• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

PC vs MAC

I have a Mac and a bunch of PCs. I prefer PCs.

However, I haven't had a "can't open a mac file on a PC" or vice-versa problem in at least a decade. In fact, moving files between to the two systems wasn't a problem when I was working in a Mac-only environment in 1993.

This is not a Mac vs. PC problem. When choosing a Mac over a PC, compatibility is not an issue for the vast majority of document types, and certainly not for anything widely used.
 
fowlsound said:
I am asking you these questions to elaborate on what you mean, how can that be overinterpreting? I am asking you these questions on direct quotes from your posts.

I will asume now that you refuse to answer the questions. Since you refuse to answer the questions I will now conclude that you refuse to admit you could possibly have been wrong.
Click to expand...


Another example of how you overinterpret.
 
CFLarsen said:
I already have.
Click to expand...

No you have not. Here is the list again:


1)So what is incompatible?

2)What files have you recieved from a mac user you couldn't open?

3)What software suite can you name on the mac that cannot save in a compatible format for pc users?
 
For what it's worth, I've only used Macs, both at home and at work. I prefer Macs. I like the way they look, not only in terms of the GUI but also the overall design. Had I been brought up using PCs, I might feel different, but for me, the Mac does what I want it to do. I've only had to replace one dead hard drive on my G3/266 (my first computer). Since then I've owned two Macs--a G3/400 (which I would later upgrade with a faster processor, a DVD burner, a faster video card, a larger hard drive, more memory and additional Firewire and USB ports--so much for lack of upgradeability!) and a G5/2.5Ghz PowerMac tower. I have yet to have any trouble with either of them and the G5 is all the computer I could ever think to use for at least the next three or four years.

Insofar as these PC vs Mac discussions, each will do what you want it to do--if you know how to use them properly. A bad mechanic will always blame his tools. If you take care of your computer with regular maintenance (cleaning out old files, etc.), regular updates and not download things that you have no clue what they are, then there's no reason why either platform won't do what you want it to do. The problem, most often, lies on the person on the other end of the screen. When one fanboy starts ridiculing the other because they're using the "wrong" machine, then you're accomplishing nothing. Enjoy the platform you're using, wish the other person the best of luck with theirs, hope they get the same experience out of their machine as you do yours, and go on your merry way.

It's not that hard to stop making fun of someone for using a Mac or PC because you personally don't use it.

Michael

ETA: There's really only one or two people this message is meant for. They probably know who I am referring to, but will still think I'm wrong. So what.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Wagg said:
In fact, moving files between to the two systems wasn't a problem when I was working in a Mac-only environment in 1993.
Click to expand...
Somewhat tangentially, the same is true for most Unix flavored boxes tranferring files to PC/MAC and vice versa. File interoperability is nearly transparent these days (the whole line feed/carriage return issue pops up once in a while if you're working with raw text... but even that is easy enough to fix.)

Being that Macs can run Windows now and the whole VMWare thing is becoming easier every day, it's really coming down to a choice of which applications you want to run efficiently. Games? You want a PC. A/V editing? You want a mac. Heavy duty tech work? Unix flavor (probably Linux distro or Solaris (if you hate yourself.)) Anything else you can probably do, but it might take a little more work and it'll probably run a little slower.
 
delphi_ote said:
Somewhat tangentially, the same is true for most Unix flavored boxes tranferring files to PC/MAC and vice versa. File interoperability is nearly transparent these days (the whole line feed/carriage return issue pops up once in a while if you're working with raw text... but even that is easy enough to fix.)
Click to expand...

Points I have repeatedly made.

delphi_ote said:
Being that Macs can run Windows now and the whole VMWare thing is becoming easier every day, it's really coming down to a choice of which applications you want to run efficiently. Games? You want a PC. A/V editing? You want a mac. Heavy duty tech work? Unix flavor (probably Linux distro or Solaris (if you hate yourself.))
Click to expand...


Terry is so going to beat you up for that Solaris crack. ;) Generally though, I would agree with that assessment. Which is why I have a windows machine, two macs, and (oddly enough) will be implimenting an OpenSolaris box once I get my hands on the sparc machine over at Rich's house.
 
fowlsound said:
CFLarsen has had a Larsen's List started on him in this thread, and now his favorite word used on him.

Good times.


Gonna answer either Claus?
Click to expand...

Oh, I am soooo glad I peeked back into this thread :D

PS. I still love my mac.
 
geni said:
Physics cards?
Click to expand...

technically yes, but not fully supported yet. If you install one it's usuable via windows. As a gaming add-on Mac OS support will lag for this (you can install one on a Mac and boot into Windows, but that doesn't really count.) I know zero windows users that have one.

There is very little being sold new today that won't run vista
Click to expand...
Not in it's full mode. Most of the el-cheapo systems don't have a Direct X 9 supported video or 512MB of memory. If you want to use Aero in the Premium product you need 1GB of memory. The system you priced below won't support Aero.

and when most of the computer useing world is used to useing your current systems messing with what the user can do risks loseing customers.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this means. Apple has been pretty good about allowing users to leverage their existing software as they move forward, and they've done it through much larger changes than Microsoft has ever attempted. The interface of Vista is as large a change as OS X was to Mac OS 9 users. So was XP interface different than Win95/Win2000 interface.

Apple's major changes:
Motoroloa 68xxxx processors to PPC => no loss of software, some loss in old software execution speed.
OS 9 => OS X. No loss of software, no loss in speed. Most software companies charge to upgrade to latest version.
PPC => Intel chips. no loss of software, some loss of execution speed for old software (not as much as expected). Most software companies provide free upgrade to native software.


