Desktops: MACS VS THE PC
Mac and PC
by gforcegt13 - 1/12/07 6:40 AM In reply to: MACS VS THE PC by Krissa3Well I have to go with PC over Mac. Reasons why are one is price obviously, two you can personalize PCs then Macs. PC are used million times more in the business world with more applications and etc. Also for all those who are against Microsoft for some reason you can use Linux or Unix on a PC. I also think PCs are more user friendly and the greatest graphics, programs, websites are desgigned on PCs. But Macs are different and for those who want different they can have different.
Mac on a PC
by muffindell - 1/12/07 6:55 AM In reply to: Mac and PC by gforcegt13What do you think the Graphic Arts industry choice is - the Macintosh of course, because it's geared towards media manipulation. PIXAR annimation studios use Macs for an awful lot of it's annimation work. If you like windows so much, run it on a Mac - but you can't run Mac OS on a PC.
Sorry Your Wrong
by robertmro - 1/12/07 7:13 AM In reply to: Mac and PC by gforcegt13The higher price is debatable.
Personalizing? You can personalize both equally.
The business world is overwhelmingly PC (Windows). If you are using your computer at a company that is Windows based, you're probably better off staying with a PC. If you're using it at home or a home business, there is no reason not to go Mac.
Linux? Unlike a PC you can run Linux, Windows or both at the same time on a Mac without having to reboot using Parallels. With the release of OSX Leopard you wouldn't even need Parallels to do that. And by the way Mac OS X is basically built on Unix.
The best graphic websites use Flash Player, which is the same on any platform.
Don't be misled.
Parallels
by freighterman_1999 - 1/12/07 10:51 PM In reply to: Sorry Your Wrong by robertmroYou don't reboot with Parallels...it is a virtual machine!!!! It runs in a window, or full screen, like any program. You are thinking of Bootcamp.
Virtual machines have been around for some time. Parallels is the most recent and easy to use incarnation.
Sorry MY Mistake
by robertmro - 1/12/07 11:07 PM In reply to: Parallels by freighterman_1999Sorry my mistake. I've used both and know the difference.
The only thing that I'm not sure about is, whether Leopard will have something like Parallels built in or if it will ship with Parallels. Somebody wrote earlier that it will ship with Parallels. I never heard that before.
By the way, there is a another program like Parallels that is available as a free beta download called VMware. http://www.vmware.com/
vmware
by freighterman_1999 - 1/12/07 11:31 PM In reply to: Sorry MY Mistake by robertmroHaven't tried it, have you? I am test driving Parallels at present. So far so good, it runs like any other program.
Listen to Leo LaPort's radio show Sat. and Sunday from 11 to 2 on kfi640.com., or his podcasts of past shows via a link from KFI radio. Great show. He is high on Parallels.
No
by robertmro - 1/12/07 11:45 PM In reply to: vmware by freighterman_1999I just heard of it two days ago. Apparently they are anxious to get on the market quickly because Parellels is taking over the market.
Parallels didn't work for me because the PC program that I really needed use was not compatible with it but worked fine with Boot Camp. The other problem I had with Parallels was that I also need to run the program in question on two monitors with a expended desktop and Parallels couldn't do that.
Thanks for the radio show tip.
Running Vista under Parallels may cost you more (Quite wordy
by alfred_bowman - 1/13/07 8:52 AM In reply to: Sorry MY Mistake by robertmroI am a Windows PC user who has decided that my next personal computer
will be an Intel-based Macintosh. I have been following both Boot
Camp and Parallels Desktop For Mac. Concerning the latter, I found
this item by Harry McCracken of PC World:
"I've spoken approvingly of Parallels Desktop For Mac, the
virtualization software that lets you run Windows (or Linux) within
Mac OS X, but I've been remiss in not mentioning the new beta build
3036 (available here) and its remarkable new Coherence mode.
Until now, Parallels has let you run Windows either in full-screen
mode (so you flip between OS X and Windows) or in a Window (so the
entire Windows environment sits within a window on the OS X desktop).
Coherence ups the ante by allowing Windows applications to sit within
their own windows on the OS X desktop, enabling a world in which you
can use Mac apps and Windows apps and just not think that much about
which is which.
How does Parallels accomplish this? Through a clever bit of sleight of hand: It puts Windows in full-screen mode, then makes the desktop
transparent, so OS X seeps through. The result is what feels like a
nearly-complete intermingling of the two operating systems, especially since this new beta also offers drag-and-drop data exchange between them. If there are programs you need or want that aren't available for the Mac, such as Word 2007 (which is an almost entirely different beast from its Mac cousin), you can use 'em in OS X. You might even begin to forget that they're not OS X apps.
