Warcraft anyway.

[ET Awful]

83. Gee, I didn't see him ask about World of Warcraft.

And no, the X-Box does not in any way compete with a PC.

You are sadly misinformed.

You and I both know that a well equipped PC will outperform an X-Box 90% of the time.

When was the last time you played Half-Life 2 at 1600x1200 with 4x AA and 8x AF on an X-Box?

[Dukkha]

161. So you're whole argument is based on gaming?

I see

Just another obsessive gamer thinking he has actual computer knowledge because he spends all his time playing video games intended for 12 year olds. I can see the source of your issues with Mac pros in the real world who make your pitiful uninformed rants look rather tripe because you just can't tolerate someone "thinking different" and not being another pathetic sheep following the herd.

I suggest you log off and get a life or some obvious needed therapy.

[no name no slogan]

84. Funny you'd mention the X-Box

You do know that the X-Box OS is basically a tweaked version of Win2K, right? :)

I've got nothing against PCs myself. I have built/owned several, going back to the first ones released by IBM in 1981 (my mother is a 'lifer' at IBM). Nor do I have anything against Microsoft, either. I make my living off of their software, so I'd be stabbing myself in the back if I said so otherwise.

But for basic computing, office tasks, ease of use, and "set-it-and-forget-it" functionality, you cannot beat a Mac.

Anything else, go with the PC option.

[intrepid_wanderer]

182. Now that actually seemed 'Fair AND Balanced'

thanks for that ET... BRAVO


I agree with you on the parts argument... but when Apple replaced three components in my previous laptop (that failed because of my error - dropping it) ... and they replaced them at no cost to me with 2 day shipping for free with the explanation that

something like "We have seen a disproportionate failure rate with these components..."

that's a company I'll do business with at a premium... not to mention I do enjoy the lack of daily concern about security/ads/... To me, it is the answer to the politics and poor design (personal assesment... not able to be prooved) in the gates world.

..all this is made easier by the fact that I enjoy a lot of computer use... but don't tend to play many games at all

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. Mac.

I've been using Macs since 1987 and they have been virtually trouble-free. They don't break, they don't crash, I don't have to hang on the phone waiting for some tech support guy to fix something. I now have an iBook and a 17" G-5 iMac, and, as with all my previous Macs, I totally love them. No adware, no spyware, no viruses; intuitive operation, attractive appearance, all the applications most people need. They say there's not as much gaming software, so if you're into a lot of games keep your PC for that purpose. For everything else Macs are great -- especially for photo editing and other graphics stuff.

At work I'm stuck with a PC, and it seems clumsy and primitive compared to the Mac. Our IT guy, who is responsible for taking care of hundreds of PCs, has Macs at home, and considers them to be vastly superior.

[bikebloke]

36. Went over to Mac a year and half ago.

After six years with a PC, it's a breath of fresh air. No problems. At work, I'm on a junkie PC, so there's a constant reminder what I gave up.

As for gaming, I read somewhere that if a game doesn't make it to Mac format, it probably isn't too good.

[The Revolution]

67. Or it's because gamers don't use macs

Companies don't spend money porting games to macs because the market isn't there. What games are "good" has more to do with personal taste than with what OS someone decided to put it on.

[ET Awful]

89. Yeah, and I read somewhere that Bush was a good president . . .

doesn't make it true.

Let's see. . . we'll take a look at some excellent games that aren't on the Mac, but are best-sellers and well-respected in their genres

Sims 2
Half-Life 2
Star Wars Galaxies
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
Rome: Total War

The list goes on. None are available for Mac, all are great games.

[Lone Pawn]

118. Aren't on mac *yet.*

Sims is out in July, KOTOR is out already (don't know where your information's from), SW:G wasn't deemed good enough to go over, and Rome: Total War and Half-Life 2 is being considered.

Pay attention already.

[ET Awful]

133. So . . . you can play a game on a Mac a year or 2 after

et's already been played to death everywhere else.

That's good to hear.

So, by your own explanation above, a Mac is a year or two behind the PC.

Wasn't deemed good enough? No, it was decided that there wasn't enough market because there are not enough Mac users because of the inferiority of the Mac as a gaming platform.

I'm sure a Half-Life 2 port (notice I said port because there is no actual development of games for the Mac platform because it is a poor gaming platform)will perform as poorly as the Doom3 port did. . . you did see those piss-poor benchmarks right?

