Apple vs PC

[Crezth]

He had a vision that through powerful marketing, he could sell products that had just about the same functionality at 50% higher than the competitors' pricing.

The Mac is nothing special, and it's had troubles through its entire life (except at the very beginning). When you buy a Mac, you buy an Apple product, not a good computer. Mac sales had started going up recently though (the case study I had for Apple was from 2010). If you think about it, the Mac is just like any ordinary computer, but costs 50% more.

You know, I normally tend to shy away from platform wars, as that is purely the purvey of the self-righteous and uninformed, but I felt the need to comment on this.

In my experience, I have often met individuals - generally more computer-savvy types who are used to PC's - that bash Mac and the Mac OS regardless of whether they have used either.

I am a professional aerospace engineer and in 100% of cases I prefer the Mac OS X for matters related to modeling & simulation, computational fluid dynamics, programming & language compilation, and the entire Adobe suite (less salient but still worth mentioning). It's an efficient, powerful platform and I say this having used both Windows and OS X for my entire career.

You will chose not to believe me, or may even reply with more unfounded statements ("It is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that blah blah blah..."), but as someone who has used all kinds of computers in a professional capacity for what is the very definition of "practical usage," I prefer OS X.

Windows is better for Word processing and playing Civilization. That's about it.

If it helps keep you isolated in your little bubble reality, by all means go on to ignore this post. Act as if Macs are objectively useless from whatever broken frame of reference you care to apply.

EDIT: It is also unlikely a case of usage bias on my part because I would say I use PCs 4/3 times as often as Macs.

EDIT 2: Every Mac I have ever bought or owned can still be plugged in and used today, going back to 2001. Mac hardware is, in many cases, objectively superior. This is the primary reason for the higher cost.

 

[Crezth]

Well you're obviously making stuff up, because Macs offer no additional functionality over anything else on the market, and that goes for all Apple products. When the iPhone was originally released, there had already been products on the market for a while that could do everything it could at cheaper prices.

But the iPhone was shiny.

Oh, you're right. Nevermind. I guess I just imagined the faster performance times for almost every panel method code I've ever run - you know what, you're right. I'm just making stuff up.

Macs can't even run .exe files. WTH is up with that?!

 

[Defiant47]

You know, I normally tend to shy away from platform wars, as that is purely the purvey of the self-righteous and uninformed, but I felt the need to comment on this.

In my experience, I have often met individuals - generally more computer-savvy types who are used to PC's - that bash Mac and the Mac OS regardless of whether they have used either.

I am a professional aerospace engineer and in 100% of cases I prefer the Mac OS X for matters related to modeling & simulation, computational fluid dynamics, programming & language compilation, and the entire Adobe suite (less salient but still worth mentioning). It's an efficient, powerful platform and I say this having used both Windows and OS X for my entire career.

You will chose not to believe me, or may even reply with more unfounded statements ("It is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that blah blah blah..."), but as someone who has used all kinds of computers in a professional capacity for what is the very definition of "practical usage," I prefer OS X.

Windows is better for Word processing and playing Civilization. That's about it.

If it helps keep you isolated in your little bubble reality, by all means go on to ignore this post. Act as if Macs are objectively useless from whatever broken frame of reference you care to apply.

EDIT: It is also unlikely a case of usage bias on my part because I would say I use PCs 4/3 times as often as Macs.

EDIT 2: Every Mac I have ever bought or owned can still be plugged in and used today, going back to 2001. Mac hardware is, in many cases, objectively superior. This is the primary reason for the higher cost.

You have asserted Mac OS's superiority over Windows. My statement was aimed at Macs vs. PCs. A Mac is similar to a PC in functionality, except that it costs 50% more for the same capabilities - processing power, RAM, hard drive, etc. That is my beef with Macs.

I don't have much experience with OS X, but I doubt that even if it were objectively superior to Windows in an unrepeatable unique fashion, it would probably still not be worth the price differential. You could just get a PC 50% faster and stronger while settling for the worse-off Windows.

 

[Crezth]

You have asserted Mac OS's superiority over Windows. My statement was aimed at Macs vs. PCs. A Mac is similar to a PC in functionality, except that it costs 50% more for the same capabilities - processing power, RAM, hard drive, etc. That is my beef with Macs.

I don't have much experience with OS X, but I doubt that even if it were objectively superior to Windows in an unrepeatable unique fashion, it would probably still not be worth the price differential. You could just get a PC 50% faster and stronger while settling for the worse-off Windows.

Fair enough, however I will continue to contest that the price differential is made up for by a longer-lasting performance. Macs that I have bought require almost no upkeep on my part in the hardware department and last for a very long time - I consider this worth the extra investment. When I switched over to using Mac laptops from PC laptops, I found that the effective lifespan I got out of my laptop doubled from about 2.5 to 3 years to 5 to 6.

While this of course admits discussion of obsolescence et al, in my field it isn't really necessary to have the most current hardware, and for my own usage, personally, having Mac OS X is useful enough to make up for the "50% price increase."

