PC User Going Mac: Advice?

[Mhaddy2]

I've been a PC gamer for as long as I've had a computer. However, over the last couple of years, I've done less and less PC gaming and more and more multimedia editing (graphics, audio, video, etc.). Now, the only gaming I do is a once a week Halo 2 on Xbox Live stint with my buddies. My PC is now only used for multimedia editing, email, surfing the web, listening to music, and coding.

My current PC is getting rather outdated and it's time for an upgrade. Because I no longer game, I'm wondering if Windows and a PC is the right choice for me. I've been toying with the idea of getting a Mac, but I'm just wondering if they're worth their hefty price tag. I've read the two "Month with a Mac" articles on Anandtech here and nothing mentioned therein has deterred me from wanting one. It's just that, as I mentioned before, for $2600 CDN (dual 2Ghz) or $3333 CDN (dual 2.3Ghz) on Apple Educational's site (w/taxes), I could get one helluva PC.

Aside from all of the nice little features that Tiger offers along with its quirks [coming from an avid PC user], the main reason that I'm contemplating moving to a Mac would be for its speed and prowess with multimedia applications (where my interest now lies). However, from what I've read on Anandtech and the random benchmarks that I've found on the 'net, the G5 isn't as quick and "way faster than anything else" that I originally thought it to be.

Now, given that I don't play PC games anymore (what games I do play are on Xbox and / or Xbox 360 down the road), am I better off picking up a Mac or going one flyin' PC? I know this isn't an easy question, but if anyone could offer some differing opinions, experiences, or insight, it'd be greatly appreciated. Cheers!

 

[drag]

The 'worth' is very subjective.

If a Apple will help you get what you want done done easier/faster/better, then go for it.

However you can make a PC, with AMD64 X2, that can easily outperform the apple at a fraction of the price. All the worth of it for you has to come from the OS itself.

 

[Genx87]

Take 3600 bucks and build an AMD X2 system. For that money my bet is the AMD system will destroy that Apple machine.

I have this waiting to be built.

X2 4200+
2GB PC3200
4x250GB drives in raid 5
Promise 8x SATA controller
Full tower case with 500watt PS
7800GTX
ASUS Nforce 4 MB
DVD-RW
74GB Raptor

Total right now is about 2200 bucks. Tack on the Dell 2001FP I got 2 weeks ago and I built that machine with a nice 20inch lcd for ~2800 bucks.

This machine is probably better than the top line of Apple's product in 90+% of all circumstances. And I did it for 800 bucks less.

 

[Mhaddy2]

I've definitely got something to think about -- thanks for the opinions, guys.

Genx87: I'm guessing from your avatar that you're American and those are American prices, right?

 

[imported_Lucifer]

I am a Mac user, but I think building a PC for much cheaper is the way to go. Honestly, I think the dual 2.7GHz G5 is too much, but I am actually willing to pay for it. I only use my PC for gaming. I prefer to use my Mac for everything else. I am still on a 400mhz G4 and I use Final Cut Express, Macromedia Flash MX, etc. They run fine. And Final Cut Express is very simple. Everything on a Mac is so simple. And Apple has some great software too.

But of course, you can build a PC that is probably much faster than Apple's dual G5. But I prefer to use a Mac.

 

[hopejr]

I reckon the iMac G5 is worth the money (a conclusion I came to after a tonne of research). But you have more control over what you put in your own build. Do what you want. I prefer Macs because I just do. I was a PC user for 9 years before switching to mac, and I haven't regretted it. But the G5 could have a bit more oomph in it (not that it would matter for your purposes imho). There's a lot less hassle with maintaining macs too.

 

[Mhaddy2]

Thanks for the input, guys.

It seems like the consensus is, "Go for a Mac if you truly want a Mac ? for the OS, the features, the experience, whatever", but stick with a PC if you want the performance and affordability. Would this be an accurate conclusion?

And other than playing with it in stores, is there any other way to "test" the OS / Mac platform before I make the plunge?

 

[LuckyTaxi]

I "switched" to a MAC about 5 months ago and plan on adding a review here on AT. Anyways, I purchased an iBook and I love it to death. I still have a desktop running XP, only because my accountant uses Quickbooks and QB on a MAC isn't all that great. It does seem faster than my desktop (Sempron 2400 w/ 1GB of RAM), and I love the interface. There are a couple of programs that I have on my MAC that I would love to have on my PC.

Once my work budget is approved, I plan on purchasing Tiger, but until then, Panther has been quite stable for me.

 

[nweaver]

one thing to look at is stability. PC + Windows is ok out of box, for 6-12 months, then most folks here rebuild.

PC+Linux+tweak time results in a stable machine, but to get to that point you need some experience

Mac Out of box is stability for a long period of time (my aunt's is still snappy after 2 years)

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: nweaver
one thing to look at is stability. PC + Windows is ok out of box, for 6-12 months, then most folks here rebuild.

