[citation][nom]zelannii[/nom]so, you can get better than a 9600GT, for under $1500, in a 15" or larger screen with 1900x1200 or better resolution? (and with a 7 hour battery?) I can't find one. Sure, I can get faster CPUs in a notebook for less. Actually, I found 6 Dell models cheaper than the base 15" macbook pro with faster GPU, but 5 of the 6 used a SLOWER bus with that CPU and slower RAM on top of it, and per this very site in previous articles, they all benchmarked slower... Yea, it;s not a gaming powerhouse, but NO notebook is. The GPUs available in the iMac are not half bad (though the iMac can be underbid by about $2-300 vs a multipiece system, especially if you already own the screen). That said, if you're really a hard core gamer, Apple doesn't really care. You;re a nich that's less than 1% of the PC market as it is, and highly unprofitable to system builders. You're a cnadidate for a low end mac, or a mini, likely an iPhone or iPod, but not a performance Mac. macs are for the GENERAL public right now, as well as the high end COMPUTE market (not framerate, but CAd, photoshop, layout, and raw CPU performance - you can not get an 8 core performance xeon cheaper from anyone, not even building one yourself in most cases).[/citation]Hmm funny, I work for an Autodesk reseller and you know what none of the software we sell is supported on a MAC even running Windows, so don't mention CAD. Photoshop runs better on my Vista 64 machine than a coworkers MAC Pro and I've only got an E8600. It's also funny I have the worst battery in my Dell and I get 3.5hrs doing simple Word Email etc hell I did Revit on a plane for 3 pretty dang good if you ask me, and you know what I got out the door for around a Grand compared to what at those times 3K for a T7250 with 7200RPM HDD, granted my screen isn't as nice but it is usually hooked up to my 2048*1152 Samsung LCD anyway. Not to mention if Laptops are not gaming PCs anyway why did you make the argument in the first place. For the record I have used OSX it was easy Unix with a pretty shell, but I prefer Ubuntu or Fedora along with Windows Vista/Windows 7, XP just feels crusty.
- Status
Windows Vista and Win 7 have implemented :feastures" that were much-derided "features" touted in Windows XP. Namely, the ability of the OS to secretly ping a Windows Server somewhere and decide on whether the software on your machine is "legit" or "not legit". In essence, this is carte blanche permission for a machine to decide that your software is too old, or has been reinstalled too many times, so it must be illegal, or, that your new video card an RAM render your install illegal. While it is a great boon to MS's bottom line and does wonders to drive Office and OS revenue, it turns Windows into a second-rate Mac. Windows is not as stable or elegant as a Mac, and Mac has clearly superior built in software in the iLife suite.
I run XP, and will continue to do so because I see no reason to upgrade my perfectly fine 6 year old office suite on the say so of the company which stands to benefit from a server error which calls my software "not legit." I can build my machines and tinker with my XP machine to my heart's content, never having to worry about the mystery software update that will render this program or that non-functional. Which is why I froze my Windows progression at XP SP3.
I have moved all of my tech-challenged family to Mac minis. This has saved me dozens of hours in free tech support, and has resulted in non-tech people making MOVIES with their computers on a Mac. Macs rock for what they are for: an integrated system you do not tinker with. Great computers. Windows used to be for guys like me--I build mine, and tinker with mine. Newer Windows OS'es close the window on this.
I will stick with XP until game companies stop supporting it, and then, I will continue to use XP on my machine for production, and move to some other OS as needed. But until and unless MS can release a non-concentration camp security lockdown OS that can run fast on less than 6 GB of RAM and 256 MB of video RAM (for the OS ALONE!), MS 'aint getting any more of my money. Even now, I am considering a Mac for access to the fun and easy to use iLife.
Mac is not "better" than PC in some undefined sense. It offers a better experience with limited options for a greater number of less-tech-hip people. MS's mistake is in moving towards that model, where they cannot compete. They should have continued with a more open OS with more software choice, rather than treating decades-loyal customers like criminals or idiots.
