# MAC or Windows



## lance.f (Oct 23, 2007)

I See no diff in the 2...right now of course care to share knowledge?


----------



## net-cat (Oct 23, 2007)

To put it simply:

Do you play modern games? If yes, Windows.

If no, it doesn't really matter. (If you go with Mac, you can always go to Windows later...)


----------



## DavidN (Oct 23, 2007)

The question is too open-ended to be answerable, and will cause a "my operating system is better than yours" flamewar that will last for approximately 250 posts.


----------



## Janglur (Oct 23, 2007)

Now that Macs are x86 Intel based systems, i'd say go Windows.


----------



## Aden (Oct 23, 2007)

Well, I own a Mac and I really like it, but I'm by no means a fanboy. There are a few crucial apps that I have to boot up my Windows partition for. If OS X was more compatable with all the software today, it would own a much larger share of the market than it currently does. The interface is sexeh, though. 

/I heart column view.


----------



## lance.f (Oct 23, 2007)

mac is shiny


----------



## Eevee (Oct 23, 2007)

Where is the love for the rest of the UNIX family?


----------



## net-cat (Oct 23, 2007)

GNU's not UNIX, fool!


----------



## Eevee (Oct 23, 2007)

Oh Stallman, your constant insistence of breaking friendly conventions in the name of flaunting your tailfeathers makes me want to punch you in the face.

ps screen doesn't work with vim's mouse support fuck you


----------



## net-cat (Oct 23, 2007)

Linux is an option, though.

http://www.dell.com/linux/

If you don't like it, you can always go back to Windows.


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Oct 24, 2007)

Well... the main arguments that make people not get a mac are "it costs too much" and "they don't have many games".

Sure they cost a bit more, but IMO it's definately worth it. And games? Split your drive and run windows through Bootcamp, problem solved.

If you've got the cash, go for a mac. I just bough a new iMac (24" screen = fun fun), 2.33 duel core, 2gb RAM, 750gb disk space, 256mb video ram... it plays the games I want it to (mostly DoW, WoW, and Halflife2) and only costed about $2000. Plus it's so shiny and quite as well... nothin. Seriously, I can't hear the computer. No buzzing fans at all, no clicks, no disk spinning up, quite nice actually.


----------



## sgolem (Oct 24, 2007)

Here's my problem:
I actually do like OS X, but the dock, along with some other annoyances like not being able to go up a folder piss me off.  However, I think it's got a lot more going for it than Windows in a lot of other areas.  I haven't used Vista yet, but from what I've hear, Stallman's chair throwing hasn't done much to help it after all.

My big problem with it is that in order to run OS X you have to have a Mac.  As great as their software is, I'd rather have a computer that is designed to work, rather than to look nice, along with customer service that does more than just blame you for everything (Apparently customer service gets better the further you go west, but I'm on the east coast).  The Mac I'm typing this on has been repaired 5 times in the two years I've had it, and it's starting to break down once again.  The aluminum case warps depending on the temperature and it's starting to fall apart and is getting small dents from normal use.  This is compared to a 1999 Thinkpad that has literally thrown across the room and lived without a scratch, and still works today (aside from running Windows 98).  Mac desktops are great, since durability isn't an issue, but I also think that if I was getting a desktop I would just build it myself.  I need laptops anyway since I work more efficiently in public and crowded areas.  

Then there's Linux.  I love Linux.  It's great to have an operating system that lets you control everything for once.  However, it's still not usable for me yet.  I still need certain programs and I don't have the time to spend hours making things work.  I do look forward to it's potential though.

Anyway, I'm thinking my next computer might just be a PC laptop that is compatible with OS X so I can just hack it on there.  Then I get the best of both worlds.


----------



## silvertwilight (Oct 24, 2007)

Personally I think mac has done a much better job creating a fun usable OS
It provide alot of the programs that windows asks money for free and has AMAZING support

Unfortunately nothing supports macs


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Oct 24, 2007)

If you want a system that works out of the box and will not have problems if you're willing to give up expandability and gaming then you'll love a Mac.

If you want expandability, games, and the latest software/hardware then go Windows.

If you are a geek or simply enjoy open standards and free software then go Linux/Unix.

Each one has its ups and downs, it all boils down to personal preferences now a days. Linux/Unix has gotten alot easier to use then it was back in the day and Mac finally got a breath of new life when they went X (which is basicly UNIX with legacy support for PowerPC software) as well as became Intel based. Windows is well... Windows. Nothing has really changed except for switching around names, locations, and the addition of flare to the gui.


----------



## darkdoomer (Oct 25, 2007)

depends what you want to do; depends also which windows. ( vista and its bloated features or the good old xp pro / 2K ) 
me : definitively windows for the possibilities, but osx is such a good os aswell.

for the hardware, devinitively PC. macs ares just overpriced intel pc's with a big and shiny apple logo on it.


----------



## Nitro (Oct 25, 2007)

I have OSX and Windows XP running on my PC, so I'm good. 8)


----------



## Eevee (Oct 25, 2007)

Ron Overdrive said:
			
		

> If you want expandability ... and the latest software/hardware then go Windows.


Oh yes, the current Windows is certainly known for its affinity for the latest hardware.

I also note there are often builds of Linux apps long before anyone bothers to compile them for Windows.


----------



## fastturtle (Oct 26, 2007)

Actually the best solution is to go the Mac, Get one with Leopard and Buy a copy of Paralels VM for Mac to run XP. Forget boot camp and dual booting. XP supposedly runs great under Paralels and because it's a VM, you never have to shut XP down, simply suspend when the VM and close Paralels down when you need the performance.


----------



## net-cat (Oct 26, 2007)

Parallels and Fusion don't do 3D apps very well. (I/E: Games.) They don't have support for DirectX 9, which most modern games seem to require.


----------



## Aden (Oct 27, 2007)

Another tiny note on why I like Apple a bit more:

OS X - $129 or 5 for $199 (same household)
iWork (Apple's Office equivalent) - $79 or 5 for $99 (same household)

Plus, I can have my Logic Pro and Final Cut Studio. 

/Animation student


----------



## Esplender (Oct 27, 2007)

MAC is like a computer specifically built for retards.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 27, 2007)

Why would you even say that?  It's about as insulting as "Esplender is like a retard specifically built for computers".


----------



## Paul Revere (Oct 27, 2007)

Windows, obviously.


----------



## Paul Revere (Oct 27, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> Where is the love for the rest of the UNIX family?



IRIX is the god of all UNIXes (unices?).


----------



## ADF (Oct 27, 2007)

I talked with a Mac user on YouTube recently, it went like this...

Mac guy - â€œI say like this, some people likes mac becouse it can have no virus, you dont need too download alot of shit and stuff like that.â€

Me - â€œThe only reason Macs don't get as many virus problems as PC is because they don't have a big enough install base to justify targeting, being the biggest player comes at the cost of becoming a target for those sort of issues.

If Macs were as big and successful as their users hoped, holding the biggest market share, who do they think the virus and adware writers will turn to?â€

Mac guy - â€œyea this is good coming from the geek who probably hasnt been laid yet, is aged like 45, prob got bullied in school, has no job, no life,no friends, no social life,still gets bullied and has a username derived from a mythical creature that DOESNT FUCKING EXIST!!! WISE UP SHIT STAINS. i would tell you to go and get laid but its clearly not gonna happenâ€

Sounds like a nice chap doesn't he? He said allot to make me sound like a pathetic and clueless prick without actually bringing up a countering argument to my claim, truth hurts I guess.

(Doesn't lance.f like to start allot of argument inducing topics and watch people fight over the subject? O..o)


----------



## Esplender (Oct 27, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> Why would you even say that? It's about as insulting as "Esplender is like a retard specifically built for computers".



On the other hand, my statement is sincere.


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Oct 28, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> I talked with a Mac user on YouTube recently, it went like this...
> 
> Mac guy - â€œI say like this, some people likes mac becouse it can have no virus, you dont need too download alot of shit and stuff like that.â€
> 
> ...



Yeah I noticed that about Mac users. Many of them become very defensive about their choice to use a Mac. This is usually because they spent double the amount of money on a brand name computer (so its more of an investment) and they get hassled by many PC users. Others can be very arrogant because they think they're above everyone else who still uses Windows and occasionally has problems with it. I guess they like to believe they have a superior product because they paid out the ass for it that makes them above everyone else. I've really only met one Mac user who doesn't fit that bill though and its probably because he owns both a PC desktop and a MacBook Pro.


----------



## net-cat (Oct 28, 2007)

I've discovered a remarkable way to piss off Mac users. I just say:

"I didn't even consider a Mac for exact same reason I didn't consider a Dell."

Most Mac users I've encountered will fly off the handle at that point.

[size=xx-small]It's true, though. Neither Apple nor Dell offer Tablet PC's, which is what I wanted.[/size]


----------



## Paul Revere (Oct 28, 2007)

net-cat said:
			
		

> I've discovered a remarkable way to piss of Mac users. I just say:
> 
> "I didn't even consider a Mac for exact same reason I didn't consider a Dell."
> 
> ...



That's really funny.  (I'm gunna steal that one XD)


----------



## Bloodangel (Oct 28, 2007)

I'll tell you what I tell everyone.

I like to build my computer easily and play lots of games. (So long mac)

And I don't want to have to fucking programme the computer to do it. (Syonara, every UNIX madhouse of an OS)


----------



## FreerideFox (Oct 28, 2007)

a pro mac will demolish every win PC here. 

16GB DDR2 RAM
750GB hard drive
that quaddro video card or whatever its called? I think its 1GB or 768 but I'm not sure. 
3.0 dual quad core
30" studio monitor, but the ability to run dual 30" monitors if I need it.
1000W power supply.

And now, Leopard.

my friend built something like that from apple and it was only like $7000.00 or something. He works for a television studio. I have gotten to use Final Cut Studio Pro 2 on his machine. NOTHING comes close on windoze. 

I love the debate that Mac's are over priced. Dude, you can get a Mac Mini for $599.99 and if you are wanting to spend less than that, then sure, go out and buy a POS $299.99 compaq, Dont come bitching to me when your hard drive fails in a year. I now work at a PC repair shop. some of the things I see come in from cheap OEM manufacturers like e-machines and compaq. makes me so mad man. these poor people who look at the pricetag and buy. 

Mac hardware is good stuff. I really plan on going to mac when this PC finally dies.

People claim win PC's are so expandable. yea well... that sure inst the case with every win PC in this house. I dont buy cheap PC's either. its really funny. I switched a 4 year old Dell over to Mandriva linux. the computer runs 20 degrees cooler inside the case now. 

Windows is really a crap OS. XP is okay, not great. its kinda like OS X 10.1 Vista....dont get me started.

gamers are going to be the only ones left running expensive win PC's.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 29, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> If Macs were as big and successful as their users hoped, holding the biggest market share, who do they think the virus and adware writers will turn to?


All software is equally vulnerable to attack?



			
				Esplender said:
			
		

> On the other hand, my statement is sincere.


And needlessly inflammatory without actually contributing anything at all.



			
				Ron Overdrive said:
			
		

> Yeah I noticed that about Mac users. Many of them become very defensive about their choice to use a Mac. This is usually because they spent double the amount of money on a brand name computer (so its more of an investment) and they get hassled by many PC users. Others can be very arrogant because they think they're above everyone else who still uses Windows and occasionally has problems with it. I guess they like to believe they have a superior product because they paid out the ass for it that makes them above everyone else.


No, it's the other way around: the people who are like that in the first place are attracted to Apple.

Also, I have a MacBook.  It's a nice laptop.


----------



## net-cat (Oct 29, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> All software is equally vulnerable to attack?


No, but the weakest link is the user.

1. Click this link.
2. Enter your password if prompted.
3. ???
4. Free Porn!

It's the same reason UAC would be doomed to failure in Vista even if Microsoft did get it right.

PICNIC Error. Problem in chair, not in computer.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 29, 2007)

net-cat said:
			
		

> PICNIC Error. Problem in chair, not in computer.



BEAUTIFUL!

Im'a borrow this, k?...


----------



## net-cat (Oct 29, 2007)

Feel free.

I borrowed it from someone else.


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Oct 29, 2007)

Eevee said:
			
		

> No, it's the other way around: the people who are like that in the first place are attracted to Apple.
> 
> Also, I have a MacBook.  It's a nice laptop.



MacBooks are nice looking and are well equiped, but I would never own one. From what I've seen the speakers aren't all that great especially if you're using the mic (one speaker mutes and becomes the mic making it go mono sound), they get scorching hot, and they got motorized dvd burners which I don't like (seen too many discs get destroyed by those types of drives). Don't get me wrong its a beautiful looking machine, but its not for me.


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Oct 29, 2007)

FreerideFox said:
			
		

> a pro mac will demolish every win PC here.
> 
> 16GB DDR2 RAM
> 750GB hard drive
> ...



*applauds*

And I'm only going to say this ONE MORE FUCKIN TIME: A PC does *NOT* have more games available to it compared to an Apple computer. Any Apple computer made within the last few years will be able to support Bootcamp (or Pannels or VirtualPC etc etc etc) and be perfectly capable of running whatever games you'd want.

Actually, Apple computers can run more games then PCs can, having access to Windows, Linux and OS X games. There are only a few Mac only games, but they're around. (Marathon anyone?  )


----------



## ADF (Oct 29, 2007)

Do I really have to bring up that age old argument about using boot camp to run Windows? I suppose it works both ways since Leopard was hacked on day one to run on none Mac hardware, but running a Mac OS on PCs makes less sense than Windows on Macs.

Frankly all those Mac users going on about Leopard saying â€œLook what we have and you don't silly Vista usersâ€ is getting on my nerves, but not in the way they think. Why should I care if Mac gets a new OS? I'd need to throw away all my high end PC hardware to run the damn thing, unless I was willing to break the law and hack it onto PC of course. After doing so what would I gain from it? A locked down platform that I need to emulate Windows on to do anything I like anyway.

I can walk down the shops right now and buy any hardware or software and know it will run on PC without even reading the back. I can run any software application I want, I can run any game I want, I can buy any brand of hardware I want and I don't need Apple's explicit permission to do so. If you are happy being on the console equivalent of a PC then fine be happy, but the moment you start boasting your over priced brand name machines are better than the open PC platform I will slap you one across the head.

And for the record.



> 16GB DDR2 RAM
> 750GB hard drive
> that quaddro video card or whatever its called? I think its 1GB or 768 but I'm not sure.
> 3.0 dual quad core
> ...


What on earth is that thing? O.=.o

A ridicules amount of ram no one but professional developers will need, a GPU optimised for CAD professionals rather than games, a ridicules amount of cores... it is not what you have but what you do with it.

The only thing that would be of interest to the average Joe is the monitor; the rest is only of use to graphics professionals, it is like they threw it all in there as a excuse to ramp up the price. $7000 for that? I'd put a $2000-$3000 PC up against it any day, because despite having all those resources that system simply wasn't intended for general use.

Whoever wrote that post is ignorant to what makes a practical computer for the average Joe, it isn't just about how much ram and how many cores you have.


----------



## FreerideFox (Oct 29, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Do I really have to bring up that age old argument about using boot camp to run Windows? I suppose it works both ways since Leopard was hacked on day one to run on none Mac hardware, but running a Mac OS on PCs makes less sense than Windows on Macs.
> 
> Frankly all those Mac users going on about Leopard saying â€œLook what we have and you don't silly Vista usersâ€ is getting on my nerves, but not in the way they think. Why should I care if Mac gets a new OS? I'd need to throw away all my high end PC hardware to run the damn thing, unless I was willing to break the law and hack it onto PC of course. After doing so what would I gain from it? A locked down platform that I need to emulate Windows on to do anything I like anyway.
> 
> ...


----------



## ADF (Oct 29, 2007)

FreerideFox said:
			
		

> Excuse me? insulting my intelligence is something you dont really want to do.



I'm insulting that setup in the context that crabby_the_frog  thinks it should be applied, that being gaming. Obviously anyone whose hardware knowledge is worth its salt can tell that system was not intended for gaming. For professional work sure, but calling Mac a better gaming system because of that setup and boot camp is ridicules.

Perhaps my last line was uncalled for; crabby was talking about gaming, not you.



			
				FreerideFox said:
			
		

> Second, my argument was more a responce to "mac's cant be upgraded" or "mac's hardware isnt powerful enough" how much more fucking power could you need than what I mentioned above? Also Joe Somebody...why would he buy a $7,000.00 computer anyway? I'm talking about high end computers. *go ahead, build a shitty gaming rig, it wont beat out that mac pro.* you bitch about price? well okay, how about the Dell XPS series? I believe those run around $5,000.00 and guess what? you get to run a shit os! only have 4GB of ram! and you get a cheap plastic crap case too! finding win pc manufacturers who even spec their PC's with a good solid case is hard to find!



Now you just crossed a line, you had me at a point were I was apologising but now you suddenly turned into a squealing PC bashing Mac fanboy.  Since you are now saying that system is good for gaming I'm changing what I said above, you are ignorant, I'll insult your intelligence as much as I like when you behave like that.

That is 'not' a gaming rig, it is a dev machine. All that memory and processing power is for professional work, even when applied to gaming it won't help jack when it is running a Quadro which is not designed for gaming. The Quadro series are a professional graphical solution for workstations that work with computer aided design and virtualisation applications.

Am I being clear enough? *It is not designed for gaming.* If you try to game with that card it will perform considerably less than the much cheaper high end range actually intended to be used in games like the 8800GTX. 16GB is a ridicules amount of ram when even the best games don't even touch 4GB and all those processing cores are moot when games are being designed with single, dual and only just now quad in mind. A dual core will provide all the power you need to enjoy a game, quad is over kill for enthusiasts, a 8 core system isn't even in the picture yet. You have it drilled into your head that more is better when you are not even considering how it will be applied, not even Crysis needs that much ram and processing power and it would most likely lag on that card anyway.

I'm not going to even touch your PC quality and price insults because as a Mac fanboy you cannot see anything past what is sold in retail.



			
				FreerideFox said:
			
		

> Joe somebody is going to talk into a store, see a $399.99 PC, a $999.99 PC then a big fancy mac. most likely he is going to go with the 399 computer. to him a computer is just a computer.
> 
> I'm more than happy to buy a computer that JUST WORKS. took 5 hours to get my win PC running with my graphics card properly. I could go downstairs and just slap some mac hardware into my G3 and it would probably just work (not going to try it, the G3 is too tired and not worth spending cash on)
> 
> "Vista, $500.00 dollar version of poker"



And that last part just didn't make any sense, sounded like argumentative rambling without any particular point being made. It's not my fault your PC technical skill is so low that it took you 5 hours to set up a computer. I see Mac users make such a fuss about being able to plug and play hardware without needing to look for drivers, guess what? Neither do I. I install hardware and if it doesn't automatically set up the drivers Windows will search for and install the latest ones online. The only drivers I need to change regularly is my GPU ones, but that is because better optimisations are made regularly so it is a good thing to stay up to date.

I'd just like to say you fail; you might have had some influence on my perspective by coming up with a well thought out and calm response but no, you went all *crazy* Mac user on me. Between you and the guy on YouTube, who am I supposed to look to as a good representative of  Mac users? You are either swearing your head off about how much you think PCs suck or boasting about something that ends up being flawed.


----------



## net-cat (Oct 29, 2007)

Oh, goody! Mac/PC flamewar! *grabs some popcorn and s'more makings*


----------



## Kloudmutt (Oct 29, 2007)

[attachment=1939]
=D   
i have played in both teams and all i can say is that i prefer PC and thats it i also like mac but it just wont fit the standars i need


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Oct 29, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> I'm insulting that setup in the context that crabby_the_frog  thinks it should be applied, that being gaming. Obviously anyone whose hardware knowledge is worth its salt can tell that system was not intended for gaming. For professional work sure, but calling Mac a better gaming system because of that setup and boot camp is ridicules.
> 
> Perhaps my last line was uncalled for; crabby was talking about gaming, not you.



Well, that's a half truth.

I get far too much of:



			
				random moron said:
			
		

> Durrr... I ain't gonna buy a Mac!!! I can't play Counterstrike on a Mac!!!!!



I'm merely expressing that, you can indeed run "windows only" software on an Apple computer, and that's really the most common excuse people give me when they say why they'd rather buy a PC. Well, that and the price difference.


Sure, I admit, if I used my computer only for gaming, I would consider purchasing a cheap PC gaming rig. Definaltely. No questions asked.

But that's exactly it, I don't just use my computer for gaming. I barely do, actually. (WoW and Halflife and the only games I've played in atleast 3 months) I primarily use my iMac for video editing and school work. I use my iBook for taking notes in classes.

I just find that Windows (XP and especially vista) is too unreliable for work such as this. It's not the hardware that I question, it's the operating system. Both PCs and Macs have their strengths and weaknesses, this is true. But (and this is a VERY BIG BUT), the lack of games available to a Mac is NOT true, and I am sick and tired of being treated as though it is.


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 29, 2007)

crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> But (and this is a VERY BIG BUT), the lack of games available to a Mac is NOT true...



There are relatively few (very few) games that are designed to run in Mac OS.  Probably 80% or more of games available for home computers are made for Windows.

Just because they can be finagled into running on a Mac doesn't mean they were meant to.


----------



## FreerideFox (Oct 30, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Now you just crossed a line, you had me at a point were I was apologising but now you suddenly turned into a squealing PC bashing Mac fanboy.  Since you are now saying that system is good for gaming I'm changing what I said above, you are ignorant, I'll insult your intelligence as much as I like when you behave like that.
> 
> That is 'not' a gaming rig, it is a dev machine. All that memory and processing power is for professional work, even when applied to gaming it won't help jack when it is running a Quadro which is not designed for gaming. The Quadro series are a professional graphical solution for workstations that work with computer aided design and virtualisation applications.
> 
> ...



The last line was a joke, being that Vista "Ultimate" addons were dream scene and Texas hold em poker!

my points were not to play games, if I wanted to find you a mac that could play games better than what I mentioned I could have. here is the deal though. my friend and I sat here and specced out a win PC trying to get it to even match the performance of the mac I mentioned. total came to around $$8,000.00 which still proves my point, that a win PC using good hardware is going to be around the same price as a mac. 

As far as you thinking my PC skills are poor because I tried to install a video card. uhh....no, I know what I'm doing. my blame is to a shitty OS that wouldn't properly handle the drivers, no matter how I tried to configure my system. my guess if you were here when I installed it, it would have taken you the same amount of time. and well again...sorry because after an hour I gave up and called my friend who deals with this shit constantly and then it took him and I together 3 more hours to finally get the thing working right. It wasnt the hardware's fault, wasnt the hard ware companies fault, wasnt the user's fault (I installed the card on a different system and had no problems) it was a microshaft windoze problem. 

Mac Fanboy? thanks for the compliment! honestly. I own one mac. its an iMac G3 that I bought back in the day to get used to OS X. other than that, I dont own an expensive mac. I don't represent them in any way. come to my house! see my multiple win PC's and linux boxes. I was a dumb kid back when I purchased this computer. I thought I wanted to game on a computer, so I built a gaming computer! well ...now I've got a expensive computer running a 5 year old OS and a less than year old OS that doesn't work half the time (vista)

How can you stay loyal to microsoft? when they put out this bad of a product and keep pushing that manufacturers like Dell only supply vista despite dell wanting to give their customers a USABLE OS known as XP. How about we make 6 different versions of the same unstable overpriced OS! 

Dont get me wrong, I'm not a win PC hater. I just think that cheap hardware companies and Microsoft do a real disservice to their loyal customer's. I bought Vista when it was new. I expected that this OS should be at least a little better than tired old XP. But really...Vista was just a slap in the face! Not only that, but then leopard comes out. my dad buy's something called the "family pack" I can install that version of Leopard on 5 different Mac's. I don't have to go through any windows licensing bull shit!

What are you going to do? run XP untill 2009! even then, probably that PC you built wouldn't handle vista! despite how much I spent on mine, my computer still cant handle vista properly! are you going to be using XP for 7 years! going from a jump from XP to Windows 7 is going to flip you the fuck out. I cant imagine how much microsoft is going to even try to sell it for. $699.99 if we're lucky. 

I dont care, call me a PC hater! I'm sitting here typing this on a win PC, its all I have. Windows is just so...bleh! I want to do more on an OS than what XP has to really offer. Mac has been giving me what I want since 10.3.9. $199.99 for the family pack VS one use $499.99 (at the time) 259.99 now Vista. 

You choose, but honestly, a mac is always...ALWAYS going to be more user friendly and functional than what Windows is going to offer untill 2009. Which then, OS X will probably still be pwning. People are reading the dumb shit microsoft did. Microsoft's half assed OS really hurt them. I have never seen the mac stores at the mall so crowded. 

I didnt mean to piss you off. maybe this will a little more clarify where I was coming from. wouldn't you be mad if you bought a laptop with vista? its kind of like buying a computer without an OS. I just dont see how ANYONE can be loyal to microsoft. like you said, you love your expensive win PC. sure, I love mine too, but anymore even the little patches for XP are starting to impede my progress as I work and do more intensive tasks on my computer. Anymore, I just want to get my work done. I want an os that isnt going to have a fit. I just want my computer to do all my work on (video and graphical production/animation) and just...work. I'm tired of this hassle trying to get my PC to operate smoothly through all my apps. my buddy got a mac, he'll never go back.

Call me a Mac Fanboy if you want. But I'll be getting shit done and I'll be able to wake up in the morning and just be able to turn on my computer and have it work (and work smoothly)


----------



## OmegaGoji (Oct 30, 2007)

I have Windows XP Pro running here. Thank You, University Discount


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Oct 30, 2007)

Wow.. only took 1.9 threads to turn into a flame war. New record (not really).

As for Mac not having many games I believe people are referring to games natively written for Mac (ie not run through DarWINE or dual booted Windows). Natively written the answer is yes, Mac doesn't have alot of games. Most people don't want to be bothered compiling DarWINE or messing with Cider to get PC games to work natively which is why there's Bootcamp. Bootcamp is the mac equivalent of GRUB except it comes with the drivers disc for Windows so you don't have to hunt down drivers. Honestly if you want to count dual booting and environment emulation/visualization then both Mac and Linux have just as many games as Windows. Problem is majority of people don't count visualization and dual booting which is where people are getting bent out of shape.

And yes I have to agree that the Mac Pro that was described isn't a gaming machine by far. Its just a developer station. We have several of them at work.

Also... now a days there's no hardware difference between PC and Mac. Hell I've worked on Dells with the same hardware down to the model number on the motherboard as a Mac. The differences are warranties, the TDM chip code that allows Mac OS to install, and the OS. It all boils down to software preference.


----------



## Aikon (Nov 4, 2007)

I just bought a Mac a week or so ago and so far I like it.  I'm not loving it as much as I had hoped, but it does its job (usually).  I got a Mac Mini 1.83GHz C2D w/ 2 GB Ram and a 24" LG Monitor.  The processor is capable enough but the integrated video just barely pushes the eye candy OS X throws at it.  It's always ss.s.s.s...sstutturrrrr.rr.r.rinnng.  For a $599 machine that didn't even include a keyboard or mouse (let alone a monitor) I expected so much more.   My old P4 3GHz wasn't much slower than this...

OS X is nice, but it's not a far cry from Windows.  They both are stable (actually, Leopard keeps crashing on me left and right, I rarely had a problem with Vista!  Oh the irony!  Tiger was ok in the little time I've used it though), both are secure, and both are pretty.  The problem I had with Vista (and the Windows platform in general) was its constant "nagging".  Not necessarily UAC (OS X can be just as bothersome), but things like "OMG Your Hard Drive is 90% empty!".  Also, stupid things like the control panel being an utter disaster, and the taskbar not activating when you have it hidden are just a few annoyances I had, among a list of others... 

If I had to do it all over again, I'd reconsider the Mac.  For the same $$$ I could have gotten a much faster machine, with desktop components, upgradability, and much better software selection.  Plus I could have used the apps I already owned and paid for (Like ACDSee, I miss you so...).  I like my Mini though, but once they kill the Mini and *if* Apple releases a tower with desktop components and upgradability like Mac Pro at an iMac price... I'm going to getting rid of the SECOND Mini I've ever owned....

My opinion:  I'd like to go back to Windows OR buy an iMac and skip the Mini.


----------



## Magnus (Nov 4, 2007)

k.... so why are the spec's of a MAC so low? 

i mean, i can buy a core2quad for $999, system with keyboard and mouse, 22inch screen is $299
and a poorly spec'd MAC costs $1400+  

wut?


----------



## DavidN (Nov 4, 2007)

I don't think they're really comparable just looking at the raw specifications as they use their processors so differently (much like you can't just look at clock speed to compare PCs).

Having said that, $850 for 4GB of memory is fairly ludicrous.


----------



## net-cat (Nov 4, 2007)

I was going to say that's about the going rate for 2x2GB of notebook memory, but I just looked around and that's no longer true. 2x2GB DDR2-800 of notebook memory goes for less than $200, these days.

(I know Mac Minis and iMacs take notebook memory.)


----------



## Emberlyn (Nov 13, 2007)

I've have a Mac for 5 years now (First an eMac, now a brand new iMac), and I also used a PC up until that point.

For me, Mac's were like a godsend. They are perfect for me, what I want to do, and my lifestyle and needs, so I'm very happy with them. I have no problem upgrading them, I actually open up my iMac (breaking the warranty, oh no's) to upgrade things that you're not suppose to. But I love it so much it's worth it. =)

I really have no problem paying that much for a machine. I'd rather buy it than a PC which I will have to fight against and ultimately will want to throw against the wall. This happens each time I use PC's now. XD

Also, all the software and extra features (ie: webcam) bundled on the Mac justifies it's price. That's where the price (at least on the machines I've gotten) come from. I've maxed it out and it's going to be good for me for the next 4 years. =)


----------



## NerdyMunk (Nov 13, 2007)

windows has paint, but very often gets viruses, and macs don't really crash that much.


----------

