mac vs pc transformers

[Kastigir]

Thing is, you can get a well put together laptop for 1/2 the cost of a Mac, and then install Mac OS if you really want to. Lenovo, Asus, and even HP are put together pretty well. Steer clear of eMachine, Gateway, and Toshiba and you'll probably be ok.

I disagree with this. I have a Toshiba laptop and it's the crap.

 

Seeing as I spend about 70% of my day on my laptop, I'd rather be looking at something well designed, than the mess in which 90% of Windows computers are.

 

And no I didn't buy a computer for its looks, I bought it for the operating system, the computer itself (ie the screen, hardware, I needed something powerful enough to run Maya smoothly), and the fact it would take a lot for me to go back to Windows. The looks of the thing are just a great bonus. Johnathon Ive is a legend.

See above. You *did* buy your computer for looks, as your first sentence states. Again, you're either female, or homosexual...take your pick.

[sup]

MacBook Pros are built like a Swiss watch. It's just another aspect that makes it nice to use. It's like comparing a Mercedes to a mid-90s Chevrolet in terms of build.

 

Another nice thing I forgot about: the backlit keyboard

[Kastigir]

MacBook Pros are built like a Swiss watch. It's just another aspect that makes it nice to use. It's like comparing a Mercedes to a mid-90s Chevrolet in terms of build.

 

Another nice thing I forgot about: the backlit keyboard

Funny, it costs as much more as a swiss watch does too. My Timex keeps perfect time, and works flawlessly. Guess I underpaid ?

[Orca89]

I disagree with this. I have a Toshiba laptop and it's the crap.

 

Ummm... methinks you need reading glasses. Try again.

 

Thing is, you can get a well put together laptop for 1/2 the cost of a Mac, and then install Mac OS if you really want to. Lenovo, Asus, and even HP are put together pretty well. Steer clear of eMachine, Gateway, and Toshiba and you'll probably be ok.

 

I'm on a Toshiba, and it's crap. Yes, I spent more on it than I would have a Mac, but it should have been able to handle playing Supreme Commander, Fallout 3, and a movie at the same time... Should've gone with an Asus... but I really didn't know my laptops a year ago.

[Kastigir]

Ummm... methinks you need reading glasses. Try again.

 

 

 

I'm on a Toshiba, and it's crap. Yes, I spent more on it than I would have a Mac, but it should have been able to handle playing Supreme Commander, Fallout 3, and a movie at the same time... Should've gone with an Asus... but I really didn't know my laptops a year ago.

No, I think you need reading glasses. I have a Toshiba laptop and it's great. Unless you're being sarcastic here, which in this case sarcasm doesn't translate well without tone. Now, did you honestly expect to be able to buy a laptop to play 2 games and watch a movie at the same time? I can't stand people that buy laptops as desktop replacements, then get upset when they don't perform to the same level.

[sup]

Here's my wonderful Mac at the moment working flawlessly

 

 

Have I convinced you to switch yet? (jk)

[Kastigir]

Here's my wonderful Mac at the moment working flawlessly

 

 

Have I convinced you to switch yet? (jk)

If I felt like going through the trouble of taking a screenshot, saving it, then uploading and hosting it, I'd show you a picture of my perfectly running PC. You'll just have to take my word for it.

[wannaBstuntin]

I'm playing 3 instances of Crysis on High, while watching both Star Wars trilogies (all 6 movies), and running Maya, Photoshop, Windows Media Player, Itunes, Norton Antivirus, TiVo Desktop, AIM, YIM, and Skype all at the same time.

 

Laptops: Mac > PC

 

Desktops: PC > Mac

 

/thread

[Ben.]

That'd be about the gist of it.

[Orca89]

No, I think you need reading glasses. I have a Toshiba laptop and it's great. Unless you're being sarcastic here, which in this case sarcasm doesn't translate well without tone. Now, did you honestly expect to be able to buy a laptop to play 2 games and watch a movie at the same time? I can't stand people that buy laptops as desktop replacements, then get upset when they don't perform to the same level.

 

I was kind of exaggerating, but Toshiba doesn't do well with their higher end laptops. The ones without dedicated graphics cards might do better, but mine will overheat at the drop of a hat. The fans get stuck, the DVD-drive just plain stopped working, the fingerprint reader has conked out now, the speakers (Harmon/Kardon, which are supposed to be great), act up pretty much any time I use them, and go haywire when I plug it into external speakers. And now that I've upgraded my RAM, I could play 2 games and run a movie at the same time. I'm upset because Toshiba didn't bother to make sure the thing was prepared for the upgraded graphics card they sold it with, so it'll overheat doing that in... I dunno, probably about 5 minutes. Less if the fan gets stuck again.

 

 

Oh, and Seb... What's the price tag on that hideous monstrosity? Just doing some searching, the processors and graphics card alone would run almost $3k

[wannaBstuntin]

Seb, it was a joke. But here's a sample. Had to open 20 windows of IE to get my memory usage over 50%. I only have 2GB.

 

That spike you see in the CPU usage is while playing Crysis.

 

Oh and Gary, my computer boots up in about 30 seconds too. If I uninstalled Norton again, it would start up in about 15 seconds.

 

And seb, that tower you posted looks like it gets absolutely no airflow whatsoever. It looks like it doesn't even have the RAM installed yet. Also, the pic looks like it has 2 graphics cards, not just one.

 

[Orca89]

haha yeah the price tag is just funny.

£11,176, or $18,398.00

thats with all specs whacked up to full (without extra screens). But with 2 30" monitors, and all the optional extras, its $22,846.00

(dont worry i was kinda taking the piss with this one, I know you could buy about 20 pc's for the price of that.)

but it aint hideous, its gorgeous simplicity!

Scott man that sucks about the state of ur laptop! Sounds painful!

 

Yeah, you could build one of those for... Oh, probably about $12,000. I might fiddle around later and actually put together a comparable one, but still... massively overpriced. And I could even put Mac OS on it if I wanted... although something that powerful, you're really gonna have to go with Linux if you want to reap the rewards. At least until Windows Fusion and Mac OSXXIV are out.

(Hmm... if Windows actually does come out with a Fusion OS, think I could sue them now?)

 

And simplicity? ummm... yeah, ok, the tower is simple... but that's the only part of it that is. You'd need probably at least a 700 watt power supply, and as many cooling fans as possible, if not water cooling in something like that.

 

And yeah, my laptop is painful. Unfortunately, my Dad wouldn't let me get a tablet for college, so I ended up spending $1300 on a laptop that should still be reasonably high-end. Sadly, the components are poorly chosen. If I'd gone Dell, Asus, or HP with the same money, I'd probably still have a pretty good laptop. As it is... a $900 Asus computer is 10x better than mine... except for the screen size. And the keyboard.

[Kastigir]

and Laptops: Mac > PC is true

 

but I'm afraid

Desktops > Mac aint so true.

Because of this behemoth

How does this sound....

2 x 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (yeah thats an 8core processor)

NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 with 1.5GB of GDDR3 memory

Up to 4 Terrabytes of storage right out of the box

and up to 32 GB of memory.

Apples and Oranges. That's a server/CAD box, which no home user would need. That video card would make it a horrible gaming machine. Anything with a Xeon processor is designed for server use. Like Orca said, you could build a comparable PC at most likely 1/2 the price.

[CRG7]

Spoken like a true Mac user. I use right click probably a couple hundred times a day, it's bloody useful just about everywhere. Even on a Mac, it's just Mac users ignore it's potent abilities.

 

If you're looking for any kind of efficiency, then you wouldn't use the right-click menu. Keyboard commands save time on either OS.

 

You guys are seriously mis-informed if you believe Windows only began "stealing" elements from Apple/Mac when it came to Windows 95. Ever hear of the Lisa? First consumer computer with a GUI. Gates stole design elements for use in Windows 1.0 (and on).

 

Everyone complains about Mac "fanboys", but it's those of you who are complaining (about such fanboys) who are worst of all. There is a small group of people who will only use Mac simply because of brand loyalty. However, the growing number of Mac users is due to those who have switched from PC, who see no reason to revert to a less stable platform.

 

I had an old Apple back in the 80's, then we had a PC with MS-DOS and Windows 3.x. I've used every consumer version of Windows since then (3.x, 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, Vista), and OSX is the most stable platform I've used. I'm not a "standard" PC user who only needs to be able to use the internet and possibly Office, yet I've had countless problems over the years with Windows systems (despite that I have the knowledge to fix them).

[sup]

^^ fanboy!!

[sup]

Mac users swear by their computers, PC users swear at theirs :fool:

[Orca89]

"And simplicity? ummm... yeah, ok, the tower is simple... but that's the only part of it that is. You'd need probably at least a 700 watt power supply, and as many cooling fans as possible, if not water cooling in something like that."

doubt it, it's mac, it'll all be in there anyway!