[Lone Pawn]

137. I never doubted that a Mac is not a primary gaming platform.

However, for what most people use games for, a Mac is sufficient. Most computer users either do not care about games or just have one or two games they really enjoy playing, and don't give a damn about 'VideoCard Raper III: The Revenge of Bump-Mapping.' Personally, I think console games destroy PC games, and I'm much happier playing on my Xbox than on a friend's PC. Computer gaming is a rather useless feature for quite a few users, including the one in question in this thread. He has a game he enjoys playing. Macintosh plays it rather well.

And I really don't care if I get a game after it's been 'played to death.' I don't play enough games on computer to care if someone else has beaten it before. My favorite computer games, in order, are StarCraft, NetHack, Civilization III, Call of Duty, and Battlefield:1942. All are out on Mac. Oh well. I don't particularly want to play Doom 3, and I didn't enjoy Half-Life 1 enough to play the second.

The idea that my computer ought be gaged by its ability to compete with a $150 game console is silly to me.

[ET Awful]

141. LOL . . . So, you try to defend games on the Mac, then when you

are shown to be wrong, you resort to "I don't care about games."

We're not talking about caring if someone else has beaten it (once again showing how little you actually know), but considering that the majority of gaming these days is multiplayer, rendered in realtime 3D, etc., the concern is both with performance and whether there will continue to be a community of players for the game, along with user modifications and support for add-ons. Not something that's going to happen with a Mac.

I think it's cute that you talk about how much you enjor your X-Box which is a stripped down PC in a plastic box though.

It has nothing to do with competing with an X-Box, which you would understand if you took off your blinders for a minute or two.

My PC can outgame the Mac, it can outperform the Mac in real-world applications, it can perform all of the same tasks as the Mac for less money and more efficiently. In short, it's not being compared to an X-Box, it's like having an X-Box and your beloved Mac in one location and usable for EVERYTHING.

Nice of you to ignore the obvious in your vain attempt to stroke your Mac though.

[Lone Pawn]

147. No, I defended Mac games for my purpose of using Mac games.

You said "Games don't exist for Mac."

I said "That's incorrect, and Mac games are sufficient for my purposes."

And you're clearly a hardcore gamer. Newsflash: 95% of people do not care about mods or support. They want to play a god-damned game. They don't want skins. They don't want mods. They want a game.

And I know you love your MMORPG, but multiplayer gaming still is in the minority. Sorry.

First of all, yes, the Xbox is a stripped-down PC. That's correct. I do not hate Microsoft the same way you hate Apple. I have no problems with using a Microsoft product for the one thing Microsoft products are superior at. I simply don't want to have to deal with Microsoft's lame attempts at making an operating system that works like Apple's latest.

The competition is real. When you base a large part of your argument around the fact that your $2000 PC is a gaming god, and I mention that a $150 Xbox is a superior gaming system, I'm doing that to say that gaming really isn't an issue. I don't particularly like playing games on computer. The only games I do are strategy games or games not out for console. I don't want my computer to be a gaming platform, and I'm in the majority.

You can keep your gaming benchmarks. I suppose it's nice to find one thing in which a PC is actually not inferior to a Mac. I'll keep a computer that works for actual, real-world applications, and one that works without complaint and the need for ever-more-obscure 'common sense.'

[ET Awful]

157. Actually, I did NOT say games don't exist for a Mac.

Yet again you mix up truth with your alternate reality. A statement was made by you or one of your Mac loving brethren that any game that doesn't make it to the Mac sucks . . . which is obviously complete and utter bullshit.

Multiplayer gaming is the minority? LOL . . . the majority of games made today are multiplayer games. You did know that right? The majority of best-selling games are multiplayer. The majority of advances in games are multiplayer. And yes, the majority of games on the market are multiplayer.

As to "mods" this includes expansion packs which are most often developed by the user community. Then you have games such as Counter Strike which are, in fact, mods that were so popular they were packaged and sold as complete products.

I don't have a $2,000 PC. I have a sub-1000 PC. Guess what . . it will outperform your $1500+ Mac.

Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what I said and make false claims?

Bah, don't bother replying, you've been placed on ignore. I have no desire to engage in discussion with people that will distort what I said, and attempt to use those distortions as the basis of their argument.

Have a nice day.

[jpgray]

37. Advantages: They both work perfectly well

Disadvantages: People hopelessly mired in computer nuance have irrationally strong feelings about them.

[chenGOD]

44. Well summed up...:) (eom)

[wtmusic]

46. Nuance?

'Kay...

actually I'm hopelessly mired in practicality and saving time. It's one of my more disagreeable traits

[jpgray]

47. Based on that argument, you could be supporting either system

:)

[slackmaster]

183. Bravo!

It's amusing watching people make a big deal over tool selection. If it gets the job done it's a good computer.

[iconoclastNYC]

48. PC USER here

If you are in good financial shape get the Mac.

If not get the lowest end PC with a good warranty and put the $400 you saved in the bank.

The biggest secret in the computer industry is there is almost no reason to pay more for the more expensive model.

I tell everyone to get the cheapest one they can find, and just add a second hard drive (160gig is like $40 now), or memory (512MG upgrade is like $40-50 on sale)

The days of having to spend $2000 or $1000 to get a decent computer are LONG GONE.

Don't spend over $500.

If you want to buy a mac you can only get the Mac Mini, but there are tons of PCs under $500.

Check out slickdeals.net and techbargains.com for the best deals.

[NewJeffCT]

54. The cheapest Mac I saw was like $1,299?

maybe I looked in the wrong places...

[Lone Pawn]

56. Did you try the Apple Store?

http://store.apple.com

Click on the little "mac mini-$499" picture under the 'desktops' section.


Or click

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71501/wo/aB3sK0oKkoqU2hs7UoL1PG9qUe8/0.0.11.1.0.6.21.1.3.1.0.0.0.1.0

[immoderate]

57. Mac Mini starts at $500

Could use more memory out of the box, needs peripherals. Go to apple.com.

--IMM

[democracyindanger]

50. Range of software

PC will always have a wider selection than Mac. And if something ever goes wrong, hardware-wise, you're going to pay a heckuva lot more to repair a Mac than a PC.

[Lone Pawn]

59. I disagree with "something going wrong."

Get the warranty that comes with a Mac. AppleCare constistantly beats out all PC manufacturers' support in consumer reports surveys. Macs fail less often than PCs do, and when the worst happens (which I have never actually seen happen despite 10 years of Mac-exclusive working--my 15-yr-old macs still work like the day I bought them) Apple has faster, better, entirely warranty-covered care than anyone else.

[democracyindanger]

62. Fair enough

But as regards crashing, I regularly work in offices with Macs, and there's plenty of crashing that goes on. The idea that Macs are less susceptible is a bit exagerrated.

Macs are nice, but you have to pay a huge premium for them. You get more for your money with a PC.

[Lone Pawn]

63. Plenty of crashing? What on Earth do you do to them?

Seriously, in the three years I've had the computer I'm typing on now, I've had only one 'crash' that command-option-escape didn't immediately resolve. And I do quite a bit on this computer.

[democracyindanger]

70. art directors

InDesign, Illustrator, that sort of stuff. But I've run Flash on my PC for three or four years, and never crashed. That's not saying PCs crash less, just that the idea that Macs are crashproof is a bit mythical.

Honestly, if somebody wants to pay more for a Mac, then go ahead. They do look nicer, and I guess the interface is easier--but I'm used to Windows, so YMMV. But there are limitations that come with a Mac, simply because of Apple's business plan. It's like AOL. They want to keep you in their universe alone.

[no name no slogan]

88. That depends, really

Basically, the only difference these days between a Mac and a PC on the hardware side are the processors. Otherwise, everything else is nearly identical, from graphics/video cards to busses to memory to peripherals.

And even on the processor side, the gaps have effectively closed. A CISC processor like the Pentium class have a lot of RISC-like characteristics, and the RISC-based PowerPC chip has a lot of CISC-like qualities.

[Loki]

53. I've worked on both PC and Mac

and I have had Macs at home for the past 8 years. I've never had a virus, never had a system crash or the blue screen of death, It's got an easy, intuitive interface. I had one eMac that needed service once, and my first machine that I purchased in 1996 is still working. I can't even begin to compare that track record to the PC's in my husband's office. We have to call our computer tech guy at least once or twice a month and just recently had to have all of them completely cleaned because of viruses. If the office software that my husband uses were written in MacOS he would change in a heartbeat. The new OSX Panther comes with a trial of MS for Mac which has Entourage, Excel, Power Point and Word. I don't think you will be sorry, it will be $500 well spent.

[Lone Pawn]

61. Buy a Mac.

For the purposes you've listed, Macs are far superior than any PC. iMovie is a much better, more intuitive, faster video editing program than *anything* I've seen on a PC--and I've done quite a bit. Photoshop for Mac and PC are indistinguishible, so no worries there. As for Internet/email, Macs and PCs are more or less the same, but Apple computers really don't have the massive Windows security flaws Microsoft announces every two weeks, the huge array of spyware/malware, or the amazing range of viruses. Medieval: Total War is out for Mac, and is the exact same on PC and Mac. Finally, (and somewhat ironically) Office for Mac actually is slightly better than Office for PC.

I assume, of course, you've read all the information on Apple's 'switch' site.

http://www.apple.com/switch/

[eyepaddle]

68. I've got a hunch that people are gonna take this the wrong way

but, when you talk about system crashes, and "problems" with PCs what specifically are you encountering?

I've had mine for 4 years I've never had a virus, the only time it ever crashed was playing Halo (before a couple of updates--and that fixed that...) and have never seen "the blue screen of death" with XP. I do see the occasional spyware, but my search and destroy software takes care of that with about three mouse clicks.

Granted that I don't do much photo editing, but I don't know where people keep having difficulties with their PCs.

[The Revolution]

71. Blue sceen of death

Yeah, on older versions of windows a BSOD was pretty common. XP is much much much better about this. Generally a BSOD will only appear with really serious problems, such as a hard drive failing. Although I will note that BSOD is something that can be turned on/off and it may start being off, so you wouldn't see it even if it was there (but like I said, it's pretty rare anyway).

Also, at least with older windows version, you can change the color of the infamous BSOD :) Haven't tried it with XP but its kind of cool to mess with stuff like that.

[NashVegas]

129. vs The Spinning Beach Ball of Death

I've had that a little less than a handful of times, over the years.

At home I use Macs, at work PC.

I had no preference in the early 1990s, until I tried to use the applications being made for PC that I had already been accustomed to on the Mac, and freaking loathed them (sound editing software).

Now, I'm back to having little work preferences. It's all in the asthetics and the way the interface "feels." And for me, Mac has the edge.

[ET Awful]

76. Good question. As I said above, I've had XP and 2000 machines

running 24/7 for years with no crashes.

[no name no slogan]

87. XP and Y2K are based on NT technology, ....

...while the older consumer versions (95/98/ME) were built on top of MS-DOS.

NT was developed in the late 80s/early 90s by a team led by Dave Cutler, who came to MS from Digital Equipments Corp. (DEC). While at DEC, Dave was instrumental in the development of the VMS operating system that ran on the old VAX minicomputers.

Windows NT was specifically designed to be an enterprise computing platform, designed for heavy business use. Therefore, it is much more stable and robust than the consumer/DOS-based versions of Windows that pre-dated Win2k.

In fact, most of the stability "problems" you see with Windows are not the fault of the OS, but of third-party software that's poorly written.

Because Windows has 90%+ of the market, most software is written for it, by a variety of software developers with various skill levels.

Plus, Microsoft's development environment is very easy-to-use, and allows almost anybody with a modicum of computer skills to develop for it. So instead of getting the cream of the crop developing for your platform, you get a lot of differing quality standards in the software that comes out.

[ET Awful]

90. Well stated.

I'd edit the "Y2K" to read Win 2K though :)

[no name no slogan]

103. D'oh! Musta fat-fingered that puppy

I stand corrected ;)

[eyepaddle]

92. Yeah, that's pretty much what I'd gathered,

I do know that Windows ME totally blew, but XP has been great for me.

On an almost totally unrelated computer topic--who's with me in thinkng we should outlaw PowerPoint? If I have to sit through one more boring meeting where somebody just reads their slides to me I think I'm gonna cry!

Thanks for the input!

[ET Awful]

95. LOL . . .

I'll vote for the PowerPoint ban. . . not because I have to sit through presentations but because I have to prepare the damned things.

[NewJeffCT]

96. Wish I could find the old cartoon I had

I found it in some magazine like "New York"... but, it had somebody sitting down talking to Satan, like in an interview.

The caption under the cartoon was Satan saying, "I need somebody well versed in the art of torture. Do you know Powerpoint?"

[eyepaddle]

97. LOL Nice!

I hope you find it!

[no name no slogan]

105. I second that motion

I HATE PowerPoint. I barely tolerate Word as it is. Maybe I'm a luddite, but I can get more work done using Notepad or Wordpad-- or HomeSite if I'm in web-developing mode.

I run a couple user groups at my current job, and I've told them ahead of time that I don't do PowerPoint. Screenshots, demos, no problem-- but no PowerPoint.

:argh:

[ET Awful]

108. I don't have any problems using it, I just HATE doing it

:)

[TreasonousBastard]

125. Powerpoint is the Devil's work.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

169. Ya wanna know why I hate PowerPoint?

Every couple of months, a Japanese client sends me a set of PPt slides in Japanese and tells me to translate them by overwriting them in English. They're boring, and the English and the Japanese never take up the same amount of space. :grr:

[TreasonousBastard]

167. You're right about...

most problems being from software, not necessarily the Windoze OS.

I have one boot drive that had a clean upgrade from W95 to W98 via an oh-fish-ul MS disk, complete with key and all. The 3.11 to 95 upgrade was done the same way.

Unlike the Compaq W98 on another drive, it never, EVER causes me agida.

The Compaq version is loaded with a vast amount of Compaq crap and "improved" dlls, vxbs, and who knows what. What they do is screw up memory management more than Windows normally does, and give me regular lockups and BSODs.

A problem with both drives is the way software vendors love to use the registry as their personal playground. Everyone constantly installs, uninstalls, upgrades... but some of these assholes like to put in a hundred or so registry entries for their lousy program that doesn't do a hundred things. And the uninstall doesn't get them all out. Upgrades can cause conflicts, too.

That, and the random adding of little bits and pieces of routines, temp files, and other stuff dropped all over the drive like monkeys drop shit ends up slowing the Windoze machine to a crawl if you don't clean that crap out.

Oh, btw, I've been reading on ZD and Woody's that they've been doing a lot of testing, and the common spy/adware cleaners get less than half the nasties. Aside from the newer, and pricier, cleaners out there, the only sure way to keep your Windoze box safe and speedy is to do a complete reinstall of everything periodically.

[funkybutt]

79. Mac! you can get a used one cheap

get it loaded up with Panther OS X and you'll be set. If you want a new one. I have an old beige G3 (7 years old) that is probably only worth a couple hundred bucks now that I can still use as a home computer running OS X and it also serves me well as a web server.

I bought a powerbook last year and I am SO happy with it. Mac is the way to go unless you're a hard core gamer. If gaming is the most important thing, then you might want to get a PC or get a Mac and an xbox!

[MadHound]

82. Get a Mac, you'll never regret it

The MS Office pack(Word, Excel, Power Point) is also made for the Mac, and I switch documents all the time from my work PC to my Mac at home.

You will experience fewer viruses(I've yet to catch a virus on any Mac I've owned), have fewer spyware programs installed on your computer, and in general, have fewer problems and less downtime with a Mac. This isn't simply due to fewer viri etc being made for Macs, it is also because a Macs inherent structure has fewer back doors and is more resistant to outside programs. Also, it helps that the computer and OS are made by the same company, whereas with a PC you are trying to work with a one-size-fits-all OS onto many differently structured machines. This is a recipe for instability and crashes.

As far as gaming goes, well, yes, more games are made for PCs than Macs, though that is slowly, but surely changing. More and more big name games are being ported over to Macs. And if you find that there is a game out there that isn't being ported over to the Mac, you can always install a program called Virtual PC that allows you to run a Windows enviroment on your Mac. And other than games, you will find that the vast majority of major programs are put out in both Windows and Mac versions. There is even a company, Ambrosia Software, that makes some pretty nifty games for Macs only.

And when it comes to editing video, or any other graphics work, well this is where a Mac truly shines. Shorter rendering times, clearer graphics, better color matching, the advantages of Macs in the area of video, audio, or other graphic arts are almost uncountable. This is the reason that the major film and animation studios use Macs exclusively. Also, with a Mac, you are getting a machine that is at the cutting edge of computer technology. Macs have always been at the bleeding edge of this technology, with faster processors, quicker bus speeds, and rock solid performance. And they wear well. I bought one of the first PowerMacs, a 6100 in '94, and with its cutting edge technology, I didn't have to get another computer until ten years later. That computer still runs well, but it was finally overwhelmed by the speed and size of the Internet files.

So all in all, get yourself a Mac, you will never regret it.

[Liberal Veteran]

86. For most bang for your buck....PC hands down.

You can get a PC built for you from many vendors that will run circles around a MAC in speed for what you will pay for a MAC.

The MAC has a good OS and the hardware is good, but for sheer power, upgradability, software selection (including OS if you want to play with Linux), and price, I have to stick with the PC.

[khashka]

102. Mac Totally

Forget user-friendly which is just another way of saying I don't know what I'm doing but I'll eventually figure it out.

Macs aren't use-friendly, they're intuitive. Which means when you hit a problem, the first thing you think is the right solution 90% of the time. The other 10% is the second thing you think of.

It's true that Macs are a minority market - so a lot of programs come out for PCs and there is a several months wait before they come out for Macs.

But Macs have had PC emulation software for decades - which means you can run damn near anything on a Mac. Unlike a PC.

The only criticism I've heard against Macs is that it's easier to design software on a PC. That may or may not be true. I've had no problem with software design on my Mac. Other peoples' mileage may vary.

But Mac users tend to be zealous in their affiliation with their computers while PC/Windoze users are just using something that works most of the time.

So I say get a Mac.

But then, I'm one of those zealots.

Khash.

[Ron Green]

107. If you get a PC, you can buy your software at WAL*MART!!!!

But if you want a grown-up machine that's rock-solid and doesn't corrupt itself all the time, better buy a Mac.

[retread]

146. Both will run open source software. n/t

[Speck Tater]

111. Hardware monopoly or software monopoly. pick one.

Either way you get jerked around by the monopolist.

[ET Awful]

112. Not really, you can run a PC without running afoul of any monopoly

run Redhat, use off-the-shelf parts to build it.

You can avoid all hardware or software monopolies with a PC.

Get an AMD processor so as not to give money to Intel.
Run Linux so as not to give money to MS.
etc.

[TreasonousBastard]

113. OK, I'm in the same place, and...

I have used other people's Macs and am very impressed. As soon as I have two nickels to rub together, I'm getting a miniMac.

Raw power and all is largely irrelevant for things like spreadsheets, email, and word processing. Even minor image work, websurfing and other hungrier apps won't show much of a net difference between machines. Editing movies and serious gaming will.

Macs seem to have better memory and disk management than PCs, so comparisons there aren't so obvious. For many applications, a 256MB Mac is probably as good as a 512MB PC. True geeks might want to talk about the completely different processor architectures, and how that affects different applications, but the bottom line is that for most people performance differences are negligable.

MS Office is available for the Mac, at a price. Before buying it,though, I would check compatibility with iWork and Appleworks. Right now, I use WordPerfect, and compatibility of Quattro Pro and WP with Office is damn good, so I don't need Office for those few times I have to work on a Word file. I would hope the Apple stuff works as well, or at least as well as they claim.

[benburch]

116. Check out the mac port of Open Office, too.

Nearly totally MS Office compatible.

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22021

[TreasonousBastard]

119. They got it to work now? Last time I looked...

there was some wierdness-- I think you had to get it to run on FreeBDS, then patch it to work with the Mac shell. Or something like that.

OpenOffice is fine, but I have a personal preference for WordPerfect. It does the things I need a little better and with less hassle.

Since the things need mainly involve laying out newsletters, flyers, promos, and such, and publishing to PDF, the iWork package looks like it could be just the thing.

There are also Windoze emulators. I haven't used any, but I hear the one for the G4 works pretty well, and they came out with one for the G5.

[benburch]

122. Yep, this is a NATIVE port.

Still in beta. But no need to install X11.

[Zomby Woof]

123. Macs suck big chunks of monkey poo

I will never, ever, get the hype. And don't believe anyone who says they don't crash, or break down, or what have you, because they do. Comparing a late model Mac to my PC - which is 5 years old mind you - it isn't even close in terms of memory, speed, and available programs. All those pretty graphics are just that - a triumph of form over content. They are worse than any current PC's out there, and that is damning indeed.

Don't be swayed by the heavy Mac sentiment here.

I would rather Fisher-Price build my computer than the insufferable Apple people.

I REALLY hate fucking Macs, and the Cult of Steve Jobs.

[NewJeffCT]

127. don't hold back, tell us how you really feel

just kidding...

[Lone Pawn]

139. Wow. You're crazy.

Memory? Speed?
What did you spend on your PC? $15,000? Really, what are the benchmarks for your 5-year-old PC?

[ET Awful]

144. What are his benchmarks?

Why does it matter?

Benchmarks aren't indicative of real-world performance (which you would also know if you bothered to take your blinders off).

[Zomby Woof]

154. Macs suck

My sister is hating her piece of shit iMac right now, and with good reason. Memory is poor, slow, etc... And she isn't the only unhappy Mac user I know.

No, I didn't even spend $700 on mine, and the "benchmarks" are standard for a current PC, since I got free upgrades with a warranty - I have connections. Even got a 17-inch flatscreen LED monitor for $25 when my old emplyer wnet belly-up.

They just suck.

[Dukkha]

162. So you hate them because you can't figure them out?

The simplest interface and design? That doesn't say a whol lot about your computer "skills"

clearly sounds like an I/O error to me
:eyes:

[Zomby Woof]

165. HAHAHAHA! I love it!

They are very easy to use, as if Fisher-Price toys themselves made it!

Just because the piece of shit is easy to use, doesn't make it less of a piece of freezing-up, no memory, overrated, OVERPRICED piece of SHIT.

Did I mention Macs suck ass? If I didn't, I apologize. Macs suck the festering bulbous tumor of shit from the Great Anus of Steve Jobs.

And jesus h. christ, are you throwing your money away on a pretty piece of shit on the brand name alone or WHAT?

Suckers for precious, smug marketing, is what it is all about.

On eduit: I am at a loss to figure out just where I said I "couldn't figure them out". :crazy:

[catzies]

160. I'm with you ZW, my office has 12 Macs and 1 PC (which is mine).

They're all graphics geeks and drunk the Mac Koolaid years ago. I'm the office manager and do everything on my PC (pay bills, payroll, etc. etc.)

There has never been a day where everyone's Macs, and the Mac servers, were all up and running, with no crashes for anybody all day long. Somebody always a problem with a crash, or a freeze, or has to reboot the server, or reinstall a program, or whatever. Every day. Biggest pieces of shit ever.

I've got a PC built to my requests, running Win2K, and I never have a problem. With anything - hardware, software, OS, apps. Never.

Never.

[Zomby Woof]

164. Well, there you have it

And you dared use the term "Mac Kool-Aid", which is EXACTLY how I would put it. It's a goddamned cult!

You are a dream. :-)

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NewJeffCT]

128. you, too, don't hold back

Tell us how you really feel...

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone Pawn]

150. And calling me a 'liar' in every reply makes you look real intelligent.

Liar! Liar!
You haven't shown superiority in anything but gaming. Best you've come up with is 'it's not as much as a hassle as you think.'

[ET Awful]

156. Gee, this coming from someone who has yet to present a single

example of head to head testing between the two platforms. In fact, the only such tests that show the Mac having an advantage are from . . . surprise, surprise, Mac sites.

Pick up any computer magazine utilizing legitimate testing methods and performing a head to head test, and the PC will have the advantage.

[retread]

151. Superior at most things?

*

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baba]

135. I heart my IBook.

I never get any viruses. It never crashes. I have to use a PC at work, but I would never use one at home.

[Forever Free]

152. I SECOND THAT

My iBook is FANTASTIC. Join the Apple Revolution. Believe me, you won't regret it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

170. Big Mac fan here

I've had to use PCs at my volunteer jobs, and they are not as intuitive, not even Windows XP. On the other hand, I made the transition from OS 9 to OS X almost effortlessly.

But here's one of the nicest things about Macs, something that no one has mentioned. If you live near an Apple Store and you don't know how to do something or you can't figure out why your Mac is doing what it's doing, you can just unplug it and bring it to the so-called "genius bar" in the store, where some nice young people in black T-shirts will explain it all to you.

They helped me with the software settings for my wireless connection and later, when my former iBook started to lose its battery charge, they correctly diagnosed the problem as a worn-out power cord. I had to buy a new cord, but the wireless set-up and the diagnosis were both free of charge.

If and when my Macs act up in the future, the "genius bar" will definitely be my first resort.

[ForrestGump]

171. Mac

rules.

An immutable truth.

PCs are getting closer, as Gates gets more efficient in aping the Mac interface (I believe that he's now circa 1996 in the Mac OS lineage), but they're still inferior in most respects. It depends what you need the computer for but, all things being equal, Mac is the way to go. Buy a used one if the new pricetag is off-putting: they're built such that it's a low-risk move. My titanium laptop came to me via eBay. The thing is bulletproof. iBooks are cheaper by far and are virtually indestructible. Even an 'expensive' Mac may not be as expensive as you think, and the iMac is a great deal.

Mac has always been more advanced and likely always will be. Bad move with the clones, though, sure -- I had one, and the company that made it (Powercomputing) was really pushing the boundaries of speed and power...they were brash and militant in fulfilling their goals of crushing the PC and it seemed to freak out the doddering old fools who were in charge of (and destroying) Apple at the time, so they killed the cloning. Stupid. The clones weren't built nearly as well (basically built by Dell people and very much a PC in construction) but they made huge leaps forward in sheer speed and computing power. Apple seems to be doing significantly better now.

There's a reason why the Pentium PC TV commercials were amstered on Powermacs...

[progressor]

173. Get either...

a Mac or a PC. However, from the quick search I did at Amazon, you might consider the fact that Medieval: Total War is not available for Mac. (Could be wrong, you'd have to look more in-depth.)

That may be an insignificant inconvenience for you.

For someone who isn't interested in the learning curve of switching to Linux or accepting the high-maintenance nature of Windows, you might as well get a Mac - they're stable, and they're great for low-impact, everyday computing tasks (browsing, using an email client, Word/Excel).

As a person who uses his machine for playing games, multimedia (video, audio), web development, and everyday use, I prefer a PC for power.

And anyone who tries to convince anyone that Macs are better for "graphics" or for designers is swimming up to their chin in bullshit (the two are equal - however, the Mac monitors are gorgeous and that helps a lot, but cost $999+, which is obscene considering CRT monitors still produce better results and higher refresh rates and LCDs - LCDs are just convenient).

Most of the spyware/adware and virus difficulties are caused by people being negligent or ignorant of the high-maintenance needs of a PC - not getting spyware/adware removal software, not opening suspicious emails, and so on.

And they use Internet Explorer and/or Outlook Express - big mistake. No matter your platform, Firefox and Thunderbird are great - and designers like them too. ;)

[Deja Q]

175. You can do everything you said on a PC or Mac. So it boils down to cost.

How much would you spend for a decent video editing machine, though? $1200 or $2000?

(the lower priced Macs are underpowered and not worth upgrading. Like most digital cameras, they're throwaway rubbish as next year's models will be that much better.)

I could home-build a very decent PC for $700 just two years ago.

PCs are currently more susceptible to viruses, but Macs will get more attention given to them as their poppularity rises. Anyone who says Macs won't give you a virus problem is naive or worse, never mind arrogant without a cause. (Mac viruses do exist, but they aren't as many in number and as there aren't as many Macs the risk is far lower.)

Here's a final thought: APple is blue. Blue in the face:

http://www.computertakeback.com/bad_apple/bad_apple_biz.cfm
http://action.computertakeback.com/action/index.asp?step=2&item=10201
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ipod+iwaste&btnG=Google+Search

This is not thinking different. As with typical corporations, this isn't thinking at all. What was Apple's board thinking when they approved that environment-trashing joke? (then see who's o nthe board and cringe.)

[Awsi Dooger]

185. OK, let's wager

I'm apparently naive/worse plus arrogant without a cause, whatever that means.

I'm guessing you're a words-only wimp, HypnoToad. Let's wager $1000 man-to-man on the appearance of a significant Mac virus in the near future. You can define the definition and the duration, within reason. Hint: it won't matter.

[movie_girl99]

186. I've heard that Mac's don't get viruses

not sure that's correct but I'm pretty sure.

[Awsi Dooger]

187. Seriously, I try to understand PC preference, but I just can't

I get carried away in these Mac/PC threads, including this one with a childish wager dare to HypnoToad. That was probably uncalled for. I make 20+ sports bets per day, then have difficulty logging on to DU or elsewhere on the internet and removing the gambling aspect from simple debate or disagreement, regardless of the topic.

I hated computers until switching to Mac. Now I only hate computers during my job as consultant to Las Vegas sportsbooks. The casinos have PCs without exception, at least the 30+ I have dealt with. I just want to scream at the sportsbook managers to get some decent hardware and software. They call me in to fix or analyze crashes or odd behavior, usually involving Excel files, and I'm so damn frustrated by the bloated crap on the PCs.

I don't know or care about games. PCs may be superior with more availability of the top games. Web surfing is also faster on PCs, particularly if you have an older Mac that can't use OS X. But in ease of use and ability to personalize and understand your computer, zilch comparison.

I have yet to meet a PC user who can open a system folder and understand what individual files are needed for what purpose. I can vary my Mac's startup time, what it checks at startup and shut down, the RAM allocation for specific applications and tasks, how much processor percentage is allocated to the forefront application, and take advantage of all types of system tweaks that enhance performance. My friends who use PCs just accept their setup with the left-side icons, and pray for fewer crashes than their last version of Windows.

Cost is dependent on intelligence and effort. DealMac.com lists every conceivable Mac deal, including rebates. The posters in their forum are extremely knowledgeable and helpful. At Christmas I got a new 12" iBook and an Epson RX500 all-in-one printer for $940 total, taking advantage of $280 in rebates and free shipping. The printer was $41 total, when it lists for $200 more than that. The Apple Store special deals section has terrific buys, especially on refurbs. Of course, I'm a gambler so that is not a petrifying word to me. Used Macs hold their value incredibly well on eBay and elsewhere, but if you know where to look the value is available. I got a dual Mac on eBay last year for half the typical rate because the seller listed it as DP in the description, not dual processor. So anyone searching for dual missed the listing. When I got the Mac, it had twice the RAM he listed and a much better video card.

[question everything]

189. Try browsing through Mossberg's Personal Technology page

for articles like this one http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20050120.html

http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20050217.html