Mac or PC ?

[Jondalar]

I'm a PC person, but I hate being one. I would much rather have a Mac desktop and laptop. Unfortunately, the fact that I can get a PC for about 1/3 of the price has prevented me from pursuing a Mac.

 

[Jamesds]

I'm a PC person, but I hate being one. I would much rather have a Mac desktop and laptop. Unfortunately, the fact that I can get a PC for about 1/3 of the price has prevented me from pursuing a Mac.

I think that is one of the main factors here. Macs may appeal to more people than it seems, just those people chose a PC due to their budget.

 

[warmwaffles]

Correct... I believe if Apple would stop charging so much for a product, they could possibly see a rise in sales, like the iPhone for instance...too much money and exclusive rights for ATT...I dont think I will be buying one any time soon...

 

[GenMarshall]

I think that is one of the main factors here. Macs may appeal to more people than it seems, just those people chose a PC due to their budget.

Plus, many programs that are used (mainly games) can only run only on windows (Granted there are still ported versions).

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

I'm a huge gamer, so PC is the fairly natural choice. I haven't had a chance to use a Mac yet, so I don't have any opinion on it.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

EDIT: holy crap ... I didn't realize I had typed so much ... I just typed and typed and typed and typed ...

I'm a Windows guy by choice.

I have used (or at least test driven) every version of Windows since Windows 3.11 and every version of Mac OS since OS 9.

If I had to cite my #1 deterrent from Apple computers, it ironically has nothing to do with the hardware or software they're selling at all ... it's how Apple markets their products.

Apple did the world a favour with the iPod and iTunes. It was a perfect example of a Blue Ocean Strategy, and I commend them for it. However, the way they've gone about marketing their computers is downright absurd, and in many cases, Apple is doing nothing more than exacerbating false PC-Mac stereotypes.

A perfect of example of one of Apple's bullshlt marketing practices was revealed when they switched their processors from IBM to Intel chips. Previously, it was Apple's great privilege to tout their hardware as four times faster than Intel-based Windows systems using comparable hardware (in terms of CPU clock and RAM). When the Intel-based Macs were released, Apple began touting their new line of computers as four times faster than their older IBM-based systems using comparable hardware.

Okay ... wait a minute. So that means an Intel-based Mac is 16 times faster than an equivalent Intel-based PC .!?

W ... T ... F ???

Somewhere along the lines, Apple's Marketing department must have gotten a little ahead of themselves and decided to start pulling numbers out of their nether regions, eh?

As others have pointed out, because of Boot Camp, it is now possible to test Mac OS X and Windows on the same hardware. These tests have shown the operating systems to vary in speed from program to program but otherwise close enough to not draw any bold assumptions by declaring a clear winner and loser.


What it really comes down to for me is how each operating system treats the operator:

Mac OS X is extremely user friendly and can almost be considered "idiot proof". However, in being so friendly, OS X treats every user like they are all idiots.

One example of this is program (un)installation. OS X claims to uninstall a program you simply drag its icon to the trash and voila ... you're done. Except no. It is extremely likely the program you think you just uninstalled actually left behind a huge trail of .kext and .bundle files strewn all over the hard drive and very likely also has preferences and a library stored somewhere, too. Idiot proof uninstallation, huh? More like half-aszed.

Mac OS X also has a very steep learning curve when breaching the "idiot barrier". Trying to program in X Code is like trying to build a car out of metal shavings. There are so few resources designed for application programming that its no surprise the majority of programs seem to be written by Apple anymore. Even scripting in the Terminal can feel convoluted to a Novice programmer / modder.

Windows, on the other hand (at least XP), has a tendency to err on the other side -- oftentimes treating its users as if they are more knowledgeable than they really are. (BTW, Vista is much better about playing nicely with unskilled operators.) Especially during installation, it's not uncommon for novice users to draw blanks when asked to choose an installation directory or how to proceed when a new piece of hardware is connected to the system.

However, the learning curve in Windows is considerably more gradual. Whether this is because Microsoft actively encourages and facilitates software creation for their operating system or because their large market share makes them perfect candidates for tutorials and guides, who cares? The fact of the matter is that if you want to learn C++, C#, Visual Basic or any of the other plethora of languages available for the various tasks and programming styles, you'll be hard pressed to not find something helpful.

And finally, Micro$oft knows where the money's at -- and that's in gaming. Dating back to Windows 95, when DirectX starting taking shape, M$ has made it their business to encourage the masses to write programs for their operating system.


So there you go ... I could go on and on about this, but I'm tired and need to get some work done.

 

[jkp1187]

^Alright, I'm too lazy to respond, this guy is crazy, and I don't like this thread. Why do you really hate macs? What did they do to you? Whatever, the platform wars should end.

There's a start, lets keep on going. Again:

Keep on going people...let's end the platform wars please and just talk about preferences without bashing.

Don't worry about it. Some people are just too emotional and react badly to contrary opinions they find on the Internets. If nothing else, it gives me more names to add to the "ignore" list.

Personally, I am seriously considering a Macintosh. Civilization is just about the only game I care to play/have time to play anymore, and apparently that runs fine on Windows+Bootcamp. The whole reason I went with a PC (actually, built one myself,) was so I could upgrade piecemeal as necessary, but I just found out that I can't just upgrade my processor individually, because parts are no longer made for the style of motherboard I purchased....so I'll have to upgrade that, plus processor, plus RAM, and then video card at the same time. Thus, the whole point of it more or less went out the window. If I'm going to end up buying a commercially-made computer, I'm thinking that I might as well try a Mac. I'm sick of playing around with Windows, too.

Just my thoughts. Don't let me stop the debate over which ineffable noumenal version of the idealized PC/Macintosh is "Teh One Best Thing EvAR!!!1!"

 

[mdwh]

A perfect of example of one of Apple's bullshlt marketing practices was revealed when they switched their processors from IBM to Intel chips. Previously, it was Apple's great privilege to tout their hardware as four times faster than Intel-based Windows systems using comparable hardware (in terms of CPU clock and RAM). When the Intel-based Macs were released, Apple began touting their new line of computers as four times faster than their older IBM-based systems using comparable hardware.

Don't forget that PowerMacs were the fastest "PCs" in the world, and the first 64 bit "PCs" - but Intel Macs are definitely not PCs.

(Yes, I know that PC can have several meanings - but the point is that Apple's market has hinged upon it - firstly using a definition of PC that included Macs but somehow didn't include earlier 64 bit computers, but then switching their terms so they can launch a campaign ridiculing all PCs.)

 

[mdwh]

Civilization is just about the only game I care to play/have time to play anymore, and apparently that runs fine on Windows+Bootcamp.

For myself, I love to either have games running at the same time as other applications (so I can take a break to look at webpages or email, or chat with people, or maybe do something whilst Civilization spends ages thinking...), or quickly play a short game for only a few minutes, so bootcamp either wouldn't work, or mean I'm wasting time rebooting lots. I'm surprised at how popular it seems to be as a solution for needing to run Windows software, even applications (which surely people do want to run at the same time as other apps).

Hell, these days it's common not to reboot computers at all, let alone everytime you want to play a game. It's like stepping back in time to the 1980s where you only ran one application/game at a time, and rebooted in between...

I'd only consider using emulation / a virtual machine.

 

[jkp1187]

For myself, I love to either have games running at the same time as other applications (so I can take a break to look at webpages or email, or chat with people, or maybe do something whilst Civilization spends ages thinking...), or quickly play a short game for only a few minutes, so bootcamp either wouldn't work, or mean I'm wasting time rebooting lots. I'm surprised at how popular it seems to be as a solution for needing to run Windows software, even applications (which surely people do want to run at the same time as other apps).

Hell, these days it's common not to reboot computers at all, let alone everytime you want to play a game. It's like stepping back in time to the 1980s where you only ran one application/game at a time, and rebooted in between...

I'd only consider using emulation / a virtual machine.

Honestly, I'm not seeing the problem here. I already have a full suite of MS Office software, I could just, you know, install it on a Mac if I wanted to play around while I "worked".

 

[GenMarshall]

I'd only consider using emulation / a virtual machine.

Though the downside with trying to run Mac OS X on an emulation and/or a virtual machine is that it takes more steps to get it to work. The downside with PearPC is that it does not emulate sound (Plus there are extra steps to partition the virtual harddisk). As for the VMware products, I am not sure if its 100% workable, even with an x86 version of Mac OS X.

Personaly, Older Windows OSes, Vista, and the Linux Distros are easyer to emulate on VMware.

 

[Chairman Meow]

Though the downside with trying to run Mac OS X on an emulation and/or a virtual machine is that it takes more steps to get it to work. The downside with PearPC is that it does not emulate sound (Plus there are extra steps to partition the virtual harddisk).

I think he meant the exact opposite of that (i.e. emulating Windows on MacOSX), which can be done easily using Qemu or Parallels. As far as I know, there is not a version of VMWare available for MacOSX, and VirtualPC only runs on the PowerPC version of MacOSX.

 

[GenMarshall]

Not even VMware Fusion for Macs?

 

[Chairman Meow]

Not even VMware Fusion for Macs?

Ah, ok... apparently there is a port of VMWare to MacOSX, except it's still a beta.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

I don't know how many times this thread has appeared here, but I've never seen it. So, what do you prefer? Mac or PC? For me, it is certainly a PC.

I guess that is due to my first computer being a PC, but Macs are just foreign ... 1 mouse button, can't make your own, and I really don't like those (well, I have to admit they are funny ) "Hello, I'm a Mac. And I'm a PC" adverts - they make the PC guy look like a complete idiot who can only do office work, and the Mac guy look cool. I won't go on anymore, not just yet...

Oh - and try and give at least one reason for your choice

...I was watching http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jkrn6ecxthM (Mac or PC Rap) And I was about to post this up!!!...anyways, Im a PC guy, GO GAMES!! GOGOGOGGO

 

[mdwh]

Honestly, I'm not seeing the problem here. I already have a full suite of MS Office software, I could just, you know, install it on a Mac if I wanted to play around while I "worked".

Hmm, have they updated Bootcamp so you can run applications alongside Mac applications (i.e., at the same time)?

 

[Atlas14]

PC for me. I need to be able to have good game speed.

 

[Unnamed_Sniper]

I voted Mac because, well, I like em more. I've got nothing against PCs, I think Macs are much easier to use. the only problem is, of cource, lack of games although I do some CGI, and I wouldn't want to do that on a Windows.
Even though I have a PPC mac, I'm glad they came up with bootcamp for intels. that solves most of the problems I see, although I am nearsighted... Civ works fine on the Macs, so I don't complain too much.

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

I play games on Windows (because someone gave me a desktop one with a decent-ish processor (Pentium 4) and decent gfx card (X800)), spend the rest of the time on a Mac and play around with GNU/Linux (Gentoo) for silly little servers and stuff.

What I hate about Windows is that everything is horribly obfuscated. A couple of days ago, I nerfed (my fault I admit) the boot sector or something on my Vista install. BootSect.exe, RecBoot.exe, BCDEdit.exe all refused to do anything useful (on the basis that something with a messed-up bootsector couldn't possibly be identified as a system partition and therefore couldn't possibly have the bootsector fixed...), let alone the automatic repair functionality of the Vista Install disc. In then end I had to reinstall Vista on a different drive, use the bootloader on that to boot the original Vista install. Which refused to work because of the way that Windows decides disk identification (i.e. what was once C:/ became D:/...) based on what's booting it (WTH...). So, since MMC snap-ins were, like an awful lot of things (e.g. the goddamn shell/Explorer...), broken by this I had to mess about in the registry to get it to boot half-properly. As it is, it's still not actually booting from its own partition...
On any reasonably modern (i.e. post-1987 if you want to be really sure...) *NIX (including Mac OS X), I simply can't envision any of this rubbish irritating me. I'd have access to a decent CLI-shell (CMD sucks, Monad/PowerShell also sucks but less, but isn't available off the install DVD...) and everything would be represented nicely in the filesystem and random changes to drive-letter (why not use path representation, e.g. /mnt/* or /Volumes/*, as the default [it is kinda an option, but not fully featured, under Vista] and accept that root filesystem should just == /?) assignment wouldn't happy.

The interface for Mac OS X is nicer than Vista. Vista is prettier than XP but it's still ugly compared to Mac OS X and still a trainwreck of usability and cohesiveness compared Win 3.1 or Mac OS 7 or zsh under a GNU/*NIX system... People who makes apps for Mac OS X put more effort into to making them match the style and procedure of the OS than 3rd party software writers seem to do for Windows (or GNOME or KDE...); this is however changing for the worse (partly due to Apple's own increasingly bad example of not following Interface Guidelines, even in spirit).

Cocoa & Obj-C > .NET & C++, IMHO. Pretty close and Apple's almost dropping the ball.
GCC & C-libraries which, you know, accurately reflect the C standards, > Visual Studio Student Crippled-Edition & MS's borked C libraries.
Shell scripting & Ruby scripting > Visual Basic, .NET, BATCH. Seriously, learning shell scripting or ruby or something is convoluted compared to BATCH? AppleScript does suck, but then I remember COM and rubbish like that...

I don't get the accusations about babying users anymore. Mac OS X provides a real, POSIX-compliant environment if you want to mess about at a low level. Or rather it is such an environment.

Installation, package managers, hmm... Mac OS X doesn't get this right but it's not too bad; most apps are perfectly well served by drag-and-drop (I don't care about the odd 4KB .plist [XML FILE, DAMNIT! A HELPFUL FORM OF DATA STORAGE...) being left over) but there is the odd one which'll dump a cache or something where it won't get erased automatically. Kext dumping though? I rarely see that... since you know most apps don't need kernel extensions and those that do tend to include an uninstaller; but that's still not right, devs shouldn't have to compensate for Apple's failure (esp. since as AppZapper etc. shows, uninstallation is damn easy to integrate...). Windows sucks at this though. Seriously, I hate the registry, I hate that most apps randomly want an installer rather than providing stand-alone versions. A real package-manager is the perfect answer (portage/emerge under Gentoo is great, well right up until I break it with overlays etc.) but users don't like them and they're hard to imagine working well without large centralised repo(s).

I hate using Windows. I hate that it hides everything from me, even when I try my hardest to uncover it (MAC Addresses? Oh, right that's only available in the bolted-on CMD terminal that you try so hard to make me hate...). I hate that it seems to only want large companies ever daring to write code for it. I hate the interface and that no-one, MS or 3rd parties, about a coherent user experience. I hate that while it supports a lot more, cheaper hardware than Mac OS X, it always seems to do so in such a half-assed way (XP & Bluetooth being the most obvious example).

Maybe, it's just because I've been conditioned to it, but the OS X GUI and the Unix ideas of OS organization appeal to me and seem more intuitive than Windows. I simply can't imagine anyone involved in writing Vista thought that they'd produced something well-thought out...

I don't like that Apple wants, and is going to become, a consumer electronics manufacturer, not an OS manufacturer, because it means they don't focus on the things I want. Instead they focus on, you know, things that actually make money like the iPhone and those obnoxious commercials...

 

[mdwh]

The interface for Mac OS X is nicer than Vista. Vista is prettier than XP but it's still ugly compared to Mac OS X and still a trainwreck of usability and cohesiveness compared Win 3.1 or Mac OS 7 or zsh under a GNU/*NIX system...

I don't agree at all, at least as far as XP is concerned (I don't know if you meant Vista specifically). Classic MacOS was rather poor (didn't even have a CLI at all, let alone a decent one), and Windows 3.1 was a joke.

People who makes apps for Mac OS X put more effort into to making them match the style and procedure of the OS than 3rd party software writers seem to do for Windows (or GNOME or KDE...); this is however changing for the worse (partly due to Apple's own increasingly bad example of not following Interface Guidelines, even in spirit).

Apple are the worst offenders when it comes to not following the OS style when writing Windows applications! (Itunes, Quicktime.)

Cocoa & Obj-C > .NET & C++, IMHO. Pretty close and Apple's almost dropping the ball.
GCC & C-libraries which, you know, accurately reflect the C standards, > Visual Studio Student Crippled-Edition & MS's borked C libraries.

GCC exists on Windows.

Installation, package managers, hmm... Mac OS X doesn't get this right but it's not too bad; most apps are perfectly well served by drag-and-drop (I don't care about the odd 4KB .plist [XML FILE, DAMNIT! A HELPFUL FORM OF DATA STORAGE...) being left over)

Some Windows applications can be dragged and dropped too - but what really confuses me is why this is touted as being easier. I dislike it when I have to manually find a place for my application (and it's poorer imo from a user-friendly point of view). Much easier just to doubleclick on the icon.

The registry is annoying, but I still prefer an installer.