Desktops: MACS VS THE PC
Does Microsoft treat your files with care?
by Jelly Baby - 1/14/07 3:44 PM In reply to: I'm impressed. Here's why. by R. Proffitt
Ehhh yes!
Yes :)
by alawaiblowfish - 1/12/07 2:16 AM In reply to: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! by ShinauPLEASE GET A MAC!!
Don't let XP/Vista Rule your lives!!!
Macs are a great value, despite all the naysayers. Just the productivity gained by not having to constantly maintain your system is value enough. Furthermore, they don't look like big ugly grey boxes.
They're compatible with practically everything. With windows, you have to install drivers, restart, cross your fingers, plug in the usb cable, install further hardware and software packages, and then hope it all works without crashing. Macs...plug it in, mac knows what it is, and it works
Too bad PCs are so complicated that administrators are needed to address their shortcomings.
Sorry Your Wrong
by robertmro - 1/12/07 6:27 AM In reply to: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! by ShinauI have both a Mac and a PC and I have had no problems networking and sharing files between them.
The Mac is much easier to use and dare I say, more fun. Every thing is integrated, something I can't say for the PC.
More expensive? That's debatable but you get what you pay for.
You know, this debate will never end.
macbook/imac
by bobbyy9 - 1/8/07 3:57 PM In reply to: MACS VS THE PC by Krissa3when you buy a mac people say its is over priced but you can get a macbook 1150 canadian with a core2duo running at 1.83 to find an equal pc laptop you be paying well over the price of the mac same goes for imac its about 999 canadian for an imac with the same specs and to get core2duo in a desktop pc its is over 999 in most cases plus then you need a monitor most people also forget you get a monitor included in the price of a mac also dont be fooled by the fact macs come with less ram because they are much more efficient and can run off literally like half the ram of a windows pc and perform the same no viruses no spyware i had a macbook and sold it i loved it though i bought a pc but only cause i wanted to hook up to my lcd and my xbox other wise i would of kept that baby if i could have afforded to so if your looking for somthing for photos or video editing i would defintely go for the mac
Punctuate please
by packjazz - 1/12/07 2:30 PM In reply to: macbook/imac by bobbyy9What's the deal with no punctuation? It's hard to read and understand your post if I can't decern one sentance from the next. I'm sure you made a good point, but I gave up two lines into it because it was too cumbersome to read.
Oh, and for my two cents, this whole argument can be summed up to: They each have their pros and cons...try both and pick the one YOU like best!
Mac is best!
by muffindell - 1/12/07 2:29 AM In reply to: MACS VS THE PC by Krissa3I've been using Macs since 1986, they are built to last, they are built so that each piece of software interacts with another seamlessly and without fault, Macs have a much more stable platform that PC users can only dream about, Macs can run several programs at the same time without either slowing down or locking up, Macs are much easier to use than any PC, there are no speed issues when comparing Mac with PC's, they are a little more expensive than a PC but they work out of the box and will keep on working without problems year after year. Loading software on a Mac is so easy that a mates 3 year old daughter did it to his amazement! Macs are the choice of the graphic arts industry, they are the choice of desk top designer, Macs have style, looks and reliability, they are not the choice of the gamer but the choice of the professional. How much more do I need to say to convince you that Mac is best?
Is Mac the best?
by freighterman_1999 - 1/12/07 5:03 PM In reply to: Mac is best! by muffindellCould be.
I have been a Windows user since the 3.0 version, but I just bought a 24" imac because it gave me the option of running XP either as a virtual machine, or on a partitioned drive. Besides, it is a cool looking machine. it has many features that are not available on XP, for example the remote control.
More important than this to me is it's security, using whatever browser or email program you prefer. Personally I like FireFox and ThunderBird. No more running a virus/spyware program that is sucking up system resources. No rmore utility programs to clean up the registery, to remove junk files and folders left on the system by poorly written uninstall programs. No more fooling with "plug and pray" hardware installations.