I said that integration was "nearly-complete"--you do still need to
launch Windows apps from the Start menu rather than the Dock (although Lifehacker has pointed to a workaround), and OS X's Expose
window-management feature and other OS X window and application
management tools treat your Parallelized version of Windows as one
window rather than understanding that you may have several Windows
applications running at once.
The Parallels folks have a terrific record of improving Parallels
Desktop For Mac more or less continuously--so I'll betcha they'll
refine Coherence quite a bit further in upcoming releases. Even in
this first rough draft, it's one of those rare pieces of software
that's both startlingly innovative and immediately useful..."
Coherence seems to me to be a large step toward the day when the
operating system no longer matters. Bravo Parallels!
Then I found a review of Windows Vista in the January issue of PC
Magazine that includes this paragraph by John Clyman:
"The licenses for the (Vista) Home Basic and Home Premium don't let
you run Vista inside a virtual machine, and stricter product
activation features will actually disable Vista installations that
Microsoft deems not genuine."
I have to assume that this restriction will apply to Vista running in
a Parallels virtual machine on a Mac as well as in a VMware or other
virtual machine on a PC. (I wonder if it will apply to a Microsoft
VM.)
Here are the prices for the editions of Vista that an individual would be able to buy.
Ultimate $399.00
Business $299.00
Home Premium $239.00
Home Basic $199.00
(I hope that the amounts are correct.)
It seems to me that Microsoft has decided to clean up on
virtualization. Of course, Microsoft is working on its own
virtualization software, but it doesn't seem to be ready just now.
I can't help wondering if the Mac is a target of this.
Anyway, if this is correct and you aren't prepared to pay $299 or $399 for Vista, you can forget about using Vista under Parallels. Of
course, you could use Boot Camp.
I really hope that this Vista license report is in error. I don't
want to be unfair to Microsoft (heh, heh, heh).
Alfred Bowman
Ps: Sorry for the odd formatting.
Another Thing To Consider
by robertmro - 1/13/07 11:15 AM In reply to: Running Vista under Parallels may cost you more (Quite wordy by alfred_bowmanJust out of curiosity I ran the 'CNET Vista Rediness Advisor' to see if my Mac could handle Vista and the results were very disappointing.
The Advisor gives the results in the form of a line that indicates level you can use Vista at and advise on how to improve that. My MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) 2.16 GHz, 2 GB RAM just barely pass. It wanted the Radeon X1600 upgraded to Radeon X1800 in order to improve performance. That's pretty demanding. As far as I can tell, Leopard will operate just fine with my hardware.
Am I missing something or is Vista a Resource hog?
The 'CNET Vista Rediness Advisor' can be found at: http://reviews.cnet.com/Desktops/4520-3672_7-6671810.html?tag=tip
Resource hog
by alfred_bowman - 1/13/07 6:42 PM In reply to: Another Thing To Consider by robertmroIt is a resource hog indeed. Its system requirements are
unprecedented. According to Microsoft, Vista Home Basic, which isn't
full-featured, needs 512 MB of RAM and Vista Home Premium requires 1
GB. Home Basic doesn't include the new "Aero" user interface, as well as some other things. The new interface is reported to be more
Mac-like than ever. I understand that Aero is the principal reason
for the higher memory requirement of Premium.
However, long term Windows users have learned that Microsoft always
under-reported the Windows memory requirement in the past. The rule
of thumb is to double whatever Microsoft says is the minimum.
In addition, Home Premium requires a separate display card with at
least 128 MB of RAM on it. This requirement may account for the
Readiness Advisor's advice to upgrade your display adaptor.
Does the Readiness Advisor tell you which version of Vista is
appropriate for your MAC? I hope so.
This is the picture with Boot Camp. If you want to run Vista in a
Parallels virtual machine, you will need more RAM, up to twice as
much. However, as I noted earlier, you may not be able to run Home
Basic or Home Premium under Parallels.
I checked the requirements for the $299 Business version at
Microsoft's Web site. One page advised that Business includes Aero
but requires 512 MB. (I didn't believe this.) Another page reported
that it requires 1 GB. (I do believe this.) Go figure.
Mac vs PC
by scottyinco - 1/12/07 7:22 AM In reply to: MACS VS THE PC by Krissa3It all comes down to what you think works best for you. Mac and PC are both excellent platforms now. Windows is more stable than it has ever been (which is not an easy thing to do with all the possible hardware combinations).
Apple has been able to control the user experience nearly 100% since the beginning, since Apple makes the hardware and the Operating System. This does make it MUCH easier to have a stable and reliable system. Apple makes proprietary closed systems. Sure, you can add some peripherals of different brands, but not like you can with PC.
Windows runs on Intel, AMD, VIA Processors, with motherboards from 100's of manufacturers, graphics cards from dozens of manufacturers, and a plethera of other peripheral choices. It is any wonder that Windows systems can be less stable?
You have to make the choice that's best for you. I owned a Mac Powerbook G4 for 2 weeks last year. Other than that, I've only had Intel/Microsoft PC's since 1987. The Mac didn't work for me in my line of work as an IT Administrator, as most of the programs I use aren't available for a Mac. I am, however, a certified Mac technician.
Mac computers have dlls, by another name, just like Windows. The end user just doesn't see them. Apple has locked down all the complexities of the operating system so that users only see drag and drop, which, of course, is easier if you make the hardware too. No computer is natively drag and drop. Computers are binary (1's and 0's).
And for those that think Apple was the first GUI interface, you're wrong. Apple stole the GUI interface from Xerox.
In the end, it matters what you need your computer to do, and which one you are more comfortable with. Both are well developed platforms at this point in time.
The Myth
by GaaraZanta - 1/14/07 8:56 PM In reply to: Mac vs PC by scottyincoJust to point this out also, because it just annoys me when Mac users--I mean literally everyone I know--bash Microsft as being lazy and not releasing any major OS since 2001, take this quote from Paul Thurott:
Jobs was quick to tout the progress Apple has made with its OS since 2001, when both Windows XP and the first version of OS X shipped. "What have we been doing for the last five years?" he asked. "We've been putting out releases of OS X." He claimed that Apple shipped five "major" updates to OS X, including Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, and Tiger, though I'd argue that virtually none of those were major updates at all. (Unless you count the cost. At $129 for each version, that's about $750 on Mac OS X upgrades since 2001. That kind of puts the cost of Windows in perspective.) But he counted Tiger on Intel as a sixth major release, because of the effort in porting the OS X code to a new platform (which, actually, had been in the works for a long time and wasn't the 210 day project Jobs claimed).
By that measure, Microsoft has improved Windows by a far greater degree. In the same time frame, it has shipped Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional Edition, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004, Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 (and 2005 UR2), Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, Windows XP Home and Professional N Editions, Windows XP with Service Pack 2 (SP2, absolutely a big Windows upgrade), Windows XP Embedded, Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, and Windows XP Starter Edition in various languages. Heck, I might be missing some versions. No, they're not all major releases (The N Editions? Eh.) But XP x64, like Tiger on Intel, was a major engineering effort. And Apple has nothing--absolutely nothing--like the Media Center and Tablet PC functionality that Microsoft has been refining now for several years. So let's put the silliness about Microsoft doing nothing for five years to rest, shall we?
This is meant as no dis to Apple, I dislike the company for their huge amount of FUD but I generally like their products.
wait grasshopper
by alisha0107 - 1/12/07 8:11 AM In reply to: MACS VS THE PC by Krissa3With the new macs running on Intel chips it shouldn't be too long for there to be alternate hardware than Apple's (I believe there is already a non apple laptop being released) I have used both platforms for many different functions. When I do any "serious" work I use my PC. When I create movies or do any photo editing I lean on the Mac. The PC can do anything the Mac can and almost vise-versa BUT for creating movies the Macs built in program far outstrips Movie Maker included with Windows. Of course there are an infinite number of software available for PC's so you can always find a better program. All the programs are included with the Mac and the iLife suite.
My recommendation WAIT Apple is coming out with their new OS (Leopard) very soon and Microsoft has Vista. In a few months you can buy a new Mac loaded with PARALLELS which allows you to run Windows XP simultaneously on your Mac. My brother-in-law has a Mac doing this and it's great BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.
Refreshing the line
by URTido - 1/12/07 8:29 AM In reply to: wait grasshopper by alisha0107If you are considering to buy a new computer and decide to lean towards a Mac, I would recommend you wait as well. Not only will the new release of OSX be coming out sometime in the spring, but it is also very likely that there will be a refresh to each of the Mac lines of computers (MacBooks, MacBook Pros, iMacs, and Mac Pros (if you want a home server for a computer)). This should mean more bang for the buck to any buyer because Apple generally keeps the same price points for it's different levels of hardware (ie the top MacBook line is $1499).
This Is True But
by robertmro - 1/12/07 8:44 AM In reply to: Refreshing the line by URTidoYou can wait if you have the time, but there is always something new.
In the spring there will be a reason to wait until the fall and so on and so forth.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