I run XP, and will continue to do so because I see no reason to upgrade my perfectly fine 6 year old office suite on the say so of the company which stands to benefit from a server error which calls my software "not legit." I can build my machines and tinker with my XP machine to my heart's content, never having to worry about the mystery software update that will render this program or that non-functional. Which is why I froze my Windows progression at XP SP3.
I have moved all of my tech-challenged family to Mac minis. This has saved me dozens of hours in free tech support, and has resulted in non-tech people making MOVIES with their computers on a Mac. Macs rock for what they are for: an integrated system you do not tinker with. Great computers. Windows used to be for guys like me--I build mine, and tinker with mine. Newer Windows OS'es close the window on this.
I will stick with XP until game companies stop supporting it, and then, I will continue to use XP on my machine for production, and move to some other OS as needed. But until and unless MS can release a non-concentration camp security lockdown OS that can run fast on less than 6 GB of RAM and 256 MB of video RAM (for the OS ALONE!), MS 'aint getting any more of my money. Even now, I am considering a Mac for access to the fun and easy to use iLife.
Mac is not "better" than PC in some undefined sense. It offers a better experience with limited options for a greater number of less-tech-hip people. MS's mistake is in moving towards that model, where they cannot compete. They should have continued with a more open OS with more software choice, rather than treating decades-loyal customers like criminals or idiots.
Spanky Deluxe
Distinguished
- Mar 24, 2009
- 515
- 7
- 18,985
[citation][nom]konenavi[/nom]Actually my Inspirion 1520 is faster than a Macbook and CPU benching aside will probably keep up with the Pro seeing as mine is 65nm. I've had it longer than a year. The Pro is not a Gaming Laptop by any stretch of the word. I don't consider the 32 stream processor die shrunk 8600m GT that morphed into a 9600m gt a "gaming powerhouse". The Pro kinda sucks as well unless you need Xeons for coding, running lots of network code or Dual Processors.[/citation]
The Inspiron 1520 is certainly a decent laptop. However, its larger, 38% thicker, 41% heavier and a considerably shorter battery life. Its not a fair comparison.
The Mac Pro hardly sucks. Its an amazingly powerful machine. Its a waste for pretty much anyone on this site though and is certainly not meant for gaming. For things like video work, scientific research, etc etc, i.e. workstation stuff, the Mac Pro *workstation* certainly fits the bill. The only category Apple doesn't cater for are gamers.
[citation][nom]zelannii[/nom]you can not get an 8 core performance xeon cheaper from anyone, not even building one yourself in most cases).[/citation]
Alas this is no longer the case. Apple's doing a number on their professional buyers at the mo. The Nehalem Mac Pro is really bad value for money, they've upped their profit margins by at least $1000 over the previous line. The quad core machine is severely overpriced since it has relatively cheap components inside and the octo core Mac Pro should have the 2.66GHz chips at the 2.23GHz price point to stay in line with the same profit margins it is estimated they had with the previous two architecture generations.
They've gone the other way with the rest of their hardware though. Most of the rest of their machines are far cheaper than they were in the past. The 24" display is a relative steal due to the high cost of LED panels. Yes you can usually buy a Dell laptop with the same kind of internal specs as a MacBook for a fair chunk less. However, it will usually have far less battery life and be far thicker. Not to mention, its resale value three years down the line will be considerably less. Of course, I'm talking rubbish here since there's no way owning a Mac over three years could ever conceivably cost about the same as owning a PC. No no. That's crazy talk. (/facepalm)
The Inspiron 1520 is certainly a decent laptop. However, its larger, 38% thicker, 41% heavier and a considerably shorter battery life. Its not a fair comparison.
The Mac Pro hardly sucks. Its an amazingly powerful machine. Its a waste for pretty much anyone on this site though and is certainly not meant for gaming. For things like video work, scientific research, etc etc, i.e. workstation stuff, the Mac Pro *workstation* certainly fits the bill. The only category Apple doesn't cater for are gamers.