I consider PCs to be brighter flames that burn half as long and require an infinite ratio more maintenance. I prioritize differently when it comes to PCs as the bulk of my functionality comes from my Mac.

Additionally: Once someone attempted to convince me the only reason Mac OS X performed so well was because it was specifically designed to work with the hardware it is bundled and sold with. I do not see the problem with that approach.

 

[Defiant47]

Fair enough, however I will continue to contest that the price differential is made up for by a longer-lasting performance. Macs that I have bought require almost no upkeep on my part in the hardware department and last for a very long time - I consider this worth the extra investment. When I switched over to using Mac laptops from PC laptops, I found that the effective lifespan I got out of my laptop doubled from about 2.5 to 3 years to 5 to 6.

While this of course admits discussion of obsolescence et al, in my field it isn't really necessary to have the most current hardware, and for my own usage, personally, having Mac OS X is useful enough to make up for the "50% price increase."

I consider PCs to be brighter flames that burn half as long and require an infinite ratio more maintenance. I prioritize differently when it comes to PCs as the bulk of my functionality comes from my Mac.

Additionally: Once someone attempted to convince me the only reason Mac OS X performed so well was because it was specifically designed to work with the hardware it is bundled and sold with. I do not see the problem with that approach.

Windows is much more focused on delivering compatibility. One of the main cringes I have with Macs, even if they were superior in more ways than mentioned (though then this would become less of a problem over time), is that of compatibility. The average computer user needs things to run. Now Macs are nicely designed to provide an excellent experience when coupled with other Apple products and software. But when you venture out of that territory, compatibility becomes an issue.

When you enter a highly specialized field like yours, the compatibility becomes less of a feature, and may even become a hindrance (as you mentioned in the last paragraph). Many servers operate on Linux because of its superior handling of such tasks. But Linux, like OS X, isn't what the general population is used to, and may even require a bit of additional expertise. As such, it doesn't work well as a mass-support for computers.

When I look at computers, I like to look at the specs. And I absolutely cringe at the prices of Macs, parts, additional upgrades, and so on... when compared to regular computers and laptops. You can get an adequate Mac, or the top-of-the-line PC for the same money.

Now granted, Macs may last longer in terms of hardware. I've never owned a Mac, but I've owned computers and laptops, which typically last 2 to 3 years for me. If what you say is true, then Macs have the upper hand in that regard... but in the field of electronics and computers, it's not much of a benefit - the obsolescence issue.

 

[Zelig]

Mac hardware is, in many cases, objectively superior. This is the primary reason for the higher cost.

This is really isn't the case. If you look at equivalent hardware, Apple hardware is generally more expensive, and no better in reliability.

 

[Crezth]

I see that I misunderstood your original approach and apologize for that, and find little to disagree with in your latest post. I was mainly offering a defense of Mac OS X.

I will add that I have seen many Mac converts in the past few years, most of them generally non-computer savvy individuals and they run the gamut from airy art-historians to quantum physicists. I suspect this is because Macs offer a more approachable interface and are more useful to the layman - unless the layman, as mentioned, has a limited budget or a particular need for Windows (I have met many engineers who use PCs, as should be obvious).

This is really isn't the case. If you look at equivalent hardware, Apple hardware is generally more expensive, and no better in reliability.

I have already described that Macs, in my experience, are more reliable and longer-lasting than PCs.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think the primary difference is that with the Macintosh it is a package deal. The software is optimized to work with the selected components they choose, and compatibility issues are virtually non-existent. In the rare case where there is a bug, it is far easier for them to provide a patch that they know will not break anything else they sell because they can test all the variants in-house before it is even released.

Windows takes just the opposite approach. It must work with a plethora of hardware that has a multitude of differences. Incompatibilities abound, and they grow with every new piece of hardware and software that is introduced. There is simply no way that either hardware or software vendors can possibly test their products with all the combinations. Resolving compatibility issues becomes much more reactionary as a result, and new ones crop up with every OS release. What makes it worse is there is a great reluctance to fix compatibility issues with older versions of the OS or to provide support for older hardware. You must constantly upgrade both to even get the latest fixes for old problems.

Most of the software I own that is more than 5 years ago will no longer even work on 64-bit Vista. I recently tried to reinstall an 8-year-old Sony memory card reader I got with my video camera to download some photos. After playing with it for a couple of hours I finally gave up. The drivers were simply too far out-of-date and there was no new version available on the internet.

Going to a UNIX variant was also very savvy of Apple. There are a multitude of engineers and scientists who are quite familiar with that environment and have applications which run on it. It is far more convenient for them to run OS X and not have to reboot to switch between Windows and LINUX.

 

[.Shane.]

Moderator Action: Split this off the Jobs thread as it was taking a life of its own. Actually, most of the posting has been decent.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I don't know about you guys, but I had trouble figuring out the Mac interface when I had to use them last year for college. Maybe I'm just stupid.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

You weren't used to it, that's all, and that's the point others are making. Which one any given individual finds easiest to use (unsurprisingly) tends to be the one that have the most experience with. Between Mac OS and and any decent version of Windows (let's just ignore Vista and ME) I really don't see much of a difference in ease of use, personally I can use either fine. But for my personal use I prefer PC's because of the software available there. And while I've never used Macs extensively enough to do a serious hardware comparison, from what I have used, the hardware doesn't seem any more or less reliable than comparable PC parts, just... more expensive.

 

[Zelig]

I have already described that Macs, in my experience, are more reliable and longer-lasting than PCs.

Yeah, and you're wrong in this being a generality.

There is no mechanism for Macs to be more reliable or longer-lasting than PCs.

Part of the problem is that matching the cheapest available PC that performs equally to a Mac is obviously going to get you a less-reliable PC. Matching a similar-quality PC, will however, still be cheaper than a Mac.


FWIW, I use both Mac OS and Windows on a daily basis, relatively intensively, and don't really have a preference for either OS. They both have some nice features that the other is missing, but nothing that sets either apart.

 

[amadeus]

I'll just detail my experiences with Apple here.

I developed a distaste for a lot of Apple products back when I was in grade school -- little was I aware that the computers were not only obsolete, they were also being hobbled by the school's network. My old 486 was leagues faster than the Macs the school district had. Before I had my 486, though, I had a Macintosh Classic II (with RAM doubler!) and was very happy with it, same for the IIGS I had before the Mac.

In 2009, when I was living in Nagasaki, I was trying to find a good electronic Japanese dictionary. Well, I had already bought two (￥8,000 and ￥23,000, respectively) and then I found the iPod Touch had one, among many other applications I'd find useful, so I picked one up for ￥30,000 (about $400 at today's exchange rates, $330 or so back then.) I carry the thing around with me today, using the dictionary and I have some articles saved from Lew Rockwell in case I'm bored somewhere and want to read something. I also have solitaire, Japanese mahjong, Angry Birds, and a few things.

Then as a graduation gift, I got an iPad 2, and I lug that thing everywhere around the house, often times posting on CFC from it (usually shorter posts, the onscreen keyboard is a bit of a nuisance.) It's great, and works a lot better than this monstrosity called Gateway.

So my overall image of Apple has improved dramatically over the last few years. Would I buy an Apple computer, though? If I won the lottery, sure. But $3,000 or $4,000 for a computer that can do the same things as a $2,000 PC? No, I draw the line there.

 

[PeteAtoms]

I only use Windows XP on a daily/regular schedule, and have only used a Mac a handful of times ever, so I can't really claim which side is right in this discussion. But I will point out that Windows is still the professional standard for much of the business world right now. I had to take prerequisite classes in Windows 7, not a Mac OS, for my business degree.

Also, my personal laptop was bought new in 2006 and I'm still using it daily. It was mediocre in its own time and hasn't aged well (it's a Gateway, lol) but I don't see any reason to start looking for something newer. The only reason I would get a new PC is for games. But I'm on a budget here.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'm generally a PC user. I have touched a Mac, but that was when I was in School. But the appeal of the PC to me is the availability of programs (generally games) as well as ease of upgrading and fixing. If a video card has gone bad, I could simply get a replacement and do it myself where as with a Mac, I have to ship it out due to some crazy proprietary hardware or design. Plus the all in one computer does not sit well with me (would pump out a lot more heat than the traditional computer).

The only Apple products I own are the iPad and iPod Touch.

 

[Zelig]

I'm generally a PC user. I have touched a Mac, but that was when I was in School. But the appeal of the PC to me is the availability of programs (generally games) as well as ease of upgrading and fixing. If a video card has gone bad, I could simply get a replacement and do it myself where as with a Mac, I have to ship it out due to some crazy proprietary hardware or design. Plus the all in one computer does not sit well with me (would pump out a lot more heat than the traditional computer).

There are all-in-one PCs, and non-all-in-one Macs.

 

[GenMarshall]

There are all-in-one PCs, and non-all-in-one Macs.

Well the desktop line that I see in stores like Best Buy are indeed all-in-one Macs and I am fully aware of the all-in-one-PCs.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

In elementary school we had these really old Macintosh computers... I don't remember what version they were but they used a software called At Ease which had the cool feature of speaking out the software name as you hovered over the icon. Anyways I still have a bit of nostalgia for those, to the point that where when my elementary school closed down for the new one (maybe around 2008 or 2009), I wrote a letter to the schoolboard asking if I could buy one of the old Macs as surplus. But for some reason they couldn't, don't remember why... maybe some regulations or they just didn't have them anymore.

 

[warpus]

A couple of my friends have Macbooks.. and while they're nice, they seem horribly overpriced. It's like you're paying for the name morseso than anything else, and that's something I just don't do. I would if there was a significant increase in quality, but there doesn't appear to be.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Spoiler :

Meh, not a fan.