So more expensive?
Click to expand...
Depends on the end you're looking at. As I said, el-cheapo end will be more expensive. I wasn't clear, but the cost competitive side is on the more expensive end.

Apple: $3198

* Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
* 1GB (2 x 512MB)
* 250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
* Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
* One 16x SuperDrive
* Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
* Mac OS X - U.S. English

Dell: $3260

* Intel® Core™2 Extreme QX6700 (8MB L2 Cache,2.66GHz,1066 FSB)
* Genuine Windows® XP Media Center 2005 Edition with re-installation CD * 1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
* 250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM)
* Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW)
* 20 inch UltraSharp™ 2007WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
* 256MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GS

Heck for the price difference throw in Windows XP Home for the Mac and you can use that physics card.
 
To my mind the most decisive market share factor in this debate hasn't even been touched, and usually is not.

I would argue very strongly that MS market share does not come from the lone abilities of the Windows desktop OS.

It also does not come from home users. It comes from the corporate arena. Microsofts market share comes from the marketing and proliferation of its server platform, and all the Server side applications it has developed, acquired, made standard over the years. Windows is just a nice cookie cutter section of a larger MS marketing platform.

Corporate workgroups and domains, control over those domains, domain policies, SQL server, SharePoint, MS development platforms, Exchange etc etc etc, and the fact that MS attempts to tie it all together into a large enterprise type bundle.

That's MS market share. And I'd argue very strongly that no one else really has a complete platform that comes anywhere close to rivaling it. As much as you may dislike or think there are superior counterparts to the individual components of the entire MS suite of products. Its this entire suite that is an easy sell on the corporate level.

Most large companies do use a hybrid system, Windows on desktop and server side, MS enterprise level / server side apps. Unix Linux for various applications, Oracle, SAP, Apache Sendmail, Exchange. A smart company ties these products together.

The main realization is that while some argue that the little bit of extra cost for a high-end Mac is worth it to them, and I've no doubt it is, from a corporate stand-point, the viewpoint is the exact opposite. Is PC hardware and Windows cheaper when multiplied 200, 1000, 2000 times? Yes, and not by an insignificant amount. Windows ends up being the base system install of domain policy control, cost effectiveness etc etc. How fast does a typical end user really need to be running email and Office? Mac's used where necessary and where they make the most sense...of course. Very common.

Basically most people look at the Mac vs PC debate from a home user or small niche company perspective. I think the debate is pointless anyway as its been mentioned many times that people use PC's for a wide range or reasons and purposes and there is no BEST OS from that perspective. But many people forget to look at the debate from the large enterprise level, and miss that this is where Microsoft wins its battles in the market place.
 
kevin said:
technically yes, but not fully supported yet. If you install one it's usuable via windows. As a gaming add-on Mac OS support will lag for this (you can install one on a Mac and boot into Windows, but that doesn't really count.) I know zero windows users that have one.
Click to expand...

Just the first example that came to mind.

Not in it's full mode. Most of the el-cheapo systems don't have a Direct X 9 supported video or 512MB of memory.
Click to expand...

Where are you buying these systems with less than 512 meg of RAM (and the one laptop per child doesn't count)?




Depends on the end you're looking at. As I said, el-cheapo end will be more expensive. I wasn't clear, but the cost competitive side is on the more expensive end.

Apple: $3198

* Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
* 1GB (2 x 512MB)
* 250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
* Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
* One 16x SuperDrive
* Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
* Mac OS X - U.S. English
Click to expand...

dell $2,894

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6700 (4MB L2 Cache,2.66GHz,1066 FSB)
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
Dual Drives: 48x Combo + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
20 inch UltraSharp™ 2007WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
Dual 256MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GS
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center 2005 Edition with re-installation CD

I will admit that that system has the slight downside that it comes with AOL but other than that it appears to be better value.
 
Am I the only one who sees a computer as simply a machine to do certain things with, and care not at all about what software, exactly, is used to do it? I am using a five- or six-year-old machine.

While I will have to upgrade eventually, I suppose, I find it absurd that people find it necessary to buy a new computer strong enough to run the new operating system... which in effect, simply allows you to do all the stuff you could do with the OLD machine, anyway. What's the point?

Then again, I still listen to LPs and have a 20-year-old television, so perhaps I'm not representative.
 
geni said:
Just the first example that came to mind.



Where are you buying these systems with less than 512 meg of RAM (and the one laptop per child doesn't count)?






dell $2,894

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6700 (4MB L2 Cache,2.66GHz,1066 FSB)
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
Dual Drives: 48x Combo + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
20 inch UltraSharp™ 2007WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
Dual 256MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GS
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center 2005 Edition with re-installation CD

I will admit that that system has the slight downside that it comes with AOL but other than that it appears to be better value.
Click to expand...

I'd also add that as a gaming machine (which is what the Dell appears to be pitched towards) the Mac will suck. The benchmarks over at Toms Hardware are scoring the 7900GS at 3 to 4 times the capability of the 7300GT.

Oh, and your point previously about the Physics cards would probably have more validity if they hadn't been pretty much spurned by the gaming community ;) They cost too much for too little noticeable effect
 
Mongrel said:
I'd also add that as a gaming machine (which is what the Dell appears to be pitched towards) the Mac will suck. The benchmarks over at Toms Hardware are scoring the 7900GS at 3 to 4 times the capability of the 7300GT.
Click to expand...

No idea I just selected a machine that cost less than the mac and then put in as much stuff that would out perform the mac while staying below the MAC in price. It isn't something I would buy (I'd go for a weaker graphics card but stronger motherboard and CPU).

Oh, and your point previously about the Physics cards would probably have more validity if they hadn't been pretty much spurned by the gaming community ;) They cost too much for too little noticeable effect
Click to expand...

Give it time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom