Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Mac vs. PC
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology
Google
turnea
I think this is my favorite tech debate. I typing this from my lime-green iMac so you know where i stand. biggrin.gif

Thoughts?
Google
Cyan
Well...I'm typing this from my grape iMac, so we're on the same page. cool.gif
Alan Wood
I realise this has little to do with Mac v Pc but here goes.....

I had an Atari Ste for many years before becoming the frustrated owner of a PC six years ago and have upgraded twice at considerable cost.
I still have the Atari, monitors, HD and a stack of discs and sometimes fire it up for nostagia.

I had used PC's in the days of DOS when, like Macs, the point and click system was already being used by Atari.

I am not a programming guru but I do know one thing for certain having used a Mac.
It is just as well the price of huge HD's and memory chips have come down because the PC gobbles them up.

Regards........Alan
Mike
Oh boy, this topic will be fun.

Technically everyone likes PC. After all, every single Mac ever made has been a PC. tongue.gif

I personally use PCs.

I don't really have too much first-hand experience actually using Macs. I used them in high school when all computers were slow, so they were slow as well.

My neighbor has a Mac. It's relatively new, I believe. The machine doesn't have a floppy drive. In order to get a file off his computer, we had to run a network cable from my apartment through a hole in the ceiling into his apartment. I couldn't believe it. I understand trying to phase out outdated technology, but floppies? 99.9% of all computers have them, and for me it is a necessity. You'd think Apple would pony up the extra $3 for a floppy drive.

But everyone says Macs are easy to use. I really have no idea.

There is a big argument about what is faster, a Mac or a PC. Well, processors speed and the amount of RAM are really not the only factors that influence a computer's speed.

The way that software is written has a major influence on how a computer runs.

Take for example Microsoft Windows. Windows 3.1 (remember that crap?) was a small install. It didn't take very much space to run. The code was efficient because it had to be. Hard drives were measured in megabytes, and the cost was astronomical.

Well, as Windows 95 came out, hard drive prices continued to drop. Hardware performance continued to increase. So Microsoft decided to make Windows 95 a miniature giant.

Because hard drive space was less expensive, Microsoft wasn't under as much pressure to produce a compact, efficient operating system.

As Windows 98, 98SE, and ME rolled out, the size of a minimum Windows installation continued to grow. Now, we're given Windows XP-- this massive beast of an operating system that takes up an amazing amount of space for a default installations.

Windows XP is bloated. It is poorly written by a bunch of inexperienced programmers (interns). You need a 2 gigahertz computer with 512 megs of Ram to make it purr.

This type of "bloated code" is a problem with a lot of Windows applications. From benchmark tests I have read, lower-powered Macs compete with ultra-fast Pentiums when running office applications. The explanation I have read is that Mac coding is much more efficient.

So when you hear that Macs are only running at 1.25 gigahertz and PCs are running at 3.06 gigahertz, you can't assume the PC is 3 times as fast.

I know, probably way more technical than you wanted, but I'm sure someone will read it.

Mike
jjirout
QUOTE(Mike @ Nov 27 2002, 03:12 AM)
So when you hear that Macs are only running at 1.25 gigahertz and PCs are running at 3.06 gigahertz, you can't assume the PC is 3 times as fast.

Mike

I'm with ya here.

"bigger" or "newer" rarely means better (maybe with Windows 85 /98) but- it is usually not a good idea to upgrade. At least in my experience.

Don't fix what isn't broken.

jjirout
stotty203
I think I am in a good position to speak on this subject, since this is the field I work in. I am not a big Windows Fan, but since if you want to work in this field you have to know Windows, I am kind of forced to. Mostly all of the problems I have at work are dealing with the problems with Windows NT. I personally have a Mac at home because I don't want to deal with problems there when that is what I do all day. Windows to me is just over written and way too complicated for what it does. Personally I prefer Linux and have tried to convince my "superiors" at work to switch to it, but they always go with NT or 2000. I know currently that a fully installed version of Windows XP Pro is almost 1 gigabyte, and that is just the operating system. I think that right there shows that the code for windows is way too complicated. I have grown to hate Windows, but I guess without it I would not be working so much overtime, so maybe I should send a thank you note to Bill Gates. I could go on and on, but I have to go to work right now and mess with Windows some more!
Jaime
This thread brought to you by the makers of Mac computers.... tongue.gif
Cyan
Just some other points to add:

Macs tend to be more consistent when it comes to hardware, so there are less compatibility issues.

In my opinion, they are much easier to troubleshoot when something in the OS goes wrong.

There is less software available, but the majority of the good software gets ported to the Mac. It's like quality control. Let the PC users spend their hard-earned cash testing out the crappy software. tongue.gif

They are, hands down, the best computers for working with graphics. There is a reason that they are the industry standard.

Networking a Mac is a piece of cake.

As far as the floppy drives go: I have never needed a floppy drive on my mac, because the files that I work with are too large to fit on one. Instead I use a CD burner and a Zip Drive (I DO NOT recommend zip drives). They do make external floppy drives, though.

I'm not completely against the use of PCs. I have used some very nice, upper-end PCs such as the Sony Vaio for gaming and video editing. You get what you pay for, though, and the cheap systems are exactly that...cheap.
Mike
Allright, I can't let this just be a Macfest in here. laugh.gif

Of course, your computer preference is certainly just that-- a preference. No one system is better than the other.


I've seen figures that Macs make up about 5 - 15% of the market. So let's give them 10%. But that is the new computer market, not counting older machines.

I can tell you from my statistics that if you are reading this, there is about a one in twenty chance you are on a Mac. And of those one in twenty, at least 50% of you are using Microsoft software.

So Cyan, you've nailed it right on the head there. Us PC users do get to test out all of the crap software while it is still buggy.

But, if you are like me, you don't need to have the newest-of-the-new in hardware and software. I'm just fine running Office 2000 SP1. I don't need the new and improved version of everything. And I'm not a "normal" computer user. I run Visual Studio, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, PHP, MySQL, and a whole heck of a lot more on my little Pentium 3-700 laptop. It is by no means a fast PC by today's standards.

And that brings me to the number one reason why many people find PCs to be superior to Macs: Cost.

Sure, I could buy the newest version of Office, but that would cost me a couple hundred dollars. But if I can go with Office 2000, still a nice suite of office applications, I can pick it up for under $100.

And that applies to entire systems as well.

A smart PC user is perfectly fine with any computer above 500 megahertz. It can handle most applications just fine, and with a nice enough video card, it can handle quite a few games.

A quality PC can be purchased for well under $500.

And I'm not talking a scrub PC. I'm talking a Dell Pentium 4 1.6 gigahertz, 256 megs of RAM, 40 gig hard drive, cd burner, a decent video card, modem, NIC, and more. It is more than adequate for 75% of computer users.

What is the Mac equivalent? The cheapest Mac I can find at the Apple store is $799. That's a lot of money for a poorly configured computer.


I don't know if Macs are "hands down" the best for graphics. Since most people never use their system to its full potential, the normal limitation on graphics capability is the user's knowledge. If you don't know how to use the software, you are not going to produce good work. Photoshop is Photoshop is Photoshop. It's basically the same program no matter which OS is chosen.

Networking is also now a piece of cake on PCs also. Just about every computer comes with a NIC, and they are preconfigured for DHCP. That means easy use for networking. When it comes to file sharing, it is just as easy.

And as far as floppy drives go, why should one have to go through the inconvenience of buying and installing a floppy drive when just about every other computer in the world includes one standard?

This is Apple's number one down point. They do not allow other companies to produce systems on the Mac platform. You are stuck with Apple's offering, or a PC.

If Apple were to open up a bit and allow other manufacturers to clone their systems, Mac usage world wide would increase dramatically.

I can go on and on about this (obviously), but I'm done for now.

Mike
otseng
Ooo, fun topic. smile.gif

I agree with the sentiments here. If you're doing graphics, it's Mac. If it's business software or gaming, it's PC. If it's geek hacking, it's Linux.

One thing that I think though that's hypocritical is the Apple slogan, "Think Different". If anything, Apple won't let you think different. They control their software and hardware with an iron fist (though starting to open with OS X). What has made PCs so popular is that it allows for different thinking and freedom. So it's spawned tons of software and hardware providers. I guess Apple's slogan should be more along the lines of "Think different from our competitors whose got over 95% of the market share and we would like a bigger part of the pie".
Google
Cyan
QUOTE
Allright, I can't let this just be a Macfest in here. laugh.gif


That's okay. Mac people, in my experience, can tend to be a bit fanatical about their computers, myself included. Sometimes, as much as it hurts, we need to be kicked off of our soapbox. wink.gif

QUOTE
I can tell you from my statistics that if you are reading this, there is about a one in twenty chance you are on a Mac. And of those one in twenty, at least 50% of you are using Microsoft software.


True. Personally, I use Internet Explorer, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Excel. I find Microsoft's office suite to be far superior to any other comparable software on the market.

QUOTE
And that brings me to the number one reason why many people find PCs to be superior to Macs: Cost.


This is true also. Macs do cost more money, because they haven't opened themselves up to the clone market. This does increase their quality control, however. They are consistent. You always know what kind of hardware is going to be included in your Mac. With the clone market, competitors have to compete to keep costs low, and often times, you can end up with dodgy hardware.

My personal experiences with Macs have been great, so I am willing to fork out the extra cash. In our house, we have a two imacs, a Macintosh Quadra, and an old Apple Classic (over-glorified word processor wink.gif). All of them are running beautifully, and we have never had to take them in for repair. That is how our loyalty has been obtained.

QUOTE
I don't know if Macs are "hands down" the best for graphics. Since most people never use their system to its full potential, the normal limitation on graphics capability is the user's knowledge. If you don't know how to use the software, you are not going to produce good work. Photoshop is Photoshop is Photoshop. It's basically the same program no matter which OS is chosen.


