Mac OS X: Mac OS X Tiger vs. Windows XP
I'm looking for very much the same
by Justin111 - 11/3/05 8:53 AM In reply to: Mac OS X Tiger vs. Windows XP by rohan.katipallyTo add on to the request I would like to see a simmular report between the two OS's.
I can add on this though. I'm a digital video and picture editor, and I've used both a really nice G5 and an average PC. Some of you may find this interesting, but I prefer the PC for video editing mainley because it seems that the editing software I use from adobe (adobe premier) connects to more devices easiely on the PC than on the mac. Also it seems as if rendering is quicker on the PC although I haven't benchmarked the two, but I say this just from experience. One thing I've noticed about the Mac is that all the close buttons and tool buttons are very small so its hard to click and do what you want. And finally this may shock some mac users, but I find that the Mac crashes more than the PC when video editing. Now on the other hand Still image editing with Adobe's program Photoshop CS2 seems to run a lot smoother on the mac. I find still image editing a lot beter on the mac than the PC. It seems you can apply several effects to a picture, and you're still able to move pictures easily around the screen. Overall after using macs and PCs I find that both crash about the same amount of times, and neither one is better for one task or another. One just has a larger price tag, which pays off by the look of the mac. And for those who are saying right now "well you've only used one mac" thats wrong because I use two G5's, new within the last year. One fairly new Imac G5 and a whole bunch of Imac G3's. I've also used an IBook, and a Powerbook. I use all these macs through the media program at my school. Anyways thats my reply. Thanks for reading.
I wonder
by mrmacfixit
- 11/3/05 9:34 AM
In reply to: I'm looking for very much the same by Justin111
If the "crashing" of the Mac was, in fact, a Mac crash or whether is was an Adobe Premier crash. that program is particularly sucky on the Mac and is not the editing software of choice for the majority of DV editors. Final Cut Pro & it's big brothers, are much better and more powerful that AP.
By the time you have configured your PC to come up to the Mac G5 specs, the rpice is around the same. We are taling name brand here, not Build it yourself stuff.
Given that none of these Mac's that you have been using actually belong to you, but are part of a school media program, they maybe get more abuse than a machine that was yours.
Try decent editing software and you will be pleased with the results
P
My observations of Mac vs. Wintel
by emuelle1 - 11/4/05 4:02 AM In reply to: I wonder by mrmacfixit
I have a friend who used to be an ASR (Apple Service Rep) at CompUSA. He had, for a while, done a good job of convincing me that my next computer had to be a Mac. I also read Michael Hyatt's blog. He switched from a Tablet PC to a Powerbook. I've been following some Mac blogs and enthusiast sites for a while now, and I've learned some interesting things.
Mac's aren't exactly without their problems. Mac originally did a terrible job with USB on the first iMacs. It's also not exactly true that Mac's are virus and hacker free, and as more people buy them more hackers are working to invade them.
Mac has the advantage of developing the software and hardware. I could go to a computer show this weekend, pick up all the pieces to a computer seperately (it's much more fun that way), slap them together, install Win XP, and expect XP to work. Microsoft obviously has no control over the manufacture of the hardware that I would just have bought, yet it is expected to support it. They put themselves in that place, however. I'd like to see Apple write an OS that will, for the most part, universally run on anything you happen to find at a computer show.
I find Apple products to be much more expensive, although that may not be a fair comparison. In order to get the system I would want, I'd have to drop close to $2000 on a Powerbook. No way my wife would approve that. I could get a fairly adequate laptop for half of that.
I'm trying to be as fair and impartial as I can. Mac is known for simplicity, Windows is known for universality. Each has a great place in it's own niche, and either will work fine depending on the platform you want to run and the needs that you have.
Mac is known for simplicity, Windows is known for universal
by CMF - 11/4/05 6:09 PM In reply to: My observations of Mac vs. Wintel by emuelle1I agree to that....
During 1980's I love Apple computer, it's easy to use. After I graduate from college, and landed a programming job used boring IBM machine and PC/AT.
I went on searching for a new computer myself and found cheaper computer from my company that is IBM PC. It's kind of complicated than Apple. All the PC does was boot up to DOS prompt. HUH?!?!? Apple just automatically boot up to any software that you insert in the slot, no prompt blink blink blink....
As years goes by, I owned 5 PCs (four are gifts from friends and sister) and wish to have a MAC! A month ago, My sister gave me her daughter's iMac G3. The only thing I don't like is the mouse.
My daughter always caused too many spies and viruses in my PC's, she said 'I've never have problem with my computer'. DUH! She got Mac!
Mac never have any problem with viruses and spies and popups. I just wish I had Mac from the beginning. The reason I don't own Mac is that I have so many softwares that are for PCs only.
Soon, I will get a new MAC if I could afford it.
I do use Final Cut Pro
by Justin111 - 11/5/05 12:58 AM In reply to: I wonder by mrmacfixit
Just to add to my previous message to so that I can clear up a few things. The software I use on the Mac is Final Cut Pro HD in compliance with the whole studio made by mac. Don't get me wrong, they're not bad programs I just prefer Adobe Premier Pro. Also it is true the macs I use are school computers however the good macs we have (the two PowerMacs and the two Imac G5s including the new Imac G5 just released) are in a seperate room from the media macs. The only people to use the good macs are me and one other student, and we take good care of those macs, they're like our baby's 
. I like macs, but I don't think they're significantly better for video editing than PC's although simple editing is easier thanks to Imovie although I prefer to use Final Cut. This is just from my experience.
-Justin
hardware
by blackheart1313 - 11/5/05 11:17 PM In reply to: I wonder by mrmacfixit
For name brand parts you have to build it yourself because your not going to find an ASUS, DFI, or ABIT mboard in a dell, hp, compaq, gateway or others "name brand companies". With the right config on a pc it will be more stable and faster than a mac. Cost of antivirus is only a problem for lazy pc owners it is very easy to get free antivirus, spyware/adware, and firewall protection. I'll recommend using Linux for people looking for minimal viruses and spyware/adware, high stability, it's almost universal, and it is becoming more userfriendly with every release.
Try it
by rimbaud - 11/4/05 6:57 AM In reply to: Mac OS X Tiger vs. Windows XP by rohan.katipallyThe best test is to try each for an extended time. After a while, you will find the Mac just seems to work better and more comfortably, and it will take some thinking to come up with objective reasons why this is true. Windows makes you aware of itself, Mac get out of the way and send you on your way.
It is all about the experience.
by Awesomebase - 11/4/05 7:54 AM In reply to: Mac OS X Tiger vs. Windows XP by rohan.katipallyI don't think anybody can successfully argue that both systems are not very good. I have used PCs and was a system builder for many years so I have been with them since DOS was all the rage.
Having said that, I switched to Mac OS X when it first came out just over 4 years ago. The main reason for that was the argument for pure speed was becoming obsolete and there were many other things I was concerned about. The most primary aspect was actually the time I had to waste doing things like updating the OS, browser, applications, utilities, virus software, etc. Then the constant reboots, and the constant problems with software packages either installing incorrectly, having multiple installs, or simply not being about to completely remove an application. All-in-all it was a very time-consuming experience and no amount of processing power was going to change that. There were other bottlenecks in the system such as hard-drive and internet speeds.
Tiger is by far Apple's best iteration and there are many time-saving elements to it such as using widgets and spotlight. Not only that, but it is so well organized and managing all your information, whether they be documents, photos, music, video, email, etc. is just done at a much higher level than XP has ever been capable of doing.
So, when considering cost, ask yourself this, is the extra $300 you pay for the Apple system upfront (which already includes many of these things free that you can not even purchase for XP) worth saving the time you would spend otherwise on an XP machine? One week of updates and reboots on XP will convince you that it is definitely worth it. If I calculated the time I consumed messing around with XP to get it to do what I want it to according to a reasonable contract rate (hourly), the system would have easily paid for itself literally dozens of times over.
Don't get hung up on price so much as it is the experience that counts. I have my powerbook for over 4 years now and it is actually about 1.5 times as fast now as it was when I bought it just because of the improvements in the OS. If you value your time, the decision will be a no-brainer.
For those that argue on the angle of playing games, XP definitely wins on that front, but, again, you are better off getting a console and saving your money.
unbiased Mac opinion
by sharpwitz - 11/4/05 8:08 AM In reply to: Mac OS X Tiger vs. Windows XP by rohan.katipallyI was a loyal Mac user for 12 years. I've owned the first Apple Macintosh 128k up to the PowerPC 640 RISC processor. My close friend at the time was a gifted programmer who was fanatical about PC's. We were as polar as you could get with regards to computer superiority.
Fast forward to today, and I am now a Windows XP user and my friend is a Mac loyalist. Weird. My friend, the programmer, loves the Mac because it can multitask very well due to the Linux engine. XP is terrible at multitasking and when one application crashes, your whole system may not fail, but the application will stall the system, which is annoying. Also, XP 64-bit running on a dual core processor is very unstable and and so are the 64-bit applications.
I chose XP because there are more PC users out there, which means there is still more software support available for the PC than the Mac. As far as gaming goes, Windows use to dominate the gaming market, but that's all changing now that Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 are becoming more internet focused.
Apple is a hardware company. Maybe they've changed, but being loyal to them for 12 years, even when Jobs came back, I've learn that Apple's philosophy does not change. Macs are expensive and Apple is just plain greedy.
It just comes down to software. Macs are the better computers, but they just don't have software. Which software do you use the most? If it's Microsoft Office, i'd recommend you stay with the PC. Microsoft keeps Apple in business b/c if it killed the competitor, then it would monopolize the industry, and that's illegal. If you're using your computer for the business world, I'd recommend the PC.
If you are a VERY inexperienced computer user, go with the Mac. You'll have less crashes to worry about and the point and click environment is much easier to understand. If you use the internet just for email and website browsing, then I'd recommend the Mac.
As for speed, there are too many variables. And if one is faster than the other, it's not by much that it would change your life.
Just a side note : Mac OS is the best and always has been from the very beginning. This opinion comes from someone (me) who has owned both PC and Mac OS, and is CURRENTLY an XP user.
There you have it. Don't think so much on the technical stuff. Just be practical when you make your final decision.
Opinion
by mrmacfixit - 11/4/05 1:23 PM
In reply to: unbiased Mac opinion by sharpwitz
''Macs are the better computers, but they just don't have software. Which software do you use the most? If it's Microsoft Office, i'd recommend you stay with the PC.''
Any particular reason why this should be so? Are you saying that MS don't make a version of Office for the Mac? Are you saying that if they do make a version for the Mac, that it's not as good? Or are you just making assumptions based on your limited knowledge? On what do you base your opinion?
''Microsoft keeps Apple in business b/c if it killed the competitor, then it would monopolize the industry, and that's illegal.'' When did legality worry MS. Without Apple, MS would have to invent Apple to get new ideas, without which the PC world would just stagnate.
P
Oh grow up.
by Redlar - 11/4/05 10:29 PM In reply to: Opinion by mrmacfixit
Everyone says that Microsoft copies Apple. Who the #(* %$ Cares!? Good ideas will always be copied. There, as a Windows user, I said that. Now, if Apple finally does die in the computer market, the designers will just go over to Microsoft without any problem, since both of the companies have become what IBM was back in the '80s:CORPORATIONS. And so, Microsoft will become the innovator. And who knows, someone else might come along, kill Apple, and knock Microsoft into a niche market.There, I admit that even the all-mighty Microsoft might die one day. But for now, and getting back to the topic, I think you should go with Windows XP or 2000.
microsoft
by sharpwitz - 11/5/05 3:03 PM In reply to: Opinion by mrmacfixit
Microsoft has always been slow to upgrade Mac Office products. I know b/c I owned Office for Mac. If you're going to ask me questions, ask politely instead of being so rude. It's computer talk, don't make it so personal.
I believe you made a statement,
by saywhatnow - 11/5/05 3:43 PM In reply to: microsoft by sharpwitzand you were called on it.
I don't think it's personal, I think it's more a case of being fed up with misinformation.
MS have always produced Office for the Mac faster than the Windows version.
Current Office for Mac is 2004 and for Windows 2003
By MS own admission, Office for Mac is much better than for Windows but your statement intimated that Office was not available for the Mac which is obviously incorrect.
From your posts, I gather you are not actually using OS X at all. Would that be correct?
maybe i'm wrong
by sharpwitz - 11/5/05 10:11 PM In reply to: I believe you made a statement, by saywhatnowIf I am wrong, then I would not be shy to publicly admit it. But I would assume that there are more PC users than Mac users. And logically, a corporation would update in favor of the majority. The latest version of Office is Office XP i thought?
Even if the the Mac Office version is better, the standard is still PC. Most of the business world runs on PC's. It's a sad truth b/c the Mac is a superior machine. But it's still the truth.
Office
by saywhatnow - 11/6/05 5:39 AM In reply to: maybe i'm wrong by sharpwitzGranted, the standard machine for business is a PC, the standard suite of Tools is Office. A considerable number of businesses conduct there entire business using Word, Excel and Powerpoint. Stick those companies in front of a Mac, running Office, and after a few days they would not notice the change. The two Office suites are completely interchangeable, with files from one being opened on the other.
I know of at least three businesses in my area that went Mac after being constantly attacked by virus's, etc. and were surprised to find that Office existed for the Mac, but that's another topic.
I believe Office XP was some form of interim upgrade before 2003.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