[citation][nom]zelannii[/nom]you can not get an 8 core performance xeon cheaper from anyone, not even building one yourself in most cases).[/citation]
Alas this is no longer the case. Apple's doing a number on their professional buyers at the mo. The Nehalem Mac Pro is really bad value for money, they've upped their profit margins by at least $1000 over the previous line. The quad core machine is severely overpriced since it has relatively cheap components inside and the octo core Mac Pro should have the 2.66GHz chips at the 2.23GHz price point to stay in line with the same profit margins it is estimated they had with the previous two architecture generations.
They've gone the other way with the rest of their hardware though. Most of the rest of their machines are far cheaper than they were in the past. The 24" display is a relative steal due to the high cost of LED panels. Yes you can usually buy a Dell laptop with the same kind of internal specs as a MacBook for a fair chunk less. However, it will usually have far less battery life and be far thicker. Not to mention, its resale value three years down the line will be considerably less. Of course, I'm talking rubbish here since there's no way owning a Mac over three years could ever conceivably cost about the same as owning a PC. No no. That's crazy talk. (/facepalm)
Spanky Deluxe
Distinguished
- Mar 24, 2009
- 515
- 7
- 18,985
[citation][nom]konenavi[/nom]Hmm funny, I work for an Autodesk reseller and you know what none of the software we sell is supported on a MAC even running Windows, so don't mention CAD. Photoshop runs better on my Vista 64 machine than a coworkers MAC Pro and I've only got an E8600. It's also funny I have the worst battery in my Dell and I get 3.5hrs doing simple Word Email etc hell I did Revit on a plane for 3 pretty dang good if you ask me, and you know what I got out the door for around a Grand compared to what at those times 3K for a T7250 with 7200RPM HDD, granted my screen isn't as nice but it is usually hooked up to my 2048*1152 Samsung LCD anyway. Not to mention if Laptops are not gaming PCs anyway why did you make the argument in the first place. For the record I have used OSX it was easy Unix with a pretty shell, but I prefer Ubuntu or Fedora along with Windows Vista/Windows 7, XP just feels crusty.[/citation]
People that do CAD work on Macs tend to use other software. I admit they're in the minority though. As far as photoshop goes, you're saying you 'only have an E8600' and its faster than your coworkers Mac Pro. It depends what you're doing but Photoshop isn't the most multithreaded aware app out there. In fact, until not very long ago it couldn't utilise more than two cores. In situations like that a 3.33Ghz Core 2 Duo will easily outperform pretty much any Mac Pro apart from the new 2.93GHz Quad or Octo cores. The previous generation Mac Pro had 2.8/3.2GHz Xeon chips that were basically just Core 2 Quads at heart. The new Nehalem Mac Pros are basically Core i7 chips. A faster single or dual core CPU will *always* perform faster than a slower quad or octo based setup if the app being used can't utilise more than one or two cpus at once.
Honestly, most people that use Mac Pros for Photoshop would be far better suited using a PC or an iMac. However, they're used to the professional Mac line and so stick with it.
People that do CAD work on Macs tend to use other software. I admit they're in the minority though. As far as photoshop goes, you're saying you 'only have an E8600' and its faster than your coworkers Mac Pro. It depends what you're doing but Photoshop isn't the most multithreaded aware app out there. In fact, until not very long ago it couldn't utilise more than two cores. In situations like that a 3.33Ghz Core 2 Duo will easily outperform pretty much any Mac Pro apart from the new 2.93GHz Quad or Octo cores. The previous generation Mac Pro had 2.8/3.2GHz Xeon chips that were basically just Core 2 Quads at heart. The new Nehalem Mac Pros are basically Core i7 chips. A faster single or dual core CPU will *always* perform faster than a slower quad or octo based setup if the app being used can't utilise more than one or two cpus at once.
Honestly, most people that use Mac Pros for Photoshop would be far better suited using a PC or an iMac. However, they're used to the professional Mac line and so stick with it.
nachowarrior
Distinguished
- May 28, 2007
- 885
- 0
- 18,980
CoryInJapan
Distinguished
- Aug 14, 2008
- 276
- 0
- 18,780
HaHa Apple is a joke.They think xp users will have a hard time transfering to Windows 7...I dont think so.Not as hard as it would be going from XP to mac.
Or should I say XP-7 would cost 150-200 w/e tp upgrade OS
TO upgrade from xp-mac = A whole New F'ing Computer with all new Op system thats not that easy for someone who has used windows all they're lives.
Or should I say XP-7 would cost 150-200 w/e tp upgrade OS
TO upgrade from xp-mac = A whole New F'ing Computer with all new Op system thats not that easy for someone who has used windows all they're lives.
omfgnoogies
Distinguished
- Aug 18, 2009
- 56
- 0
- 18,640
29.99 for student upgrade + an hour or two of upgrading... ooooorrrrr 2000$ and 5 hours in the apple store. Brilliant.
V8VENOM
Distinguished
- Dec 31, 2007
- 914
- 14
- 18,995
I love it, the Windows fanboy ignorance... Keep it coming you Ballmer tools -- be a slave to Ballmer's vision -- seems you windows fanboys share the same ignorant vision.
Speaking of shares, hmmmm Microsoft is $25/share, Apple $190/share -- Apple is up $50/share in just 8 months ... and what is Microsoft's increase, oh wait it hasn't increased significantly at all ... in fact Microsoft share price has been flat around the $23-$25 for the past 6 years (and no it hasn't split, last split was 2003)!!
As much as you fan boys want to believe in Microsoft, the rest of trading world (you know, the folks that actually have money) appears to not have much confidence is Microsoft at all. Microsoft went from their stock splitting almost once every year back in the 90's, to being deadlined since 2003. But hey, obviously you fanboys love your world or ignorance, it's "Safer" there for you, but the rest of world views Microsoft for what it really is -- a company riding the wave of estalished market share -- just like IBM did ... oh wait, IBM got out of the PC business -- making the connections now??
Speaking of shares, hmmmm Microsoft is $25/share, Apple $190/share -- Apple is up $50/share in just 8 months ... and what is Microsoft's increase, oh wait it hasn't increased significantly at all ... in fact Microsoft share price has been flat around the $23-$25 for the past 6 years (and no it hasn't split, last split was 2003)!!
As much as you fan boys want to believe in Microsoft, the rest of trading world (you know, the folks that actually have money) appears to not have much confidence is Microsoft at all. Microsoft went from their stock splitting almost once every year back in the 90's, to being deadlined since 2003. But hey, obviously you fanboys love your world or ignorance, it's "Safer" there for you, but the rest of world views Microsoft for what it really is -- a company riding the wave of estalished market share -- just like IBM did ... oh wait, IBM got out of the PC business -- making the connections now??
V8VENOM
Distinguished
- Dec 31, 2007
- 914
- 14
- 18,995
[citation][nom]dbzpic1[/nom]I'll buy a Mac when I'm able to run whatever I want on it like Windows..... [/citation]
Haha, what a Tool! Errr, junior, Mac's have been running Windows OS for many many years now -- it's call (Boot camp aka dual boot) or Parallels or VMWare or ... you Windows fanboys, your ignorance is hilarious!!
And for a time there, Intel was producing their fastest CPU exclusively for Mac's -- I'm sure this ate you Windows fanboys alive.
Blue light special, Isle 5 -- Windows 7 spend $200-$400 on your next shinny new OS that's no different that the old shinny OS call Vista ... oh there's consistency in naming -- a confused company, doing their best to confuse consumes that Windows 7 isn't really Vista SP3.
Haha, what a Tool! Errr, junior, Mac's have been running Windows OS for many many years now -- it's call (Boot camp aka dual boot) or Parallels or VMWare or ... you Windows fanboys, your ignorance is hilarious!!
And for a time there, Intel was producing their fastest CPU exclusively for Mac's -- I'm sure this ate you Windows fanboys alive.
