PC vs. MAC

Post Reply New Topic

I know this is an old thread but here goes:

That could be because the Macs you have at work are off a lesser quality than Max's G5. Anyway that was made before Macs started using Intel so there's no longer as much difference between the two.



I've seen people using very old PCs that worked fine. And anyway Macs don't last forever. My grandfather bought a Mac in 1986 and it broke down in 2006 whereas my Pong machine is nearly 40 years old and it still works.

The same tired arguments of Mac vs PC have been repeated ad nauseum but for me it's the little things. It's not which one is more powerful, which one has more games or which one is more expensive. It's just all the little details in OSX that make me think Apple have no idea about ergonomics. It always takes more clicks to do the same thing in OSX compared to Windows 7.

I think it all comes down to design. Take for example the design of the Mighty Mouse. I have to use one at work. I waste time by using the scroll bars on everything because the scroll ball is clogged up to the point where the rubbing it on paper trick no longer works and back when it did work it only solved the problem for five minutes. How did something like this ever make it through product testing? If I could just remove the ball I could take the gunk out of it but it's hermetically sealed.

They dumb down their computers to make them easier to use but they're not easier to disassemble. When a guy has a broken screen on his Macbook and he take it to the "genius bar". He gets it back and the "genius" tells him in order to fix it they had to erase the hard drive. Really they just tossed it and gave him a new one. Apple make disposable computers.

That could be because the Macs you have at work are off a lesser quality than Max's G5.

We have at least one G5. I don't think it's used much any more.

For me it's more like Windows vs Ubuntu Linux. I use both. Now I am completely on Linux and I am happy with it. I had some problems with configuring WiFi connection specific to my PC.
But speed way better then Windows. I use Virtual Box, it's free and even better with performance then VM Ware.

It's also nice to use trial programs, I have template with Windows. When trial expires I just clone VM and install program again. Each program works on it's own VM. It's also better for security.

Windows was too distructive... I probably a compulsive gamer I just stick with some activity... I think like for 5-10 mins but it may take hours or even several days without sleep. So with Linux it's programming and work... Which is better then time wasting on games.

With Linux it's way esier to install and configure development environments then with MacOSX IMHO... But anyway you may use VM with Mac... So it's just a personal choice...

I leave in Ukraine and here Apple doesn't have good customer support and 2 times expensive then US. So using PC just money saving and easier.

And of course it didn't occur to you that it's illegal to do that, and posting about it on a public forum is probably idiotic.



Not really, no.



Can't argue there.



Not really. Honestly, it's about the same, depending on what development environment you're talking about you either install Xcode (or gcc utils on linux), you install netbeans/Eclipse/<insert java IDE here>, or you install apache (or just enable it on OS X).

Actually KDE is now very resource efficient just try it and you'll be surprised, it uses less resources than Gnome shell and unity easily.

If I had the money I'd have several of each, but, I'm poor, so I have a wintel machine. It's a lot easier to assemble a windows box (or a linux box) from selected parts. When you buy a Mac, you get a complete machine with apple selected parts at a premium price.

Personally, I have been turned off by the behavior of Apple as a corporation, you know, the whole patent trolling business.
Also, any gains in performance are not justified by the significantly higher price. I'm not even sure Apple really cares that much about the macintosh line so much anymore. It's not their main moneymaker. It's all about the iPhone & iTunes for Apple.

Linux could be an option, but I don't feel like learning about Linux. It seems to me that everything on linux is unnecessarily complicated. But I don't know much about linux, that's just my impression as an outsider. Not to mention Adobe does not develop for linux, and I prefer Photoshop MUCH more than what Linux has to offer in that arena.

I'm on a MAC in a Hawaii hotel.

Linux is actually much simpler these days than ever before.
I'm actually using it as my main OS these days, much to my own surprise.

You should give Linux Mint a try if you're interested.
I'm really liking it, and I'm impressed with the ease of installation, use, and the gui interface.

Also, although I'm not a graphics guy so I couldn't tell you for sure, I've heard that GIMP (GNU's free answer to Photoshop) gives Photoshop a run for its money in most areas and in a few blows it out of the water.

Granted, the learning curve for Linux is a little steeper and it helps to be comfortable with the command line interface for some of the more advanced stuff, but having run both Windows and Linux on the same box I can tell you that Linux outperforms Windows in almost every way and I can even run Play on Linux which uses the WINE emulator to allow me to run many Windows programs directly from Linux without ever having to leave the gui.

Add to that the fact that you can repartition an existing Windows install and set it up to dual-boot, and there's really nothing to lose in setting up a Linux Mint installation on your system.
After all, if you don't like it, you can always just wipe the Linux partition and reformat it to NTFS and you haven't lost a thing.

Just my 2cents though.

I've actually stripped down KDE 4.8 of all the eye candy and shut off services that I didn't use. Compared to Gnome Shell or Unity, yes KDE uses less rescources than either of them, but when I stripped my install down, I got it down to slightly above 200 MB of (total system) RAM used, while with Gnome 2.30, Total system resources on the same system were at about 180MB of RAM used on the total system. So again, compared to Gnome 3 or Unity yes, KDE uses less rescources, but compared to Gnome 2 or XFCE, it uses slightly more.
The system that I did this on was running Debian 6.xx.

Still though, I have some appreciation for the new RazorQT desktop, which should start appearing more in the next year or so.

The Mac is more nicely engineered. If you open up the back and take a look inside you'll see it's beautiful inside. My last 17" Mac book pro was dropped on a tiled floor, run over by a sofa wheel, chucked around and literally chomped on by two toddlers. It's still fast and lovely.

The windows machines I've had have always failed me, my mac never has. They're more expensive but they just carry on ticking. They always look good, even the old ones, and they keep their value.

I don't hate Windows 8, but I do find most Windows laptops upsetting.

You have obviously never used a Toughbook.

This shows pics of one that lived in an Emergency vehicle that got burned in a forest fire.

I think I am used to the PC because you don't have to much to fix it. If a MAC breaks down, well, prepare to shell out a bunch of money for a new one.....

I've heard quite a few similar stories about Macs.

What can be fixed on a PC that can't be fixed just as easily on a Mac?

BTW it is "Mac" not "MAC".

I recently fired-up my PC's after almost 2 years of doing exclusively Mac.

I was quickly reminded of why I have grown to prefer Mac