After doing a XP installation (using Paralles), which BTW works very niclely, I took one look at the XP screen and tried to put my self in the place of a new Windows user. The first question that came to mind was, "what the f??? do I do now"? Of course I knew what had to been done and that settting it up would take about three hours. Just the simple task of updating the XP security patches and fixes took about half an hour and this is an automated process. I won't boor you with the hassle involved setting my printer and internet connection. However, if I didn't know a few trickes and fixes I would still be screwing with it. Of course once up and running XP runs great. XP can be a b/?%)...its a big help if you have an experienced Windows user show you around. It is just not as user friendly as the imac.
When I booted my imac for the first time every thing worked. Of course it seemed a bit strange ( and still does), but I am finding my way around quite well.
One thing really, really, bugs me....resizing windows. Compared to a Windows machine, X Windows sucks. No longer can I use a graphic program that allows me to open multiple windows within a window and then minimize the entire program to the tool bar while I do something else. Resizing one window in OS X is even a pain in the butt with a 24" screen. Of course there is the problem (for me) of the separation of the window from the tool bar; but I will get used to this. It is my impression that this would be of no consequence if I started with an Apple computer from the get go.
Out of necessity I must continue to run XP in a virtual machine, that is if I want my printer to work, if I want to use a really good newsreader and graphic program, along with Open Office, (I am still trying to get this progam to run in OS X). And yes I am also married to Nero for burning, copying and backing up needs.
Bottom line I have the best of all worlds with two operating systems. What I can't do with one system I can do with the other, with one click of the mouse button.
The Realtec sound drivers in OS X are the best found in any operating system, bar none!!!
As for speed, both systems appear to me to be the same. The only difference I have found is that running FireFox in XP with the Google accelerator, or in OS X, is faster than Safari; FireFox doesn't quit on me every now and again like Safari.
One last thought...If you intend to run XP, or Vista, in a virtual machine, you better have at least 2 GB's of memory on board. One will work as long as you are not running any memory intensive programs.
For Windows users I have one recommendation.....make your next machine an imac.
X Window System v MS-Windoze
by clsgis - 1/13/07 10:31 PM In reply to: Is Mac the best? by freighterman_1999"Compared to a Windows machine, X Windows sucks."
I guess it's what you're used to. I've been using the X Window System for about 16 years. To me it's the way a computer user interface ought to be. Choice and configurability. And a paste button on the mouse.
Now and then I use a friend's or an employer's MS-Windows or Macintosh native window system and they drive me up the wall. So much more work to do the same thing. No choice of mouse focus policy, it's click-to-focus with auto-raise or nothing. (I like focus-follows-mouse and no auto-raise. You can't do that on MS-Windoze.) No paste button, the mouse only has left and right! You can't type in a window unless it's on top, no wonder you need a two foot screen. You only get one desktop, I'm using seven right now. You can't have a desktop bigger than your screen, mine grows as big as I want it. If I don't like the way window resize works, I can switch into a different window manager or lay a different theme on the one I'm using, without even closing any windows.
I've never had a problem with window resize, you just drag the edges or corners, and if a corner is off-screen you drag the whole window with alt-left-button. Except on Tom's Window Manager, but nobody uses twm any more. If you don't like the default behavior, change the keybindings and mousebindings until it works the way *you* want it to.
If you don't like the desktop manager that came with the X Window System from Apple, just switch to another one. I've settled on K Desktop Environment. (KDE.org) You might prefer the equally bloated GNU Network Oriented whatever, GNOME.org, or something streamlined like IceWM (IceWM.org).
f you want X to behave like the MS-Windows desktop you're used to, choose KDE, set the virtual desktop count to one and the desktop size to the size of your monitor, choose the Redmond window decorations theme, and set the mouse policy to click-to-focus with auto-raise. And jam a toothpick in the middle mouse button so paste doesn't work. Voila.
They do give you a choice of desktop managers on Apple's X Window System, don't they? If not, then it's not really The X Window System, is it?
Oh, by the way, virtual desktops are why nobody cares that most applications don't know how to collapse and restore all their windows in a bunch. (You can tell KDE to do it for them.) If you've got an application that needs a million windows open (e.g. the GNU Image Manipulation Program, GIMP.org), just give it a desktop for itself. Right now I've got eleven Seamonkey windows. The tv guide and my ebay are closed, and the rest are on the desktops where their web sites are relevant. Desktop per task, more or less. If Seamonkey was all windows up or down, together, I'd have to switch to some other Web browser.
I bought a Vista Beta but never got around to trying it. Did they do virtual desktops yet? MSFT usually adopts features from unix, when they've been around long enough.
One more nitpick. "The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when referring to this software: X, X Window System, X Version 11, X Window System, Version 11, X11. (Not "X Windows.")
Other things to consider...
by genotypewriter - 1/12/07 2:39 AM In reply to: MACS VS THE PC by Krissa3Ask the following questions too:
* Which one is easier/faster/cheaper to repair?
* Which one will not make you feel like "I can't run application X with person A to collaborate" most often?
* Which one is easier to let go of in case you get hit by a bus so that you don't come back as an eternally hungry ghost? 
Good luck!
.....no problems
by muffindell - 1/12/07 3:11 AM In reply to: Other things to consider... by genotypewriterWhy would you worry about repairing a Mac? They very, very rarely go wrong. I've worked in studios with 30-40 Mac's for the last 20 years, in all that time we've had one power supply failure and one logic board failure, the units are switched 24/7 and run cool and quiet. In my experience, just about anything created on a Mac can be displayed on a PC without problem so cross platform sharing is not an issue. Almost everyone I know who have used a Mac for any length of time will never turn to a PC (the dark side!).
Shortcomings of the Mac
by gunsosan1940 - 1/12/07 3:11 AM In reply to: Other things to consider... by genotypewriterMacs are lovely, attractive computers, and generally work well. But the amount of software available for them is a lot more limited than for the PC, and is sometimes difficult to find. Moreover Apple sometimes abruptly changes things without warning, and leaves you in the lurch. I bought a state-of-the art iMac in 1999. Within two or three years it was rendered almost completely obsolete by the introduction of OS X, and some of the software was suddenly scrapped. Remember Claris Works? Remember Hypercard? Neither of these works on OS X. Macs, moreover, are expensive for what they are. Although Mac prices have come down in recent years, you still get much more bang for your bucks if you buy a PC. And although Macs are very reliable, they sometimes go wrong, and finding a repairer at short notice can be a real nightmare. Perhaps these considerations help to explain why Macs have a world market share of only 5.8 percent.
won't work on OSX?
by muffindell - 1/12/07 3:38 AM In reply to: Shortcomings of the Mac by gunsosan1940OSX will run on any G3/G4/G5 and intel based processor, so I don't understand what you say about making your '99 model machine useless. Mac's have had less population exposure due to being a more 'professional targeted tool',. However, there are few movies (US or UK) produced which when featuring a computer don't actually use a Mac. I think the problem arises from the fact that you can constantly switch and upgrade a PC with new boards etc, where as a Mac has everything you need built in from the start. In fact the best way to improve a Mac is just fill it with memory, speed differences can be incredible. Mac is the annimation studios choice (PIXAR), so they can't be all that bad even if Steve Jobs does own shares in that particular studio!
I thought iMacs still had Motorola processors?
by meisinscotland - 1/17/07 12:08 AM In reply to: won't work on OSX? by muffindellPlease excuse me if I'm wrong, but I've been in a bit of an exploratory phase recently, and have come to learn that modern Macs do run on Intel processors, but I thought the iMac didn't have Intel Processors?
And if I went out and bought Mac OS X today, could I install it on my Windows Laptop, as easy as pie? (I'd love to triple boot Windows 2000 Pro, XP Pro and Mac OS X!!)
Just interested...
No
by robertmro - 1/17/07 7:22 AM In reply to: I thought iMacs still had Motorola processors? by meisinscotlandMore then a year ago Apple decided to switch to Intel processors which was a wise decision in many ways.
They accomplished the switch in record time. So the current generation of Macs have intel processors, though you will not find a sticker anywhere on their machines.
Even though OS X now runs on an Intel chip it will never run on a PC. This is because Apple is a very successful hardware company and they will never allow this to happen. Recently, someone successfully ran OS X on a PC and Apple quickly took him to court to stop it.
As you know you can run Windows on a Mac, but you will never be able to run OS X on a PC. Sorry.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
%20-%20CNET%20Desktops%20Forums&srcUrl=http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?messageID%3D2372999){kind=small}