Yes, it'd be in there, but it'd still be at least 700 watts. The graphics card alone uses more power than an entire Micro-ATX computer. (172 watts for the card, my mom's old Dell desktop had a 160 watt power supply)

 

"Seb, it was a joke. But here's a sample. Had to open 20 windows of IE to get my memory usage over 50%. I only have 2GB."

 

IE windows use puny amounts of ram...

I have 4gb of ram, and I have maya set to use 3GB of it, leaving me 1GB for photoshop if needed and other tasks. But it only really uses that when rendering and when I've got a complex scene file which I am animating in. Same with After Effects and Photoshop, I have it set to a limit of 3GB out of the 4.

 

"Everyone complains about Mac "fanboys", but it's those of you who are complaining (about such fanboys) who are worst of all. There is a small group of people who will only use Mac simply because of brand loyalty. However, the growing number of Mac users is due to those who have switched from PC, who see no reason to revert to a less stable platform."

Thanks Ash . Like yeah I'm a fanboy, but why not, I love the products and stuff, pretty much every product they have is pretty awesome in someway, even you PC fanboys have gotta admit that. As to staying loyal to mac, well I imagine I will, as the products are far ahead of any competition in my opinion.

 

First of all, IE sucks. Least secure browser of all time, poorly designed... One of the worst things Microsoft makes. Originially it wasn't bad, but since... 5.0 I think, it's been pretty much pathetic. Granted, it doesn't use a whole lot of memory even when compared to other browsers, but still. Anyway, I digress. Mac OS and most of the apps that run on it are typically less memory hogging than Windows and it's apps... Of course, that depends on the developer. The difference isn't as significant as people like to claim, but it is there. On the other hand, there are plenty of handy windows apps that use a negligable amount of RAM... Typically not made by Microsoft though.

 

Anyway, I don't think I'm a fanboy... I just hate Windows less than Mac OS. And I'm a geek, so it makes sense. Macs are well designed, but I don't think I'll ever buy one. I'll stick with Asus for laptops (I want my R1 series :drool: ) and build my own desktops.

 

And Seb, I'm glad you added the "IMO" to your comment, 'cause while some of Apple's stuff can be better than the competition, a lot of it is just more popular. I've seen a couple mp3 players that do look like they're at least as good as the iPod. Nothing to rival the iPod Touch yet though... *shrugs* On the other hand, the iPhone is one of the worst phones in existence. I'll take something by HTC thank you very much. Or one of the new Google phones if they ever come out with one for ATT.

[elusiveshame]

Macs are good for multimedia editing and creating. Hollywood, the music industry, and whatever else uses Macs.

 

PC's (Windows) is the leader due it it's business side of things.

 

Linux servers are great for their security and fast and efficient OS's.

 

If Gates stole Windows 1.0, it was a crapty steal since all it was, was a graphical file manager. Gates bought IBM Dos and turned it into MS DOS.

 

What pisses me off is when people saying "I've used Windows 3.x", wtf? Unless you were in a business setting, you used Windows 3.1. 3.11 was used for Workgroup networks, and 3.2 (maybe it was 3.12) was Chinese only.

 

While OSX looks nice and sleek, it does run well, but it's not perfect. There's no viruses on Macs or Linux, well, that aren't out on the prowl for various reasons - and it's not because neither are immune to them. Windows machines dominate the world. Get over it, it's a fact. Home, businesses, educational centers, etc all use Windows based machines.

 

Nobody writes viruses for Mac or Linux because 1.) Hackers don't want to crap in their own home (linux), 2.) Not enough people use said operating systems for it to even be a concern. People who write viruses are looking for quick, easy access to someones confidential information. They don't want to take the time to beta test their virus on 8459324028092349283492839 operating systems.

 

Linux (aside from servers) will never be the top choice desktop OS due to the lack of support, lack of software, and the fact that it's open source. If the world switched over the Linux or OSX, hacks and viruses WILL appear on them, and fast. These aren't untouchable Operating Systems.

 

Windows not a stable OS? Bull crap. I've had my Windows XP Pro installed for 6 years on my last PC, which was on 24/7 unless we had an outage due to weather or an accident, and I gamed on it, programmed, etc til I was blue in the face. Never had any issues. This current install of XP Pro on my computer has been on here for 2 years, same deal as above, and never an issue. People think Windows is so unreliable and unstable because they either 1) don't understand how computers work, or 2) don't know how to use a computer.

 

Mac's won't get into the business realm due to the same reason why Linux won't - lack of software development for it.

 

Linux will never be a prime choice for the home consumer because of the aforementioned lack of software, but each distro has completely different kernels and ways of installing, configuring, and deploying software and applications. On top of that, most distro's don't use the same executable format, so that really pushes developers to an OS that has standards and keeps those standards in each new version until an older standard becomes rarely used (FAT16 & FAT32 for example until NTFS became a standard in Windows).

 

All the OS's have their pro's and cons.

OSX is for illiterate home users who are to lazy to learn their computer.

Windows is a well rounded OS for just about everything.

Linux is a well rounded OS for just about everything.

OSX runs smooth, looks sleek, and is simple to use (the terms iPod, iHome, iTunes is really meant for idiot-pod, idiot-home, idiot-tunes - everyone knows how to use them, they were designed for idiots).

 

I'm not a fan boy of any OS, I don't care which one I use as long as I can do what I need to - and for me, Windows is the best choice.

 

This whole OS debate is stupid

[sup]

I just helped convince one of my friends who was looking for a new laptop (for home and work use) to buy a new 13" Macbook. And yes he's running Microsoft Office on it

 

And the whole "any product that's user-friendly and actually works properly must be for idiots" argument is so ridiculously stupid I won't comment further on it.

[CRG7]

What pisses me off is when people saying "I've used Windows 3.x", wtf? Unless you were in a business setting, you used Windows 3.1. 3.11 was used for Workgroup networks, and 3.2 (maybe it was 3.12) was Chinese only.

 

The .x was included in my particular post because I couldn't recall off-hand if it was 3.0.1 or 3.1 and didn't care to take the time to Google it. If you're going to get "pissed off" because of something like that, look into anger management.

 

There are no BSODs with OSX, and be it a novice or advanced user, they're going to happen with XP Pro (which is what my PC runs).

 

There's no need to leave your PC on 24/7. You must be suffering from a "long" start-up time if you feel you need to leave it on all of the time. You're doing it no good by doing so, however.

[Kastigir]

The .x was included in my particular post because I couldn't recall off-hand if it was 3.0.1 or 3.1 and didn't care to take the time to Google it. If you're going to get "pissed off" because of something like that, look into anger management.

 

There are no BSODs with OSX, and be it a novice or advanced user, they're going to happen with XP Pro (which is what my PC runs).

Because OSX is built like a Linux kernel, so when a program does something it's not supposed to do, it gets ignored by the OS. So, you actually don't know what really happens.

 

There's no need to leave your PC on 24/7. You must be suffering from a "long" start-up time if you feel you need to leave it on all of the time. You're doing it no good by doing so, however.

Some people have their PCs do things while they're not around. I *seriously* doubt that someone leaves their PC on all the time, because of start-up times.

[elusiveshame]

The .x was included in my particular post because I couldn't recall off-hand if it was 3.0.1 or 3.1 and didn't care to take the time to Google it. If you're going to get "pissed off" because of something like that, look into anger management.

 

There are no BSODs with OSX, and be it a novice or advanced user, they're going to happen with XP Pro (which is what my PC runs).

 

There's no need to leave your PC on 24/7. You must be suffering from a "long" start-up time if you feel you need to leave it on all of the time. You're doing it no good by doing so, however.

 

That wasn't a direct "you just pissed me off", it's when anyone says it. Sorry if that sounded like a personal attack.

 

And my computer boots up in about 20 seconds. I leave it on because I run 2 servers off my computer, and I remote in while I'm at work to do other things, and when I get home and need to check things, I want to do it right away and not turn the computer on, log in, and then launch my browser. I leave my work PC's on as well, which one runs Linux and the other XP Pro.

 

BSOD's are good to find out what's happening to your computer. If a filesystem in OSX goes to hell (and they do, I've seen it happen quite often), you won't know that it's happening or what to do to fix it right away. Personally, I'd rather have something pop up and say "douche bag, fix this issue" instead of it being ignored and go unnoticed until the entire system fails

[CRG7]

Some people have their PCs do things while they're not around. I *seriously* doubt that someone leaves their PC on all the time, because of start-up times.

 

I've had to fix numerous computers for people who think it's a good idea to leave them on all of the time because they want to be able to check their email when they want to, and not have to wait for the computer to start up.

[wannaBstuntin]

Constantly restarting your computer puts more stress on the hardware than leaving it on all the time.

[Kastigir]

Interesting read. I know it's somewhat dated, but lends credence that it's the OS and not the hardware that *used* to make Macs superior.

 

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentar...c/2005/08/68501