PC+Linux+tweak time results in a stable machine, but to get to that point you need some experience

Mac Out of box is stability for a long period of time (my aunt's is still snappy after 2 years)

I haven't "rebuilt" since.....March of 2003. All i do is maintain, just like I would a mac. I occaisonally get rid of all the crap on my desktop, organize or delete stuff I don't need. Every few months or so I check to see if there is any programs on my pc i need or don't need...last time I did it about 2 months ago I noticed I hadn't touched CS:Source in god knows how much(atlesat six months) so I got rid of that...

Maintaing things is pretty simple, people here rebuild so often because we upgrade our pcs so freaking often and people like the "clean slate" feel.

 

[Nothinman]

Maintaing things is pretty simple, people here rebuild so often because we upgrade our pcs so freaking often and people like the "clean slate" feel.

If your "clean slate" feel is better than what you have a few weeks after installing, you have issues and you're not maintaining the box properly. And maintaining Windows is far from simple, otherwise everyone and their mother wouldn't be infected with spyware and I wouldn't still be getting CodeRed break-in attempts on my web server.

 

[Jon855]

Originally posted by: Mhaddy2
Thanks for the input, guys.

It seems like the consensus is, "Go for a Mac if you truly want a Mac ? for the OS, the features, the experience, whatever", but stick with a PC if you want the performance and affordability. Would this be an accurate conclusion?

And other than playing with it in stores, is there any other way to "test" the OS / Mac platform before I make the plunge?

YUP, pretty much and no matter what MAC will be likely to lose in many benchmarks IMO for the same price of other non-mac PCs

 

[sparkyclarky]

As others have said, it's all about the OS. The only Mac that is truly price competitve with PC hardware is the iMac G5, and even that is a bit of a stretch. The OS must be experienced for a while to gain a true appreciation, but once you do you'll probably like it a bit more than Windows. For a general idea, read Anandtech's Mac reviews to see how one switcher/adder felt.

 

[Mhaddy2]

Regarding stability, and I know this is going to differ depending on who I talk to, but just how stable is a Mac ? more specifically ? Tiger. I read AnandTech's two "Month with a Mac" articles and the Tiger review and the general feeling that I get is that Tiger / Mac is a little more stable than PCs, but it still crashes. I've been running Windows XP on my PC for close to a year now (or has it been longer?) w/o a need to reformat and "start again". I'm a pretty computer-savvy user, so I tend to take really good care of my PC. As the first "Month with a Mac" article put it, I only need to reboot my PC when it requires me to (after installing a security update or large application, etc.). So stability wouldn't be a switching factor for me as I don't have a problem with it with XP.

Performance-wise, how much of a difference would I notice between the dual 2Ghz and Dual 2.3Ghz G5s? Assuming I go the way of the Mac, I'd probably pick up the Dual 2Ghz, upgrade the RAM to 1GB and upgrade the video card to the Radeon 9650 (which has 256MB DDR). Would this be a worthwhile upgrade (for another $180), or should I splurge a little more and go for the stock Dual 2.3Ghz?

 

[remagavon]

Buy a mac mini and use it for a month to determine if you want to drop that kind of money on one. I'm glad I did, and will wait for the intel cpus to come out before buying a powermac. Reports say that web browsing is much snappier (it's horrible- comparatively on the mac vs pc).

 

[drag]

Mac mini is nice and inexpensive. It's actually good deal for what it is.

Another good Mac deal is the Ibook. It's not as terrific as it once was vs PC laptops... You see the Pentium-M actually kicks-rear and before all you had was Pentium 4-m (which sucked). But it's still fairly good. For a laptop with descrite video card, dvd combo, 12" size, weight, and battery life it's fairly competatively priced.

Other lower-end Macs are ok. But for the fast stuff you realy end up paying a premium. It's horrible compared to building yourself, but compared to buying a Pre-built and fully supported Unix (or windows for that matter) SMP workstation with good graphics from IBM or HP or whatnot then it's not as bad as it seems at first.

(then again these HP Workstations don't look have bad... Dual Core Pentium-D with EM64T support and your choice of Windows or Redhat Linux starting below 900 dollars... (of course when you add up all the options...))

 

[imported_Lucifer]

I owned an eMac, before I got rid of it, for over a year, and only crashed on me twice. One was a kernel panic, the other an app just locked up, but all I did was force quit and bought everything back to normal. My PM G4 only crashed once. OS X Panther is very stable. I haven't used Tiger, so I can't comment on that.

I would get the dual 2GHz. The Radeon 9650 is a decent card. Cool thing is that it can run the 30'' Apple Display.

EDIT: Here is a speed test done on Barefeats comparing the 9650 against other video cards. According to barefeats, the 9650 didn't do to well.

Link

CONCLUSION

If you expect the Radeon 9650 (standard equipment on the G5/2.7GHz Power Mac and $50 option on the other G5s) to perform OpenGL and Core Image "miracles" just because it has 256MB of DDR and dual-link circuitry, you will be very disappointed.

If you must have dual-link, I recommend the ATI Radeon X800 XT as the best alternative, even though it's not offered direct from Apple. It's much faster than the Radeon 9650, supports the 30" Cinema on its DVI port, and takes up only one slot.

The GeForce 6800 Ultra is a full length, double wide monster. It was faster running some 3D games but slower running the Motion 2 and iMaginator. Unless you have two 30" Cinema displays and don't mind giving up one of your PCI-X slots, you should consider the Radeon X800 XT instead.

Notice we added results for the Radeon 9800 Pro Mac Special Edition. If you can't afford the X800 XT or 6800 Ultra and don't need a 30" Cinema display, then you might consider a Radeon 9800 Pro Mac Special Edition in place of the Radeon 9650. It's almost $300 less than the Radeon X800 XT or GeForce 6800 Ultra.

The Radeon 9650 does support the 30" Cinema display with its one Dual-Link DVI port and has 256MB of DDR memory, but it is actually clocked slower (and runs slower) than the Radeon 9600 XT with 128MB of DDR and a normal DVI port.

 

[Valkerie]

Some claim that MAC is more user-friendly than Windows. However, Windows XP has gotten a lot of applauses from an audience who demand cheaper priced computing, and at the same time, expressed a lot of user-friendly interfaces within the past few years. However, at the same time MAC has been firing up its OS's behind the shadow.
I personally prefer XP just 'cuz it's cheaper and far more flexible with universal software and hardware configurations.

 

[Nothinman]

I personally prefer XP just 'cuz it's cheaper and far more flexible with universal software and hardware configurations.

Most likely OS X supports a lot more software since just about everything released OSS will run on it. Sure Windows has an edge in the gaming department and I'm sure most commercial software might not run on OS X but most commercial software is crap and not worth the time wasted installing it.

 

[ValuedCustomer]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
maintaining Windows is far from simple

oh boy, here we go.. look, anyone north of a 75 IQ should have no worries whatsoever "maintaining" their Win box. Spyware? big deal, running spy-bot and ad-aware once a week takes care of 99.5% of the threats out there. If you discover you need to run the apps more than once a week you either need to get another hobby (besides pr0n) or find a girl-friend. Got problems w/ viruses? That's what God invented anti-virus sw for. And oh yea, QUIT OPENING ATTACHMENTS!

Don?t believe the hate/hype, there's nothing unsimple about "maintaining" a Win box. Keep your apps updated (auto/scheduled tasks) and you're good to go.

 

[Nothinman]

You listed 3 things that need to be installed on a Windows machine to protect it from ~90% of the maleware out there, 3 things which aren't required on any other OS I might add, but you conveniently forgot about the fact that with a lot of software being added/removed over time Windows slows to a crawl which is why so many technical people image their machines and restore that image every 6 months to a year.

And the main problem with your logic is that most people can't be bothered to do any of that. Just like they forget to change the oil in their car and change the filter in their AC. People are lazy and they only way things like that are going to be maintained is if it's done in the background behind their backs.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Mhaddy2
Performance-wise, how much of a difference would I notice between the dual 2Ghz and Dual 2.3Ghz G5s? Assuming I go the way of the Mac, I'd probably pick up the Dual 2Ghz, upgrade the RAM to 1GB and upgrade the video card to the Radeon 9650 (which has 256MB DDR). Would this be a worthwhile upgrade (for another $180), or should I splurge a little more and go for the stock Dual 2.3Ghz?

Macs for the most part scale linearly, so 15% increase in clock speed (roughly 15% increase in performance) costs 20% more. For some people it may be worth it, but then those are the types to get the Dual 2.7s. Those numbers were based on stock proces...I believe the only thing difference between the two was the hard drive.

I would go with the 2.0s and use that 20% upgrade the video card/ram or make the 20/23" LCD purchase a little easier to swallow.

 

[Merovingian]

Apple x-serve dominates all x86 servers, apple has the best quality build for laptops, apple is a much more scary monopoly than microsoft if it had market share, I was a mac guy up till about 2000PRO had been out. Before 2000 pro, you windows users were missing out on stability and ease of use. Now the scales have tuned somewhat. My 2c.

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: TheMerovingian
Apple x-serve dominates all x86 servers, apple has the best quality build for laptops, apple is a much more scary monopoly than microsoft if it had market share, I was a mac guy up till about 2000PRO had been out. Before 2000 pro, you windows users were missing out on stability and ease of use. Now the scales have tuned somewhat. My 2c.

What? Pre-OS X MacOS was the worst thing that ever existed. I wouldn't touch macs with a barge-pole before. Even took me 4 years more to even look. OS X is very stable as is XP (for many people). I even think OS X is easier to use than Windows XP (just experience that I've had and noticed with other people).

 

[Merovingian]

What? Pre windows 2K pro was a nightmare compared to os9. Who had a stable 98 machine. I suppose you just didn't manage the extentions or something cause 9 provided such control over the OS. No reinstall whatsoever.