another mac vs pc compare

[VBboy]

It sucks that prices aren't listed for the Mac computers ("discontinued"). I'm sure they'd be higher than the ones for Wintel.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: vash
But there are the level-headed Mac owners that look at the time they spend on their Macs for rending video, Photoshop, etc and look at the potential upgrade of a dual 1.25ghz box and look at the price compared to a faster PC that would cut their render times lower than what the newer Mac would be.
vash

Maybe I'm just dense, but what the hell does that mean?


Lethal

 

[BFG10K]

Apple should abandon the Power PC architechture

Then they couldn't justify their rip-off prices on the grounds of some imaginary performance advantage. As long as they have the PPC they can scream "super computer" and it'll delude most of their customers into thinking that they're actually are getting a superior processor.

Maybe I'm just dense, but what the hell does that mean?

He means that for the price of just a Mac CPU upgrade you can often buy a whole PC that's faster than the un-upgraded Mac, and sometimes even faster than the upgraded one.

 

[compudog]

Originally posted by: Erasmus-X
I agree with Eug and ViRGE. As I myself have stated before in other various Mac threads, Macs aren't about speed at all. They're about elegance and user interface. These are completely different worlds we're talking about here. You think I'd use a Mac as a gaming rig? Heck no. They're too slow, availability of add-on gaming hardware is limited to say the least, and there are simply not enough games ported to Mac. Hence, I use the PC for gaming and my aging 300 MHz G3 tower for work. The reason for that is simple. As an operating system, I like Mac OS better. My answers to common, mindless anti-Mac statements: 1. They're too expensive. Of course they are. I won't even dispute that. People are quick to point out that Apple has been afraid of competition for years (this is what makes PCs so affordable.....there are literally THOUSANDS of companies that manufacture x86 machines). Remember in the early to mid 90s when Mac-compatible machines started surfacing? That didn't last too long at all. Part of Apple's philosophy has been to maintain a closed architecture, which is why Mac-compatibles don't exist right now. By keeping a closed architecture, hardware compatibility is maximized and software problems are kept to a minimum because the OS is designed by the same company that makes the core hardware. Higher prices unfortunately are a afterproduct of this, which is why Apple's market share is next to nothing compared to the PC. Apple depends a lot on loyal customers for the majority of their business. 2. Apple enthusiasts are snobs. Some are, but not all. Some people just like an elegant machine that's intuitive and requires minimal maintenance; and they don't have to be "newbs" to demand these qualities. Just about every audio and video producer I know won't touch a PC with a 10-foot pole. Why? The quality of sofware in this area makes the Mac a very attractive purchase. Example: Final Cut Pro puts Adobe Premiere to shame. Simple facts. 3. They'd sell a lot more machines if they moved to x86 architecture. No they wouldn't. Do you know how many years even the PC market has been trying to venture off from x86? x86 is an obsolete technology. But it still works for the PC market for a couple of reasons: it's a proven platform that performs reasonably well, and it's easy to keep pumping up the horsepower. All you need is a bigger die and more transistors. There will eventually be a point where you can only tinker an x86 so much before it really starts showing its age. There's nothing wrong with G4 processors. But the only way they're going to be competitive with Athlons and P4s raw speed-wise is if they start growing some cojones and bump up the clock speed a couple of notches. But that might just require them to start using heatsinks and fans on their chips (oh no!!). The FASTEST consumer G4 you can get your hands on right now runs at 1.25 GHz. The PC has recently broken the 3 GHz barrier. This is why every G4 tower comes standard with dual processors now. As pointed out earlier, they're forced to make up for architectural deficiencies somehow. Only recently has DDR memory become an option on a Mac. Getting back to the point though, as much as Apple likes to market their G4 chip as being vastly superior to the P4, many forget why people purchase Macs in the first place. Bleeding-edge performance isn't a major reason. It's the complete package, silly.

Very eloquently put. Macs have their place, as do PCs.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: VBboy
It sucks that prices aren't listed for the Mac computers ("discontinued"). I'm sure they'd be higher than the ones for Wintel.

Indeed. On the flip side, the resell value for Macs is great.

 

[smp]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: ViRGE Because unlike all of those *nix varients, this one comes with a GUI that's worth using.

yep. and support from a big commercial vendor. OSX users can trade in for linux the same day windows XP users trade in for windows 3.1. btw, this is NO SURPRISE. the horse is long dead and is a bloody pulp. stop beating him everyone knows macs are slower, and everyone that "gets it" realizes that macs arent about speed. yawn.

Amen

Yawn indeed. The horse is not only long dead, not just a pulp, but a stain on the ground that is long dry.


<obligatory sarcastic comment>OH MY GOD! PC'S ARE FASTER THAN MACS?!!! I'M SUCH AN IDIOT FOR BUYING ONE</osc>

Show me a PC laptop that gets 4 to 5 hours of battery life. Macs are superl337

 

[Spicedaddy]

The only reason they have all that battery life is because they're slower and need more time to process stuff...

 

[imgod2u]

Almost all of Sony's Vaio series supports dual batteries and they weigh at most 8 pounds with 2 batteries. They get up to 9 hours of battery life out of both. With a single, it's up to 4.5 hours.

 

[mrman3k]

Another stupid flame war thread:disgust:

 

[tart666]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey[...]

everyone knows macs are slower, and everyone that "gets it" realizes that macs arent about speed.

yawn.

So ... You end up paying $2k extra for the priviledge of using OS X? Damn and people complain about MS overcharging...

 

[vash]

Macs are more expensive for what they do. Anyone that doesn't believe that must not be using the same kind of logic that most people people do. Macs are good machines, but they offer no more than a similar PC (in price) using Windows XP. For every instance someone brings up Final Cut Pro (or another other Mac specific application), there are many times the amount of software the PC has the Mac doesn't.

I *will* own a Mac someday -- I want to add it to the collection of machines I have now. However, until the prices come down the level of a PC, I refuse to buy one. Heck, I looked at building my own 1ghz G4, the CPU alone was about $600! Cmon! You can almost get a 3.06Ghz processor for that price alone!

Price/performance will always be the key in my purchases, with that in mind, the PC will be in my purchasing decisions for a LONG time.

vash

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey[...]

everyone knows macs are slower, and everyone that "gets it" realizes that macs arent about speed.

yawn.

So ... You end up paying $2k extra for the priviledge of using OS X? Damn and people complain about MS overcharging...

XP is useless until I spend a while customizing it, and thats after the hours of patching. OS X is useful, for me, out of the box. How much is my time worth? Enough for me to purchase a laptop from Apple, for a reasonable price for what I get, and get support from the vendor for the software I want to use.

 

[tart666]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

XP is useless until I spend a while customizing it, and thats after the hours of patching. OS X is useful, for me, out of the box. How much is my time worth? Enough for me to purchase a laptop from Apple, for a reasonable price for what I get, and get support from the vendor for the software I want to use.

OK, I see. So on one side you would spend 3 hours patching XP, on the other side you would spend $120 for every minor version OS upgrade. Well, if your time is worth more than $50/hr after tax I understand.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

XP is useless until I spend a while customizing it, and thats after the hours of patching. OS X is useful, for me, out of the box. How much is my time worth? Enough for me to purchase a laptop from Apple, for a reasonable price for what I get, and get support from the vendor for the software I want to use.

OK, I see. So on one side you would spend 3 hours patching XP, on the other side you would spend $120 for every minor version OS upgrade. Well, if your time is worth more than $50/hr after tax I understand.

I dont pay anything for minor version upgrades. OS X 10.2 is a major upgrade. 10.1.5 was a minor upgrade from 10.1.4. XP was 5.1 when 2k was 5.0. I could have gotten 10.1 for free if I was more patient, but I spent some money on it instead of using 10.0 for a couple more days. So, you spoke out of your ass or just didnt know. Either way, it wasnt even funny FUD.

 

[Ipno]

Watching Mac users defend their platform is as fun as watching celebrities try to act important on hollywood squares ...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ipno
Watching Mac users defend their platform is as fun as watching celebrities try to act important on hollywood squares ...

