Mac vs PC

[dtugg]

Apple is slow to adopt new hardware, and rightly so. Apple is also one of the companies pushing away from hard-copy media purchasing models. You're talking about the company that owns the iTunes store, remember? Why are they going to put blu-ray players in their computers when what they really want you to do is buy the movie from them?

Yes, Apple is certainly all about making money (as are all companies). But a Blu-Ray certainly beats a digital download and will anytime soon.

 

[tesscaline]

Some of what you say is correct. But Apple also offers really crappy graphics cards for the prices they charge.

That can also be said for Dell, or pretty much any other "out of the box" computer supplier.

I would also argue that "crappy" is subjective. I've definitely seen graphics cards that are much less in terms of quality and performance than what Mac uses.

 

[GreNME]

I honestly believe that a big reason why PC is so popular for gaming (besides the economic concerns I've mentioned already) has to do with the mentality of the typical hardcore gamer, and less to do with the actual capabilities of a Mac (these things are workhorses, seriously, and kick out some serious power). It's that the gaming community is big into upgrading their computers every time a new video card is released. Always tweaking and poking and upgrading to try and get just one extra frame per second (not that it really makes a difference above a certain threshold... there's only so many FPS the human eye can see!). You can't do that on a Mac (well, you can on a MP, but most people don't want to pay the premium to be able to do that). But you can on a PC.

Wow, just wow. You should really take a deep breath whenever you start to posit "the mentality" of any group you're about to describe, but that's beside the point that you seem to believe it's the gaming enthusiasts who are driving the game development market. For the longest time, gaming enthusiasts made up a minuscule percentage of the overall market, even of the game-buying market. I don't know what the enthusiast versus the larger market might be now, but I'd be surprised if it were even as high as a third, let alone greater than half.

The reason so many developers write so much more stuff for Windows and non-Apple computers-- and I hate to break it to you, but the software for other "unix based" operating systems doesn't work on Macs by default (and some not at all)-- is because Windows PCs make up greater than 90% of the personal computing market out there. That's the reason, plain and simple. The reason Windows PCs make up the overwhelming majority is because Microsoft did something that Apple didn't: wooed the business sector heavily and successfully. Apple has historically sucked and continues to suck at leveraging any real marketing savvy to get business presence. Zero or minuscule business presence means people are using something else at work than Apple, which means that most of them will opt for something similar to what they use at work for home use. Microsoft knew this 30 years ago and acted on that, and in the long run it's paid off-- they dominate the market as a result. As the dominant presence by an overwhelming margin, there is an overwhelmingly larger percentage of developers who are writing software for that platform.

There's very little "Mac vs. PC" to the reasoning behind that explanation, unless you want to count corporate foresight and market influence as something inherent to Macs or Windows PCs.

 

[tesscaline]

Yes, Apple is certainly all about making money (as are all companies). But a Blu-Ray certainly beats a digital download and will anytime soon.

Look. You don't want a Mac. You are not the intended target market of the Mac. To you, a blu-ray is important. To other people, not so much (we have our blu-ray in a PS3, and we don't even have any blu-ray disks to watch yet, and in this economy, probably won't be buying any any time soon either).

You're arguing over things that are very obviously personal preferences, and I really don't see the point.

 

[GreNME]

Some of what you say is correct. But Apple also offers really crappy graphics cards for the prices they charge.

That can also be said for Dell, or pretty much any other "out of the box" computer supplier.

Tu quoque, and a completely false one at that. On average, Dell's consumer line sells mid-range graphics cards of name-brands, and higher-end graphics cards than Apple does for its business machines.

 

[GreNME]

You're arguing over things that are very obviously personal preferences, and I really don't see the point.

That is the point: the whole argument about Macs vs PCs is all about personal preference. That you and some others keep trying to make qualified statements of an objective nature is not only wrong, it's often demonstrably false.

 

[tesscaline]

Wow, just wow. You should really take a deep breath whenever you start to posit "the mentality" of any group you're about to describe, but that's beside the point that you seem to believe it's the gaming enthusiasts who are driving the game development market. For the longest time, gaming enthusiasts made up a minuscule percentage of the overall market, even of the game-buying market. I don't know what the enthusiast versus the larger market might be now, but I'd be surprised if it were even as high as a third, let alone greater than half.

The reason so many developers write so much more stuff for Windows and non-Apple computers-- and I hate to break it to you, but the software for other "unix based" operating systems doesn't work on Macs by default (and some not at all)-- is because Windows PCs make up greater than 90% of the personal computing market out there. That's the reason, plain and simple. The reason Windows PCs make up the overwhelming majority is because Microsoft did something that Apple didn't: wooed the business sector heavily and successfully. Apple has historically sucked and continues to suck at leveraging any real marketing savvy to get business presence. Zero or minuscule business presence means people are using something else at work than Apple, which means that most of them will opt for something similar to what they use at work for home use. Microsoft knew this 30 years ago and acted on that, and in the long run it's paid off-- they dominate the market as a result. As the dominant presence by an overwhelming margin, there is an overwhelmingly larger percentage of developers who are writing software for that platform.

There's very little "Mac vs. PC" to the reasoning behind that explanation, unless you want to count corporate foresight and market influence as something inherent to Macs or Windows PCs.

It would seem that you have completely ignored my previous statements (that I even pointed out in the post you're getting so fired up over) about the economic and market concerns regarding Mac being such a small share of the market. Please back up a second and go re-read that.

 

[tesscaline]

That is the point: the whole argument about Macs vs PCs is all about personal preference. That you and some others keep trying to make qualified statements of an objective nature is not only wrong, it's often demonstrably false.

I'm not the one bashing a particular computer company here, so I'm not entirely sure what "qualified statements of an objective nature" you're referring to, but I have been continually saying that this is about preference. In fact, I've said repeatedly that I think this whole thing is stupid because of the unquantifiable nature of said preferences.

What exactly are you disagreeing with me on?

 

[not daSkeptic]

All of these issues about technical specs and whatnot are entirely irrelevant in my opinion. As GreNME correctly pointed out, Apple is different. They aren't trying to make field-upgradable commodity computers. They don't want those customers. They want 1) non-tech-savvy individuals, and 2) professionals whose top priority is getting a job done. They couldn't care less about the random people who want to tweak their systems or constantly replace parts with <insert unknown brand here>. That's not the market they're after.

 

[Yoink]

I'm not the one bashing a particular computer company here, so I'm not entirely sure what "qualified statements of an objective nature" you're referring to, but I have been continually saying that this is about preference. In fact, I've said repeatedly that I think this whole thing is stupid because of the unquantifiable nature of said preferences.

What exactly are you disagreeing with me on?

I guess that bolded claim is, strictly speaking, true--given that you are the one who is bashing ALL PCs, not one particular PC manufacturer. A brief reminder seems to be in order:

Yes, my printer works equally well on a mac as it does on a windows machine. However, on a mac, it took 30 seconds to install (literally). On a windows machine, 4 hours. Yes, you read that right. 4 HOURS.

My digital camera works great on both platforms. On the mac? No install process required at all. Just plug it in, boom photos. On windows? 30 minutes of installing software and drivers before photos.

Setting up a new network connection on mac? 30 seconds. On windows? Who the heck knows how long, but I've seen struggles ranging anywhere from 10 minutes to giving up after no result in 3 hours -- the exact same network that a mac could connect to with no problem, and there were not any hardware issues, it was just the software.

The argument "you could build a computer for less" will never fly with me (whether or not it's actually true) because the cost of the computer isn't just how long it takes to build. It's how much time it sucks out of your life over the course of it's own.

Over the course of my life, I've used most of the major (and some of the not so major) operating systems out there. DOS, Unix, Linux (in various forms), Mac (when it wasn't unix), Windows... The list goes on. Hell, I grew up using DEC Alpha stations in my dad's lab, and unix terminals at home to dial into a university server on a 28.8 connection. I'm no stranger to computers or how they work. I've built them, repaired them, upgraded them, formatted them and reformatted them. And hands down, modern Mac is the absolute least amount of work.

PC (and yeah, linux too sometimes) is great if you're happy wasting your time dealing with inane issues that keep coming up over and over and over again no matter how many times they get "fixed". Personally, I don't particularly enjoy wasting my time. So I use a computer that "just works". That's my personal preference -- to not waste my time and effort on frustrations that simply should not exist. I am willing to pay more in the short run so I end up paying less in the long run. So I do. And I'm 100% satisfied.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Yes, Apple is certainly all about making money (as are all companies). But a Blu-Ray certainly beats a digital download and will anytime soon.

What's puzzling is how they tout the resolution of their newest display on the iMac but the iTunes store currently only offers HD at 720p. That screen is begging for a Blu-Ray drive.

Rumor has it that Blu-Ray was pulled just before production started. Bummer.

 

[tesscaline]

I guess that bolded claim is, strictly speaking, true--given that you are the one who is bashing ALL PCs, not one particular PC manufacturer. A brief reminder seems to be in order:

Where am I bashing PC's? I'm doing nothing of the sort. Unless you consider saying that Apple isn't different (in terms of hardware) from other "out of the box" computer manufacturers "bashing PC's".

ETA: Windows != PC, and the post you quoted was my personal experience, and thus the justification for my preference for my personal action of switching to Mac (from windows), not a rant on how "all macs are better than PC".

 

[Almo]

I've installed a lot of Windows (98, NT 4, XP), and the smoothest windows installation EVER was on my Mac.

To me, the most important thing about Macs is homogeneous hardware. Apple knows exactly which drivers to stuff on the Boot Camp partition because they are the only manufacturers. Windows has the horrible battle to fight of having to work correctly with an absolutely ridiculous amount of different hardware.

Incidentally, it was 8 NT4 installs in one day. Had a striped raid, had to reinstall. But I didn't write down the raid striping scheme because I wasn't fully aware of what it meant, and had to keep retrying and guessing different configurations till I found the right one. That sucked.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I think it is also rather odd that Mac (which touts itself as the "computer of the people") does not support gaming anywhere near as well as the PC industry does. The selection of Mac games at the Apple store is pretty sparse compared to the game rack in the PC software isle.

...snip...

Apple have tried many times to get game developers and publishers on board but there has never really been enough of a consumer demand (because historically Macs were not "home PCs") and once PCs went "hardware accelerated" (kick started by the arrival of 3DFX's Voodoo cards) Macs (until recent times) just couldn't hardware wise compete as a gaming platform.

 

[not daSkeptic]

To me, the most important thing about Macs is homogeneous hardware. Apple knows exactly which drivers to stuff on the Boot Camp partition because they are the only manufacturers. Windows has the horrible battle to fight of having to work correctly with an absolutely ridiculous amount of different hardware.

I entirely agree. I think a lot of the issue surrounding PC vs Mac is a culture clash. The PC crowd is accustomed to things being a certain way and Apple isn't conforming to that. It is interesting to note that, in my experience, those who have spent time working with non-consumer computer systems (e.g. mainframes, high-end non-PC workstations, embedded devices, etc.) tend to find Apple's approach far less alien than those who only know mass-market products.

 

[Yoink]

Where am I bashing PC's? I'm doing nothing of the sort. Unless you consider saying that Apple isn't different (in terms of hardware) from other "out of the box" computer manufacturers "bashing PC's".

ETA: Windows != PC, and the post you quoted was my personal experience, and thus the justification for my preference for my personal action of switching to Mac (from windows), not a rant on how "all macs are better than PC".

Where are you bashing PCs? Why allow me to draw your attention to the peroration of the argument I quoted above:

PC (and yeah, linux too sometimes) is great if you're happy wasting your time dealing with inane issues that keep coming up over and over and over again no matter how many times they get "fixed".

 

[tesscaline]

Where are you bashing PCs? Why allow me to draw your attention to the peroration of the argument I quoted above:

PC (and yeah, linux too sometimes) is great if you're happy wasting your time dealing with inane issues that keep coming up over and over and over again no matter how many times they get "fixed".

Whatever dude. I really don't see how complaining about my PERSONAL EXPERIENCES with an OPERATING SYSTEM (or group of such) is the same as bashing a COMPUTER MANUFACTURER. Especially when immediately thereafter I stated that it was my PERSONAL PREFERENCE and that others PERSONAL PREFERENCES were fine.

And really, if you have to cherry pick that much to try and prove your point? I don't think you have much of a point.

ETA: Fixed your quotes for you.

 

[Yoink]

Whatever dude. I really don't see how complaining about my PERSONAL EXPERIENCES with an OPERATING SYSTEM (or group of such) is the same as bashing a COMPUTER MANUFACTURER. Especially when immediately thereafter I stated that it was my PERSONAL PREFERENCE and that others PERSONAL PREFERENCES were fine.

And really, if you have to cherry pick that much to try and prove your point? I don't think you have much of a point.

ETA: Fixed your quotes for you.

It's not "cherry picking" to point out that you said exactly what I had claimed that you said.

ETA: It's also completely disingenuous of you to say that you were only talking about "personal preferences" when you were quite explicitly claiming that people in general who buy PCs will end up "wasting [their] time dealing with inane issues that keep coming up." You were, very clearly (and repeatedly) making the claim that Macs are more reliable than PCs and less fuss to use. You don't say "I've just personally had bad experiences with PCs, I guess I must have been unlucky" you say that PCs are simply inferior machines.

 

[tesscaline]

It's not "cherry picking" to point out that you said exactly what I had claimed that you said.

ETA: It's also completely disingenuous of you to say that you were only talking about "personal preferences" when you were quite explicitly claiming that people in general who buy PCs will end up "wasting [their] time dealing with inane issues that keep coming up." You were, very clearly (and repeatedly) making the claim that Macs are more reliable than PCs and less fuss to use. You don't say "I've just personally had bad experiences with PCs, I guess I must have been unlucky" you say that PCs are simply inferior machines.

Taking one single sentence, completely out of context, ignoring it's original context, and then trying to say it means something completely other than what the author intended is exactly what cherry picking is. And it is exactly what you have done. Now, if that one line had been my entire post, sure, you might have a point. But it was not. I made a point in the post you are quoting from of pointing out that people have varying priorities when it comes to time and effort, so how much time they spend dealing with an OS (if they even end up having to) will matter less to some than to others. Stating that for me, having to spend time dealing with an OS that has in the past caused me no end of problems, is something that I personally do not want to do, is not on equal footing with something to the effect of "Apple are douchebags".

I don't consider it disingenuous at all to say that my personal experience with Windows and Linux causes me to feel that my time was wasted, and leads me to feel that other peoples time may be wasted (by my subjective definition of "waste") as well. What is the personal preference is whether or not you feel that it is a waste or not. Whether time is wasted is extremely subjective.

But fine. If you want to ignore the entire context of what I said, and have been saying, sure. By your intentionally limited view, it may seem like I PC bashed once. I don't see it that way.

 

[tesscaline]

Truly badly done drivers. What was the printer? Installed HP,Canon and Brothers on Windows 98,XP,Vista and 7. Nowhere near 4 hours,either of them. Same for any other device.

Printer was an HP, color printer, scanner, fax, all in one sort of deal.

What drivers? (Panasonic Videocamera - USB and Firewire in a minute using XP drivers)

Olympus still digital camera. Required drivers, or wouldn't be recognized. Drivers happened to be bundled with pointless and stupid photo editing software (when I had Corel, so didn't need that junk), and it was pretty impossible to separate the two. Same camera required no drivers at all on my Mac.

Ethernet is a piece of cake and I did it countless times. Wireless is bit worse depending on network setting. Even Windows 98 didn't give much problem.

What went wrong there? (After drivers it was always straight-forward)

Was wireless. I wasn't privvy to the solutions for all cases, but in at least a few there was some sort of permissions problem that seemed to have been a setting that no one was even aware of existing (even the guys at microsoft who were called when the IT department came up blank). I do wish I remembered what that setting was... There was no explanation as to why it affected some computers but not all (or even the majority), and they only found the solution by giving up and randomly enabling and de-enabling each and every setting in series.

Right. But thene again I need to build and setup a new computer in a half of day,which is usually ready to use including network.(Unless deviaiton is found)

Okay...

Just MS-DOS survivor,Windows 3.11,95,98,XP,Vista and Windows 7 and some experience with Debian(Virtualboxed)

Doing computers,repairs and administration for six years.

Okay...

I would love to see such system... (sounds fun to diagnose it)

Sounds like bad motherboard.(possibly first revision) Seen it. And even workaround,so PC was usable.

It was a serious pain in the behind... No fun to diagnose at all. Thinking back on it, there probably was some sort of problem with the motherboard, but that wreck is long gone now, so no way to check into it.

Anyway macs simply have no value to me as I need to be able to upgrade as needed and what is needed. (GPU,RAM,CPU..) or add things. Like nice PC-Card adapter so I can reuse unused PC-Cards...

Current main rig:
Core2 E4500
Standard Gigabyte mainboard (USB,PCIe,PCI,LAN,5.1 sound,SATA and PATA)
2GB Corsair XMS2
500GB HDD
Geforce 9500 512MB
DVDRW
500W power unit
in Big tower

planned upgrade Core i7 and 6GB. (I have Xeon,but it is for compnay server)

And BTW.:So far the only way to crash Windows 7 is to have bad driver and attempt to hibernate/sleep. (Usually wireless driver is culprit)

Well good. You're happy with non-mac systems, so you should stay with them. Your need to modify computers also makes mac a bad idea for you (unless you were going to get the MP, but it would probably be overkill for your needs). And there's absolutely nothing wrong with you going with the setup that best works for you.