That's true. Most people don't, and perhaps, I've worked on some very poorly configured PCs. My experience in running graphics software, specifically Adobe products have been far superior on a Mac. The PCs that I've used have tended to crash frequently. Is this a problem with the PC? Probably not, but Adobe caters to the Macintosh, and therefore the products for the Mac are more stable.

QUOTE
And as far as floppy drives go, why should one have to go through the inconvenience of buying and installing a floppy drive when just about every other computer in the world includes one standard?


Most of the newer Macs have CD burning ability…Why not use a CDRW rather than a floppy? I know the argument is that it makes it difficult to transfer files from the opposing machine to the Mac, and I agree that there should be options for purchasing the machine with a floppy drive, but truly, floppies are an archaic form of file sharing. I would say the same thing about all forms of magnetic media. It is unstable and unreliable.

QUOTE
This is Apple's number one down point. They do not allow other companies to produce systems on the Mac platform. You are stuck with Apple's offering, or a PC. If Apple were to open up a bit and allow other manufacturers to clone their systems, Mac usage world wide would increase dramatically.


See above statement about quality control. This is, in my opinion, one of the positive aspects of owning a Mac.
Cyan
QUOTE(otseng @ Nov 27 2002, 01:46 PM)
If anything, Apple won't let you think different.  They control their software and hardware with an iron fist (though starting to open with OS X).

OS X was definitely a positive direction for Mac to take with its OS. I'm having a lot of luck with finding indie software titles for the new operating system. I'm totally inept when it comes to programming, but as I understand it, Carbon has opened the doors of compatibility with Unix based systems, and it features a built in compiler. Is that right? Additionally, as I understand it, you can now network a Mac running OS X with a PC running XP.
Juber3
I have very little thoughts...i got webtv
Mega Gigan
I personally think PC's are better, everyone uses them and nobody has complaints. Most of the complaints are due to people using Windows 95/98. But those are very unstable OS's. The more stable ones are like Windows, NT, 2000, and the newest one XP. But you could also learn how to use LINUX. Also to note, that Mac has cooler designs. But style over substance isn't the way to go. Also, networking with XP is easy too, because it has a guide that takes your hand and spoon feeds the user. Which... might suck for me because my major in college is Networking sad.gif . Mac's might have the top end of graphics though. (Considering Lucas uses Mac's to make his movies.) Though an AMD processor can give you very good graphics as well. With Mac's everything is so confined and people are stifled by not really having a choice on things. Where PC users can use mostly anything.
turnea
QUOTE(Mega Gigan @ Dec 8 2002, 02:53 AM)
I personally think PC's are better, everyone uses them and nobody has complaints. Most of the complaints are due to people using Windows 95/98. But those are very unstable OS's.


I work with the newer windows systems every day (mostly XP) and believe me, there are plenty of complaints. laugh.gif

Mac OS isn't style over substance more like substance and style over popularity.
Juber3
At school we use PC's and believe me, we have soo many complaints
Wertz
I am a PC user and proud. smile.gif

I've used PCs almost exclusively for the past fifteen years or so. In the "early days" I much preferred having access to DOS - and there were a lot of compatibility issues with Mac. Now, I don't think there's that much difference, really, apart from personal preference. Were I starting over now, I might opt for Mac due to my personal dislike of Bill Gates (and not for the obvious reasons - but that's a whole different story). By way of balance, I've always used Netscape when I had the option.

Almost everywhere I've worked has used PCs (including Disney, where one can't even find a Mac). I've never had any problems running graphics programs and most of my work has been graphics-based. All of my Adobe products work fine on PC - I've never had a Photoshop, Illustrator or Acrobat program crash on any PC. At home, we currently use a Sony VAIO for most stuff (including video and sound editing), a Dell with a massive amount of RAM for some graphics and web design stuff, and an old workhorse of a Gateway thing for - well, posting to discussion boards and the like.

Interestingly, the only time I've come across Macs was when I was working for Radio Telefis Eireann (the Irish equivalent of the BBC). The Production Design department, in which I worked, used PCs - mostly for CAD programs. We started out with the now-defunct RoboCAD, which wouldn't even operate on Mac, then switched to AutoCAD and 3D Studio. We also used a number of Adobe programs and, again, had no problems. The Graphic Design department, on the other hand, used Macs exclusively - mostly for animations and the like. For what it's worth, it was always easier to transfer files from PC to Mac than Mac to PC. Anyway, the rivalry between the two departments also became something of a rivalry between PC and Mac users. As I worked in that environment for over eight years, that kinda reinforced my PC chauvinism.

On a purely personal note, I've always preferred the PC interface - Mac always seemed more like a toy or something. tongue.gif
Mega Gigan
QUOTE(juber3 @ Dec 8 2002, 02:51 PM)
At school we use PC's and believe me, we have soo many complaints

...and what operating system do you use? Also it depends what is in the computer itself. Or it could be the user that is doing somthing wrong.
Juber3
we use windows 98, the users are good...because i over see the computers in 315
Mega Gigan
Well, 98 is still a unstable version of windows. At least, it isn't as stable as 2000, NT or... XP (ick...)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.