Watching x86ers bash Macs is about as fun as a Mexican donkey show. Its disturbingly intriguing, but nothing new.

 

[Ipno]

Who said I was an x86er?

Mines a sparc.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey[...]

everyone knows macs are slower, and everyone that "gets it" realizes that macs arent about speed.

yawn.

So ... You end up paying $2k extra for the priviledge of using OS X? Damn and people complain about MS overcharging...

XP is useless until I spend a while customizing it, and thats after the hours of patching. OS X is useful, for me, out of the box. How much is my time worth? Enough for me to purchase a laptop from Apple, for a reasonable price for what I get, and get support from the vendor for the software I want to use.

That is not true, because most people purchase their PC from a vendor such as Dell/HP/etc... therefore most things are already config same goes with purchase from Apple.
And, I personally would prefer dealing with IBM/Dell techsupport to setup my puter any day over the Apple techsupport.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ipno
Who said I was an x86er?

Mines a sparc.

SPARC falls under the same category as PPC at this point. Extremely cool, great architecture over all, not as fast, and not as cheap. I own one PPC and 2 sparcs.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: lowtech

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey[...]

everyone knows macs are slower, and everyone that "gets it" realizes that macs arent about speed.

yawn.

So ... You end up paying $2k extra for the priviledge of using OS X? Damn and people complain about MS overcharging...

XP is useless until I spend a while customizing it, and thats after the hours of patching. OS X is useful, for me, out of the box. How much is my time worth? Enough for me to purchase a laptop from Apple, for a reasonable price for what I get, and get support from the vendor for the software I want to use.

That is not true, because most people purchase their PC from a vendor such as Dell/HP/etc... therefore most things are already config same goes with purchase from Apple.
And, I personally would prefer dealing with IBM/Dell techsupport to setup my puter any day over the Apple techsupport.

I am sorry I didnt spell it out qith crayons for you. I mentioned for me because that is all I can speak for. XP's installed programs after an install are no where near what I would need. No compiler, no SSH client, etc. So I was speaking just for myself. And yes, I know there are a dozen main stream Linux distros out there, but I find the quality lacking. Plus, its tough to get Linux on a laptop from a mainstream manufacturer. So to sum it up, Apple works for me. WTF is the problem?

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

XP is useless until I spend a while customizing it, and thats after the hours of patching. OS X is useful, for me, out of the box. How much is my time worth? Enough for me to purchase a laptop from Apple, for a reasonable price for what I get, and get support from the vendor for the software I want to use.

OK, I see. So on one side you would spend 3 hours patching XP, on the other side you would spend $120 for every minor version OS upgrade. Well, if your time is worth more than $50/hr after tax I understand.

I don?t pay anything for minor version upgrades. OS X 10.2 is a major upgrade. 10.1.5 was a minor upgrade from 10.1.4. XP was 5.1 when 2k was 5.0. I could have gotten 10.1 for free if I was more patient, but I spent some money on it instead of using 10.0 for a couple more days. So, you spoke out of your ass or just didn?t know. Either way, it wasn?t even funny FUD.

You have just confirm that Mac does cause trouble therefore it need to be patch/upgrade. It also cost money to upgrade like the MS camp.

Over all the comparison is on productivity, and I don't see why the majority or the user need to upgrade there system Mac/Windows when the only need a 486 power to do email & word.

As for the small number of the power user they will demand the best of technology therefore they have to live with the steep upgrade cycle which would be better spend on the x86 platform due to price/performance ratio.

Just look at the serious graphics studios & scientific world and see how many powerPC/Mac that they use to maximizes their productivity? Where uptime and development cycle it at a cutthroat rate.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: lowtech

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

XP is useless until I spend a while customizing it, and thats after the hours of patching. OS X is useful, for me, out of the box. How much is my time worth? Enough for me to purchase a laptop from Apple, for a reasonable price for what I get, and get support from the vendor for the software I want to use.

OK, I see. So on one side you would spend 3 hours patching XP, on the other side you would spend $120 for every minor version OS upgrade. Well, if your time is worth more than $50/hr after tax I understand.

I don?t pay anything for minor version upgrades. OS X 10.2 is a major upgrade. 10.1.5 was a minor upgrade from 10.1.4. XP was 5.1 when 2k was 5.0. I could have gotten 10.1 for free if I was more patient, but I spent some money on it instead of using 10.0 for a couple more days. So, you spoke out of your ass or just didn?t know. Either way, it wasn?t even funny FUD.

You have just confirm that Mac does cause trouble therefore it need to be patch/upgrade. It also cost money to upgrade like the MS camp.

Over all the comparison is on productivity, and I don't see why the majority or the user need to upgrade there system Mac/Windows when the only need a 486 power to do email & word.

As for the small number of the power user they will demand the best of technology therefore they have to live with the steep upgrade cycle which would be better spend on the x86 platform due to price/performance ratio.

Just look at the serious graphics studios & scientific world and see how many powerPC/Mac that they use to maximizes their productivity? Where uptime and development cycle it at a cutthroat rate.

Have you ever tried to run word or surf on a 486 machine? My parents P2 is so slow it's painful (I don't event want to imagine living on a 486). My P3 800 is snappy though. I think it's about as slow as I'd ever want to go.


Lethal

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: lowtech

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: tart666

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

XP is useless until I spend a while customizing it, and thats after the hours of patching. OS X is useful, for me, out of the box. How much is my time worth? Enough for me to purchase a laptop from Apple, for a reasonable price for what I get, and get support from the vendor for the software I want to use.

OK, I see. So on one side you would spend 3 hours patching XP, on the other side you would spend $120 for every minor version OS upgrade. Well, if your time is worth more than $50/hr after tax I understand.

I don?t pay anything for minor version upgrades. OS X 10.2 is a major upgrade. 10.1.5 was a minor upgrade from 10.1.4. XP was 5.1 when 2k was 5.0. I could have gotten 10.1 for free if I was more patient, but I spent some money on it instead of using 10.0 for a couple more days. So, you spoke out of your ass or just didn?t know. Either way, it wasn?t even funny FUD.

You have just confirm that Mac does cause trouble therefore it need to be patch/upgrade. It also cost money to upgrade like the MS camp.

All software has bugs. If you think differently you are an idiot (not directed at you in particular). Upgrades and updates are different, and most commercial software requires you to pay for upgrades, some even make you pay for updates.

Over all the comparison is on productivity, and I don't see why the majority or the user need to upgrade there system Mac/Windows when the only need a 486 power to do email & word.

Because there are bugs in software? 486s take a while with SSH keys.

As for the small number of the power user they will demand the best of technology therefore they have to live with the steep upgrade cycle which would be better spend on the x86 platform due to price/performance ratio.

Yes, as soon as I find a major manufacturer that will support my needs out of the box, I will admit that the getting a non-apple is definitely the way to go in all instances. Well, no I wont, but Ill consider purchasing one before I purchase another Apple.

Just look at the serious graphics studios & scientific world and see how many powerPC/Mac that they use to maximizes their productivity? Where uptime and development cycle it at a cutthroat rate.

I posted a thread about a bunch of scientists switching their lab to Macs running Mac OS X. IBM sells plenty of PPC big iron, or they wouldnt be making them. Sun sells plenty of SPARC machines, or they wouldnt be making them.

x86 is not the end all and be all of computing. Far from it in fact. Its cheap, its fast, it runs word. Oooooh.

 

[Ipno]

Apple works for me.

And thats really all that matters, honestly. If you're happy, you're happy.

I just think its funny that some Mac users feel that they have to defend the platform. You either get it, or you don't, end of story.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ipno

Apple works for me.

And thats really all that matters, honestly. If you're happy, you're happy.

I agree.

I just think its funny that some Mac users feel that they have to defend the platform. You either get it, or you don't, end of story.

I think its pathetic how much x86ers have to bash the Mac. It doesnt get 190fps in "wizbang 2: I need to get out of my parents basement, the REVENGE!" And they think that should matter to everyone. It gets old.