Blue light special, Isle 5 -- Windows 7 spend $200-$400 on your next shinny new OS that's no different that the old shinny OS call Vista ... oh there's consistency in naming -- a confused company, doing their best to confuse consumes that Windows 7 isn't really Vista SP3.
dc_webster
Distinguished
- Aug 11, 2002
- 29
- 0
- 18,530
While Microsoft may have had predatory corporate actions in the past, and have, atleast in the past blissfully successfully glossed over some of their monopolising moves in the market place, I would choose Windows 7 over Mac OSX and the required hardware any day. Here is my take:
1. Yes, Microsoft have been rather predatory, doing things that may be considered unfair corporate practises, but in my humble opinion many large corporations make use of their "size" to get more business or to promote their products and there are thousands of corporations that push the boundaries of corporate anti-competiveness etc in thier pursuit of business. So Microsoft is not unique. Apple do similar things to stifyle competition and by design cost Apple users more money. Apple also treat their older users poorly by unnecessarily making things obsolete (somtimes stupid little things, but terribly annoying ones) by removing features or compatibility from hardware or software thereby leaving older customers in the cold and forcing them to find workarounds for particular pieces of hardware for no great reason other than to save production costs or because something more cool is replacing something no longer cool. I don't see this happen nearly as much in the PC world - users are usually given a lot of scope for backwards compatibility for a while for standards than with Apple who seem to make things incompatible at the drop of hat.
2. A lot of Mac proponents claim that their hardware is of a much better quality and that Mac OSX is more stable. Granted, Mac hardware is usually not sh!t, but most of it is off the self PC hardware re-managed - whether it be Hard disks, Graphics cards, Memory etc etc. And while Vista annoyed me for several months at release, OSX Leopard was also a problematic OS and probably saved MS from loosing a percentage of people for the reason that Leopard was bad also. I have friends who reported problems with various Mac hardware regardless of their aluminium cases and have first hand locked up the finder in mac in much the same way Explorer used to lock up in Windows XP. Another Mac loving friend was very dismayed when Leopard turned his PowerMac into a Blue screening POS. (he upgraded from Tiger). But yes, it is fair to say that Mac's are good looking (i.e. the aluminum [which may attmittedly make some products a little more durable]) and most seem to be well designed thermally. For the first time ever, I bought an Apple product (an ipod nano 5G) and there are so many problems with it all over the web and I am probably about to get a second replacement for faulty workmanship (on day 5) - so, all in all, their, "We're a [better quality] hardware company" is imho euphimistic.
3. Many on here have mentioned the "Apple Tax" - basically paying 50%+ for an equivalent computer. When considering point 2. above, Macs are not worth the extra money. Yes they have more included software, but if you're saving $500.00 on a cheaper machine (or $1000+ on bigger ones) you can buy some software for less than that or better yet go open source and do most things for free that Macs have extra in them anyway. (but yes, admittedly, the odd thing in this point on Mac OSX may still be a little better).
4. Given the proprietary nature of the machines, you have no real option to choose a more wider range of hardware both at build time (at apple) and when upgrading or when adding additional functionality. Sure, given the off the self nature of many parts you can upgrade some things and still get more into your system. My contention is that becuase of OSX, and perhaps because of other hardware implementations many options are not available to you and if they are, do to lack of competition, they are more expensive. (Someone can correct me here if things have changed lately.) And because of drivers there are many pieces of hardware you simply can not connect / plug in due to the lesser hardware compatibility base of the OS and or hardware. So you have less hardware to consider using and pay more for what you can.
5. In terms of backwards compatibility, with Windows 7, I can do the following. In open-source DosBOX, run 90% of DOS productivity software streching back to the 80s. In it I can also play 90% of DOS games from the late 80's and the 90's and play them well. With some small effort, I can get atleast 85% of Windows 9x / XP / Vista games to run natively in Win 7 stretching back to 1995. With Windows XP Mode, while requiring a more expensive version of windows, I should see problematic old accounting software etc that is XP bound run also. And if all else fails you may be able to get your app running in a VM (and yes you can do this on mac). So backwards compatibility is much better in Windows 7 for a larger selection of apps.
6. Software selection: Although this may be changing, software selection on Windows would out number Mac 100 to 1. This is especially true for niche and very specific software solutions. (Yes, I know you may be able to use a VM in Mac for this, but the fact is, if in windows already you probably dont need to and they will run more efficientally and in an integrated fashion). For the person who mentioned the 15 ish games available for Mac, there are, and probably will continue to be, 100 times more games on PC than on mac (tho this is changing with mac support gaining much more traction). But at the moment there is probably several thousand more games for PC of all types than there are for Mac. I would consider dual booting a Mac into Windows as a way of running games not nearly as good for two reasons: a. Obvisiouly you have to reboot to play a game b. you can't play the games as well as most PC's as smart built PC's have much better hardware for less. (so you are paying more to do something that is much cheaper and better equiped to do on a PC anyway).
7. Even Mac Security gurus will admit that Mac OSX is less secure than Windows 7. Although, its true that Macs are less often attacked and this makes them less of target, it doesnt mean the security is better if someone is having a go at infecting or otherwise tampering with your OS. iPhones are a good example of some poor apple security - its been reported that some business's are reluctant to use iPhones due to their security worries. I beleive OSX is in a similar position tho perhaps not as stark as the iPhone problems reported. I think the popularity of iPhones made them more of a target and showed up apples security holes in that product. The contention seems to be that OSX if targeted may be similarly vunerable.
8. My last point goes to flexibility of maintenance and expansion or re-coupling of hardware and software in PCs. Because of points 4 & 5 above, you have much more flexibility to considerably take your PC to pieces and make major changes. This is admittly a bit of rehash of points 4 & 5, but I feel it important to highlight to people considering Mac the great modularity of PC's when maintaining them or for even trying different OS's - like linux or for example, turning your PC parts in to a HTPC by rehousing and using different parts. My point, is that there a world of choice with PCs - there are uses that you can make of them that aren't nearly as easy or pehaps not even possible with a Mac.
If anyone can distinctly claim that I am wrong in what I've said, I'd like to hear why my information isn't correct or if its perhaps a little out of date in some of the details or assertions.
1. Yes, Microsoft have been rather predatory, doing things that may be considered unfair corporate practises, but in my humble opinion many large corporations make use of their "size" to get more business or to promote their products and there are thousands of corporations that push the boundaries of corporate anti-competiveness etc in thier pursuit of business. So Microsoft is not unique. Apple do similar things to stifyle competition and by design cost Apple users more money. Apple also treat their older users poorly by unnecessarily making things obsolete (somtimes stupid little things, but terribly annoying ones) by removing features or compatibility from hardware or software thereby leaving older customers in the cold and forcing them to find workarounds for particular pieces of hardware for no great reason other than to save production costs or because something more cool is replacing something no longer cool. I don't see this happen nearly as much in the PC world - users are usually given a lot of scope for backwards compatibility for a while for standards than with Apple who seem to make things incompatible at the drop of hat.
2. A lot of Mac proponents claim that their hardware is of a much better quality and that Mac OSX is more stable. Granted, Mac hardware is usually not sh!t, but most of it is off the self PC hardware re-managed - whether it be Hard disks, Graphics cards, Memory etc etc. And while Vista annoyed me for several months at release, OSX Leopard was also a problematic OS and probably saved MS from loosing a percentage of people for the reason that Leopard was bad also. I have friends who reported problems with various Mac hardware regardless of their aluminium cases and have first hand locked up the finder in mac in much the same way Explorer used to lock up in Windows XP. Another Mac loving friend was very dismayed when Leopard turned his PowerMac into a Blue screening POS. (he upgraded from Tiger). But yes, it is fair to say that Mac's are good looking (i.e. the aluminum [which may attmittedly make some products a little more durable]) and most seem to be well designed thermally. For the first time ever, I bought an Apple product (an ipod nano 5G) and there are so many problems with it all over the web and I am probably about to get a second replacement for faulty workmanship (on day 5) - so, all in all, their, "We're a [better quality] hardware company" is imho euphimistic.
3. Many on here have mentioned the "Apple Tax" - basically paying 50%+ for an equivalent computer. When considering point 2. above, Macs are not worth the extra money. Yes they have more included software, but if you're saving $500.00 on a cheaper machine (or $1000+ on bigger ones) you can buy some software for less than that or better yet go open source and do most things for free that Macs have extra in them anyway. (but yes, admittedly, the odd thing in this point on Mac OSX may still be a little better).
4. Given the proprietary nature of the machines, you have no real option to choose a more wider range of hardware both at build time (at apple) and when upgrading or when adding additional functionality. Sure, given the off the self nature of many parts you can upgrade some things and still get more into your system. My contention is that becuase of OSX, and perhaps because of other hardware implementations many options are not available to you and if they are, do to lack of competition, they are more expensive. (Someone can correct me here if things have changed lately.) And because of drivers there are many pieces of hardware you simply can not connect / plug in due to the lesser hardware compatibility base of the OS and or hardware. So you have less hardware to consider using and pay more for what you can.
5. In terms of backwards compatibility, with Windows 7, I can do the following. In open-source DosBOX, run 90% of DOS productivity software streching back to the 80s. In it I can also play 90% of DOS games from the late 80's and the 90's and play them well. With some small effort, I can get atleast 85% of Windows 9x / XP / Vista games to run natively in Win 7 stretching back to 1995. With Windows XP Mode, while requiring a more expensive version of windows, I should see problematic old accounting software etc that is XP bound run also. And if all else fails you may be able to get your app running in a VM (and yes you can do this on mac). So backwards compatibility is much better in Windows 7 for a larger selection of apps.
6. Software selection: Although this may be changing, software selection on Windows would out number Mac 100 to 1. This is especially true for niche and very specific software solutions. (Yes, I know you may be able to use a VM in Mac for this, but the fact is, if in windows already you probably dont need to and they will run more efficientally and in an integrated fashion). For the person who mentioned the 15 ish games available for Mac, there are, and probably will continue to be, 100 times more games on PC than on mac (tho this is changing with mac support gaining much more traction). But at the moment there is probably several thousand more games for PC of all types than there are for Mac. I would consider dual booting a Mac into Windows as a way of running games not nearly as good for two reasons: a. Obvisiouly you have to reboot to play a game b. you can't play the games as well as most PC's as smart built PC's have much better hardware for less. (so you are paying more to do something that is much cheaper and better equiped to do on a PC anyway).
7. Even Mac Security gurus will admit that Mac OSX is less secure than Windows 7. Although, its true that Macs are less often attacked and this makes them less of target, it doesnt mean the security is better if someone is having a go at infecting or otherwise tampering with your OS. iPhones are a good example of some poor apple security - its been reported that some business's are reluctant to use iPhones due to their security worries. I beleive OSX is in a similar position tho perhaps not as stark as the iPhone problems reported. I think the popularity of iPhones made them more of a target and showed up apples security holes in that product. The contention seems to be that OSX if targeted may be similarly vunerable.
8. My last point goes to flexibility of maintenance and expansion or re-coupling of hardware and software in PCs. Because of points 4 & 5 above, you have much more flexibility to considerably take your PC to pieces and make major changes. This is admittly a bit of rehash of points 4 & 5, but I feel it important to highlight to people considering Mac the great modularity of PC's when maintaining them or for even trying different OS's - like linux or for example, turning your PC parts in to a HTPC by rehousing and using different parts. My point, is that there a world of choice with PCs - there are uses that you can make of them that aren't nearly as easy or pehaps not even possible with a Mac.
If anyone can distinctly claim that I am wrong in what I've said, I'd like to hear why my information isn't correct or if its perhaps a little out of date in some of the details or assertions.
option350z
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2009
- 22
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]Haha, what a Tool! Errr, junior, Mac's have been running Windows OS for many many years now -- it's call (Boot camp aka dual boot) or Parallels or VMWare or ... you Windows fanboys, your ignorance is hilarious!!And for a time there, Intel was producing their fastest CPU exclusively for Mac's -- I'm sure this ate you Windows fanboys alive.Blue light special, Isle 5 -- Windows 7 spend $200-$400 on your next shinny new OS that's no different that the old shinny OS call Vista ... oh there's consistency in naming -- a confused company, doing their best to confuse consumes that Windows 7 isn't really Vista SP3.[/citation]
Hm, you can argue the same for Snow Leopard. An OS that is practically no different than the day Apple released OSX. Hardware exclusive? Nope, in fact Intel always released to the market their newest processors way before Apple could acquirer them. Wait one minute, companies are already planing to release the new laptops with the mobile i7's. And its with Windows 7. Where's Apple? Still stuck selling Core 2's with DDR3 which really does not help because the architecture was not designed for DDR3. I love how "some" Mac owners are just arrogant and believe that their shit is the holy grail of the computing world. My thought, wise up, because its the Windows/gaming portion that dictates faster hardware and smaller fabrications. Surprised that you don't build your own rigs, you'd probably like it. Oh and you can run a vanilla copy of OSX if you hate Windows so much. No bs, look it up.
Hm, you can argue the same for Snow Leopard. An OS that is practically no different than the day Apple released OSX. Hardware exclusive? Nope, in fact Intel always released to the market their newest processors way before Apple could acquirer them. Wait one minute, companies are already planing to release the new laptops with the mobile i7's. And its with Windows 7. Where's Apple? Still stuck selling Core 2's with DDR3 which really does not help because the architecture was not designed for DDR3. I love how "some" Mac owners are just arrogant and believe that their shit is the holy grail of the computing world. My thought, wise up, because its the Windows/gaming portion that dictates faster hardware and smaller fabrications. Surprised that you don't build your own rigs, you'd probably like it. Oh and you can run a vanilla copy of OSX if you hate Windows so much. No bs, look it up.
keither5150
Distinguished
- Sep 7, 2008
- 369
- 0
- 18,780
@V8venom
Apple on I7 processors today .... nobody needs that kind of speed.
Apple on I7 processors once they finally adopt them.... Look at us with the fast processor only two or three years after the rest of the world.
Tell us what decade was it when Macs had superior anything?
Boot camp did not help my neighbors $6000 Mac Pro play Crysis. I assumed that his Mac pro could play the game at the same settings as my rig. It looked like a slide show. I have since built him a gaming rig for $1600 that is far superior to his mac. It even encodes and burns DVDs faster.
Macs are a joke. The mac os is okay once you get used to it. But the average Mac user knows nothing about computers. He gets his information from commercials and brainwashed apple sales people.
Apple on I7 processors today .... nobody needs that kind of speed.
Apple on I7 processors once they finally adopt them.... Look at us with the fast processor only two or three years after the rest of the world.
Tell us what decade was it when Macs had superior anything?
Boot camp did not help my neighbors $6000 Mac Pro play Crysis. I assumed that his Mac pro could play the game at the same settings as my rig. It looked like a slide show. I have since built him a gaming rig for $1600 that is far superior to his mac. It even encodes and burns DVDs faster.
Macs are a joke. The mac os is okay once you get used to it. But the average Mac user knows nothing about computers. He gets his information from commercials and brainwashed apple sales people.
Typical users aren't morons but they are also not necessarily tech savvy. Just because the people on this board don't have a problem upgrading a pc to Win7 form XP doesn't mean that the majority of other users feel comfortable doing it.
I am pretty sure everyone on this board thinks they are better than everyone else, and they need to let everyone know that there opinion is the only one that counts.
And while I am on the subject find something that really needs commented on as opposed to wasting time complaining about MS and Apple. Seriously just buy what you like and shut the f*** up life is too short and I am pretty sure your passion for hatred could be directed towards something useful.
I am pretty sure everyone on this board thinks they are better than everyone else, and they need to let everyone know that there opinion is the only one that counts.
And while I am on the subject find something that really needs commented on as opposed to wasting time complaining about MS and Apple. Seriously just buy what you like and shut the f*** up life is too short and I am pretty sure your passion for hatred could be directed towards something useful.
foody
Distinguished
- May 7, 2009
- 128
- 0
- 18,690
I don't think I'm ever going to read another article by you again Mr. Yam. You seem to post more articles now that really aren't news or anything that even matters. Besides, if people are so quick to just buy a Mac because they can't upgrade, what's to stop them from just buying a new PC?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New installed W11 on sdd, D drive (HDD) goes to the 100% in seconds
- Started by Emily_Vin
- Replies: 8
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram