# OSX vs. Windows



## eddiejoepopcorn (Aug 9, 2005)

I just bought a new 15-inch GS4, and I like it. However, it really drags its feet when reading this forum, and doing other web activities. When I want to do some web work, I go to my Pentium III, 233 Ghz. running Windows 98se, and using Firefox. It's LOTS faster (at least twice, maybe thrice)! I'm using Safari, which I like better than Microsoft's Internet Explorer. I haven't tested Explorer yet to see if it performs better.

The Mac also has other annoying characteristics, such as View handling in the Finder, but that's another story (thread?)


----------



## HateEternal (Aug 9, 2005)

I assume you have 512 MB of RAM? It should really be fine on your PowerBook. I don't have any problems on my 800 mhz iBook which is a lot slower than that PowerBook.


----------



## joneSi (Aug 9, 2005)

I run a p4 at work with XP....SLOW.  I have an iBook 1.2ghz 768 ram...rocks.  Half the clock speed and runs faster.  I also have a slew of Xp and Win 2k boxes / laptops (including one centrino) which run pretty well.  The best of which is still no faster than my iBook...
joneSi

edit:  how do you change view characteristics for future notice.  That is annoying.  I want to see list in all except specified (Like photos etc)


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 9, 2005)

Are you running any antispyware apps or antivirus apps on that Windows 98 SE computer?  If not, then I would be wary of sending personal information on it.  Thankfully on the Mac, that's not a problem considering you are running a UNIX operating system under the hood and you don't have to worry about those pesky issues.  This means you don't have to run any extra apps that slow down your computer.  All that memory is being used for USEFUL apps.

And speaking of security, Windows 98 SE is the swiss cheese of operating systems.  I hope you aren't sending any personal data on that computer.

Incidentally, if you have gripes with the Mac and the Mac OS, why bother using it?  Why not just stick with your PC?


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 9, 2005)

One more thing.  Have you updated your Mac OS?  Which version are you running anyways?  The only one that began to show any signs of performance was 10.2, and versions beyond that have only gotten better.

RAM is definitely a factor, as was mentioned earlier.  Mac OS X loves more RAM, and performs MUCH better once the RAM is sufficient...unlike Windows, which feels slower even with more RAM (I went from 512 MB to 1.5 GB on my Athlon XP running WinXP SP2 and for some reason it feels _slower_).


----------



## fryke (Aug 9, 2005)

Well, web browsing simply is quicker on Windows. We don't really need to discuss that any longer. Use that 233 MHz computer for webbrowsing if that's better for you.


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 9, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Well, web browsing simply is quicker on Windows. We don't really need to discuss that any longer. Use that 233 MHz computer for webbrowsing if that's better for you.




That we can thank on corporate MS drone companies that optimize everything for Microsoft without considering standards, which I'm sure would make it an optimal experience for ALL computers running ANY operating system.  But such is life... ::sleepy::


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 9, 2005)

I dont think the problem is that sites are optimized for IE. Heck apple.com comes up faster on the PC. Anyway at my last job, one of the designers was using a dual G4 500 with 768mb RAM and at the time he was running 10.2.x. He asked for a windows box because he wanted to learn a little since he'd never used windows (or not really). All I had was a toshiba satellite PII 300 laptop with 192mb RAM running XP Pro. He comes to me a few weeks later frustrated asking why in gods name is surfing 2x faster on the slow as dirt laptop than on his dual G4. I had no real answer but I watched him surf and I noticed that the browser appeared to be loading pictures and things one at a time but doing a bandwidth test revealed equal bandwidth as the laptop. 

If I was using that computer, I would I'd hurl myself over a cliff and then grab the G4 tower with me so we could both plumet to our end.


----------



## sirstaunch (Aug 9, 2005)

Even Bill Gates said once, "don't use Windows to surf the internet, it's not safe"


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 9, 2005)

where did he say that?


----------



## texanpenguin (Aug 10, 2005)

Just so you know, you CAN install Firefox on a Mac.


But it's not usual for it to be DOG slow. Could we have some specifics on your configuration (RAM, MHz, OS)?


----------



## Viro (Aug 10, 2005)

To be fair, Safari isn't the most responsive beast on the planet. Sometimes when loading up flash intensive sites, or even browsing with a few tabs open, I get loads of beach balls. This is truly annoying, as I have a 1.33 GHz G4 processor, 1.25 GB RAM and a 7.2K RPM hard drive on my Powerbook 12". This baby should be anything _but_ slow. Surfing on my Powerbook is just slightly better than on my Dell Inspiron laptop, which is 6 years old, has a 433 MHz Celeron and 256 MB of RAM (runs Linux though). Something is wrong somewhere.

I don't like Firefox on the Mac. It does not behave like a proper Mac application. Ah well, the trade-offs .


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 10, 2005)

Ya we know installing Firefox is possible but I personally dislike firefox so thats not an option for me. So are we saying that Safari needs 2-3x the processor power for proper surfing compared to a PC with IE?


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 10, 2005)

How about Camino?  Does Camino act more Mac-like than Firefox?  I would probably use that anyways on the Mac before I use Firefox even though I love Firefox on any other OS.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 10, 2005)

You can't compare Windows 98 to OS X... you gotta compare Windows 98 to OS 8/9, since those operating systems were available about the same time.

And, as you can see, Windows has gotten slower over the years as well -- Windows 2000 was slower than 95, XP slower than 2000, etc.  Same for Mac OS X.

Sure, if you upgrade your computer at the same time you upgrade your OS, then you'll probably perceive a speed _increase_.  Try loading Windows XP on that Windows 98 machine and see how slow browsing is.

The point is that you're comparing a 7 year old operating system with half of the bells-and-whistles of the current Windows release with the most recent release of Mac OS X.  That's not apples-to-apples.


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 10, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> You can't compare Windows 98 to OS X... you gotta compare Windows 98 to OS 8/9, since those operating systems were available about the same time.
> 
> And, as you can see, Windows has gotten slower over the years as well -- Windows 2000 was slower than 95, XP slower than 2000, etc.  Same for Mac OS X.
> 
> ...




To add, I have installed OS X Tiger on an old G4 (one of the first gens) with 384 MB of RAM.  I definitely have to say that it's quite snappy, even for an old system like this.  Something comparable would be a PIII system.  I doubt that Windows XP would feel snappier than Windows 2000 on that computer, and that's not even including all the supplemental apps that need to run in the background (antivirus, antispyware).


----------



## toddski (Aug 14, 2005)

I find that the features that come with Safari more than make up for the speed loss. With browsers it is always less features = more speed, IE is sometimes up to three times slower than a simple browser that I made myself.


----------



## Viro (Aug 14, 2005)

toddski said:
			
		

> I find that the features that come with Safari more than make up for the speed loss. With browsers it is always less features = more speed, IE is sometimes up to three times slower than a simple browser that I made myself.



That argument kinda falls flat, when you see that Firefox is faster than Safari and still offers comparable features.


----------



## fryke (Aug 15, 2005)

I guess that's a personal opinion thing, then. Firefox doesn't offer me the same comfortable feeling I have using Safari. Still: Sure, I want Safari to get any speed improvement that is possible without sacrificing comfort/features.


----------



## Viro (Aug 15, 2005)

I agree with you fryke, about Firefox and Safari. I use Safari even though it is slower than Firefox, mainly because it actually feels more like a Mac OS X application. Still, it makes no sense why Safari would be that much slower than Firefox. After all, Safari is made for OS X and optimized for OS X while Firefox is cross platform, with no special optimizations for OS X.

I hope for the day Safari becomes faster.


----------



## powermac (Aug 15, 2005)

Well, my only comparison of web browsing is my PB 1.5gz, and my office XP box. Although I agree, Safari could be faster, I feel the web pages load well enough on my PB. Certainly, Java has significantly improved on Tiger. 

I also agree, Firefox is a great browser, for the Mac it fails to impress, and lacks the Mac feeling when using it.


----------



## texanpenguin (Aug 15, 2005)

I find Firefox a real chore to use. From its strange contextual menus to its odd Download window and "feel". It also takes an eon to load.

I love Safari, and I'll stick with it.


----------



## maz94protege (Nov 4, 2005)

im switching to mac cause of reliability and the fact its not a swiss cheese computer like windows based pcs are. i can easily do transactions online and be able to do my thing without gettin a virus or a BLUE SCREEN of death. haha. Thats just what ive learned and im switching over in a few weeks.


----------



## contoursvt (Nov 4, 2005)

Seriously, for anyone having any major issues with their platform being unstable, its either user error or crappy/failing hardware. Thats it.  

Our macs are G4 and G5's running print and sound apps and our higher end PCs are video editing and application development stations. We also have some more basic PCs scattered around as general purpose desktop machines (P3's and P4s). So far the only problems we encounter on the PC's are people installing betta applications or finding 'mystery' codecs and installing them. The problems we get on the macs are people thinking they have 8 gigs of ram and leaving everything open all the time and of course eventually running it into the ground....


----------



## powermac (Nov 5, 2005)

Not having a large amount of experience with browsing the net with Windows other than my office XP box, I can say, the experience is much better on my Mac. Perhaps on a tweak out PC, it may be faster. Overall a few seconds of performance verses enjoying web browsing keeps me happy with Safari.


----------



## Veljo (Nov 11, 2005)

Surfing the web on a Mac is a lot more enjoyable for me  unless the site contains Flash or Java, which makes it suck. Still, at least I can surf the web without having adware and other crap unknowingly thrown into my browser cache folders.

I think Safari needs some work, and I can see it getting a lot better in the future (so long as the metal goes).


----------



## maz94protege (Nov 11, 2005)

How are you all comparing these Web Surfing, how fast of a connection are you running? IE runs great and fast on windows cause its not blocking anything, if u have it right outta the box with no upgrades or popup blockers on, it runs smooth...But ive never tried the mac one. Ill be gettin my mac when i get back from this military deployment.... But ther is a way, to change in IE's prefs to Load Page after all pictures are downloaded, or to load them one by one. for any connection i do the Load page after eveyhings downloaded...somehow pops up faster.  Just my $.02
Ill compare my new ibook 1.33ghz to my 2.0ghz celeron in a few weeks when i get home. Ill record it and post it.


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 11, 2005)

IE on Windows (without taking into account the security issues with it) is definitely much faster and improved compared to IE on the Mac.  I find it a chore to browse using IE on the Mac.  Then again, I find it a chore to use IE at all since it doesn't support a lot of the stuff all the other "alternative" browsers already do.

But the best way to find out what's best for you is to try it out yourself.  Just a note: if you think you'll get the same benefits from the Mac IE that you had on the Windows IE, you'll be sorely disappointed.  It's basically treated by those IE-only sites as the unwanted child (yeah, it's a hard analogy especially since I'm a parent myself, but it's the truth in this respect).


----------



## 128shot (Nov 15, 2005)

The real question remains.


When will apple take the throne from windows?



If it could only get past 5% of market share...


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 15, 2005)

128shot said:
			
		

> The real question remains.
> 
> 
> When will apple take the throne from windows?
> ...




That's assuming the 95% is using XP, which they aren't.  That 95% also includes much older versions of Windfows including NT4 and older, as well as Windows 95 and earlier.  What good are those? 

I guess we'll see what happens once the Intel Macs are out.  It's only a matter of time, I guess.


----------



## 128shot (Nov 15, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> That's assuming the 95% is using XP, which they aren't.  That 95% also includes much older versions of Windfows including NT4 and older, as well as Windows 95 and earlier.  What good are those?
> 
> I guess we'll see what happens once the Intel Macs are out.  It's only a matter of time, I guess.





Looking at this from a strictly business point of view-I believe-mac missed it shot-I firmly believed if apple took a similiar road like MS did (they owned the business comp market and in turn raised enough money to rule the desktop market too) we would be talking about how MS has 5% marketshare and apple is the big bad giant. 


overly simple but it drives the point home.

Intel is a good shot at gaining marketshare though. Since macs will-finally-be cheap



Even a mac fan has to admit where his favorite company might have gone wrong in the past.


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 15, 2005)

128shot said:
			
		

> Looking at this from a strictly business point of view-I believe-mac missed it shot-I firmly believed if apple took a similiar road like MS did (they owned the business comp market and in turn raised enough money to rule the desktop market too) we would be talking about how MS has 5% marketshare and apple is the big bad giant.
> 
> 
> overly simple but it drives the point home.
> ...



Oh, many times!  Flaming PB 5300s, the lost cause that was Copland, unstable 52xx/62xx models.  No one has said that Apple has been a complete saint in this whole thing.  The reason MS caught up was because Apple kept tripping up in the mid-90s.  Once Steve Jobs came on, things started taking a turn for the better.  And yes, MS did help out Apple, but only to look good in front of the DoJ.  Without Apple, they would have been a monopoly and broken apart.

Remember they are a computer company like many others, and many others like Apple have had their fair share of bad decisions and bad hardware/software.

And for the record, Apple DID try to do what MS did, but without being sleazy as MS had been in gaining that 95% market share (the killing off of DR-DOS and other tactics to make MSDOS and Windows take the market).  Remember that Apple did decide to license out the Mac OS to clone makers in the mid-90s, and it was great for consumers in the short term.  However, from a business standpoint the clone makers were cannibalizing Apple's sales.  Had that kept on going, Apple would be history now.  As much as people think Apple should be a software compabny like MS, it is inevitably a hardware company.  Of course, now that might change since their main focus now is the iPod and now they are switching CPUs.

Another thing about the Mac clone makers was that while their systems might have been cheaper, not all of them were very stable.  Some Power Computing Mac clones and other Mac clones had huge stability problems that in a way was good for Apple since people knew that Apple's Macs were from Apple and would work without the instabilities of the clones.

So as much as I hate to say it (because I did love the clones), Steve's killing of the clones was good for Apple, and it definitely shows now.  And now with a robust system like Mac OS X, a lot of businesses are considering the Mac for teh corporate space.

Here's some proof from not too long ago...

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/07/21/osx/index.php


----------



## 128shot (Nov 15, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> Oh, many times!  Flaming PB 5300s, the lost cause that was Copland, unstable 52xx/62xx models.  No one has said that Apple has been a complete saint in this whole thing.  The reason MS caught up was because Apple kept tripping up in the mid-90s.  Once Steve Jobs came on, things started taking a turn for the better.  And yes, MS did help out Apple, but only to look good in front of the DoJ.  Without Apple, they would have been a monopoly and broken apart.
> 
> Remember they are a computer company like many others, and many others like Apple have had their fair share of bad decisions and bad hardware/software.
> 
> ...




Indeed that is interesting.

Forwarding to pre-2006. I can only see apple doing one route


Giving up on being a hardware company, which would make sense now that they adopted x86, and becoming a more software kind of company and this could become a standpoint to bombard MS's hold, and this would probably include adding extra features that are MS like in a way-but with an apple twist-(MS didn't do EVERYTHING wrong)-to drag in new users. the 2 year switch is-in my humble opinion-a phase out of being a hardware company and into a new software company of apple (with the exception of course of the iPod etc etc etc, those things are still good sellers) 


If I owned apple I'd go this route, easily. MS's only weakness is itself. Though, i think apple will have to fight HARD against a billion dollar multi-national.


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 15, 2005)

I don't see them giving up the hardware....however, I don't think that the Mac will continue to be their main focus for the time being due to the halo effect with the iPod.  However, think of all the cash Apple would come into if the x86 Macs tend to be wildly popular...why would they give this opportunity up to other companies when they could still be making the cash for both the hardware and the software for years to come.  This is a bold undertaking, but one that looks like it will bear much fruit.  And it looks to benefit both Apple and Intel according to Ars Technica.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051115-5572.html

Considering the new relationship between Apple and Intel, it would be silly of them to let go of the hardware at this point.


----------



## 128shot (Nov 15, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> I don't see them giving up the hardware....however, I don't think that the Mac will continue to be their main focus for the time being due to the halo effect with the iPod.  However, think of all the cash Apple would come into if the x86 Macs tend to be wildly popular...why would they give this opportunity up to other companies when they could still be making the cash for both the hardware and the software for years to come.  This is a bold undertaking, but one that looks like it will bear much fruit.  And it looks to benefit both Apple and Intel according to Ars Technica.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051115-5572.html
> 
> Considering the new relationship between Apple and Intel, it would be silly of them to let go of the hardware at this point.





I'm under the influence that i can just buy the OS and build the comp 3rd party though..


----------



## lurk (Nov 15, 2005)

Then you would be mistaken.  Intel and Apple are putting all sorts of DRM doodads into the OS to make it very hard to run on a non-Apple kit. There is a reason the hacked version out now are _hacked_.


----------



## Viro (Nov 16, 2005)

Apple has always favored tight integration between hardware and software. That means that each machine they built, they know the _exact_ specs off, and thus know what drivers are needed. If they were to be like MS and just sell OS X like Windows, you'd lose the tight integration. Mixing and matching hardware though sexy(to the technologically inclined) does have it's drawbacks, especially when you look at how most of the instability on Windows is caused by device drivers.

I do not understand why people think that just because Apple is switching processors, it means that it'll be just like any other PC. As lurk has pointed out, you can bet Intel and Apple will have some sort of DRM on it.


----------



## powermac (Nov 16, 2005)

Started out talking about surfin the web with either winblows or MAC. The discussion is now around Mac vs windblow$. I am not, nor never been concerned that Apple does not have a major part of the PC market. Sure, I would like to see there market share increase, and its has recently, and I believe it will when Intel Macs are commonplace. 
Overall, I enjoy the Mac for it simplicity, and reliability. I agree with Viro, I would not want an unstable computer because of endless downloading of drivers, updates, security patches, etc. M$ faces so many challenges, whether some of them are created by their own business practices or large responsibility of dominating the PC market. 
One thing that bothers me with the PC world is computers advertise "built of windows". What happen to the days when software boxes posted requirements based on hardware (IBM compatible 386, etc)? 
I am not sure that a software company should be dictating to hardware companies how to built computers. Conversely, many PC users download so many programs, etc, that their systems become unstable. At work, our network admin has strict control over our usage (School), so our computers are some what stable. Although on daily basis, I struggle with the printer, poorly written Psychology programs that freeze with large amounts of data to crunch. Thankfully, my Powerbook gets me through the day and my productivity remains efficient.


----------



## fryke (Nov 16, 2005)

Well, the software boxes _still_ show minimum hardware and software requirements. But Microsoft, at the top, has started to license badges like "built for Windows", and usually, most of the people (that's of course not you and me) will buy something that "sounds more compatible". Actually, device driver problems etc. _help_ here, since people might think that buying a puzzled-together PC might be less compatible.
But of course, Apple computers won't need any such badges.


----------



## Jason (Nov 17, 2005)

mac, pc, mac, pc, mac, pc is my current pattern... I guess I really care... I care a lot


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 17, 2005)

eddiejoepopcorn said:
			
		

> ...I go to my Pentium III, 233 Ghz...


Any computer running at 233 *Gigahertz* is going to blow the doors off of any currently-shipping Macintosh computer.  That's almost 200 times as fast as the top-end Macintosh!

That's an insanely fast computer you got there, so perhaps that's why the Mac seems so slow in comparison!


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 17, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Any computer running at 233 *Gigahertz* is going to blow the doors off of any currently-shipping Macintosh computer.  That's almost 200 times as fast as the top-end Macintosh!
> 
> That's an insanely fast computer you got there, so perhaps that's why the Mac seems so slow in comparison!



*God* I'd hate to see the heat sink mechanism on that sucker!!!  I would probably melt if I were standing next to it. ::ha::


----------



## 128shot (Nov 17, 2005)

lurk said:
			
		

> Then you would be mistaken.  Intel and Apple are putting all sorts of DRM doodads into the OS to make it very hard to run on a non-Apple kit. There is a reason the hacked version out now are _hacked_.





Then their computers better preform and cost around the same as the computers that you can build yourself, cause that is a major, unbelieveabl plus to windows, believe it or not. 


It has its drawbacks yes, but if you aren't dumb its nifty. 

In order to increase sales, they'll have to drop their prices significantly to sell more units. It is really the only way they can leverage anything against MS or anyone else. 

I'd buy a mac right now, but they're more expensive than my custom built comp that does exactly what I need it to...


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 17, 2005)

Yeah -- because Apple's price points right now just absolutely suck, and no one is buying their machines.[/sarcasm]

Apple's computers aren't priced any higher than a comparatively-spec'ed Intel- or AMD-based machine.  There have been plenty of comparisons of equally-configured Apple/Windows machines, and the Apple machines end up costing roughly the same (+- 5%) as their Windows counterparts.  If you take into account the price of the freely included software that comes with every Macintosh purchase (iLife, operating system, etc.), the Macs actually cost _less_ than a similarly-spec'ed Windows machine.

The only drawback to Apple machines is that you can't get _less_ than what they sell.  You can't take out the optical audio port if you don't need it, and you can't purchase the computers without a hard drive or RAM installed.  That's the only reason bargain-basement crappy home-built systems cost less.

In addition, if your hard drive goes out, who are you gonna call for a warranty repair?  Western Digital, of course... and if the video card goes, that's another call to ATi... and if the memory craps out, call Crucial.

If anything goes wrong with your Apple computer, you call Apple.  One phone call = multiple problems fixed.  Apple, according to Consumer Reports, was ranked extremely high in customer service and repair service.  They're not perfect, but nobody is, and Apple is doing many, many things to improve their already stellar customer service.

[/rant]


----------



## 128shot (Nov 17, 2005)

Hmm?


I like the Imac, but for 1,000 dollars I built what they would have gave in for 1,300.



Not including monitor I suppose, but I got that free, along with a stereo system, and some software.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 17, 2005)

128shot said:
			
		

> I like the Imac, but for 1,000 dollars I built what they would have gave in for 1,300.
> 
> Not including monitor I suppose, but I got that free, along with a stereo system, and some software.


Add in the cost of an operating system (Microsoft Windows XP Professional), and you're sitting right at $1300.  Add the cost of a monitor and you're higher than the Macintosh.  Don't forget the remote control, FireWire camera, wireless networking and bluetooth.

A free OS like Linux would keep you below that, but Linux vs. Mac OS X isn't even a comparison.  Windows XP is at least a competitor.

I guess it's just my opinion that even though Apple computers _seemingly_ cost a lot more, you get what you pay for (and a lot more).  Communities like this... free GOOD software... free operating system... cutting edge components... nifty deign...

All that is worth an extra ~$200 from me.  And Apple actually helps me get a portion of that back by having an outperforming stock that has gone against naysaying for quite some time now.

If all you're looking for is raw number-crunching performance, then it would be silly to purchase a Macintosh computer.  Number-crunching is cheap: a motherboard, a processor and memory.  A few hundred easy.


----------



## contoursvt (Nov 17, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Apple's computers aren't priced any higher than a comparatively-spec'ed Intel- or AMD-based machine.  There have been plenty of comparisons of equally-configured Apple/Windows machines, and the Apple machines end up costing roughly the same (+- 5%) as their Windows counterparts.  If you take into account the price of the freely included software that comes with every Macintosh purchase (iLife, operating system, etc.), the Macs actually cost _less_ than a similarly-spec'ed Windows machine.
> 
> The only drawback to Apple machines is that you can't get _less_ than what they sell.  You can't take out the optical audio port if you don't need it, and you can't purchase the computers without a hard drive or RAM installed.  That's the only reason bargain-basement crappy home-built systems cost less.
> 
> ...



Well I think what he was saying is that for someone who is willing to build or have built a custom box and doesnt need the tech support, they can get a much more powerful box for the $$. 

If I configured a dualcore 2.3 with 2gig RAM, 7800GT, 250gig drive, DVD burner..etc it would cost $3800 canadian dollars.

If I custom build a dualcore AMD X2 4400 with 2gig RAM, 7800GT, 250gig drive, DVD burner, it would cost $2157 and that would be splurging for a motherboard that the ability to do SLI, has PATA support as well as four SATA channels which are configurable in a number of raid options and also getting 7.1 channel audio. The tower would be an Antec P180 which can hold god knows how many drives, its quiet and cools well and looks good too. This is not a cheapo system. XP pro is also tossed into the equation (OEM Version).   For the $1600 or so difference, one can add more drives, a second 7800GT and a widescreen 24" LCD!!


----------



## fryke (Nov 18, 2005)

Well, those comparisons are always flawed, because Apple gives you a certain amount of configurations, whereas if you build a PC yourself, you have SUCH a wide choice that you can probably build your PC for any price you want. The problem clearly is that if a person is _not_ willing to sacrifice Mac OS X as the operating system, then only a Mac can do: And you're back with what Apple offers.

For years I've been saying (and I still think I'm right): Apple's pricing is good with the iBooks and PowerBooks, but it sucks with the desktops. Well, the mini changed that a bit, of course.


----------



## 128shot (Nov 18, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Well, those comparisons are always flawed, because Apple gives you a certain amount of configurations, whereas if you build a PC yourself, you have SUCH a wide choice that you can probably build your PC for any price you want. The problem clearly is that if a person is _not_ willing to sacrifice Mac OS X as the operating system, then only a Mac can do: And you're back with what Apple offers.
> 
> For years I've been saying (and I still think I'm right): Apple's pricing is good with the iBooks and PowerBooks, but it sucks with the desktops. Well, the mini changed that a bit, of course.





sooon enough we'll be building laptops too.


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 18, 2005)

128shot said:
			
		

> sooon enough we'll be building laptops too.



Already there.  ASUS has a laptop that you can build yourself, for the most part anywas.


----------



## 128shot (Nov 18, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> Already there.  ASUS has a laptop that you can build yourself, for the most part anywas.





whiteys only make up 5% of the laptop market. So far big companies have been good about not allowing people to build their own. 



That'll change as time goes on.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 18, 2005)

windows is a window and a virus is a stone put them together the window breaks haha


----------



## 128shot (Nov 18, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Yeah -- because Apple's price points right now just absolutely suck, and no one is buying their machines.[/sarcasm]
> 
> Apple's computers aren't priced any higher than a comparatively-spec'ed Intel- or AMD-based machine.  There have been plenty of comparisons of equally-configured Apple/Windows machines, and the Apple machines end up costing roughly the same (+- 5%) as their Windows counterparts.  If you take into account the price of the freely included software that comes with every Macintosh purchase (iLife, operating system, etc.), the Macs actually cost _less_ than a similarly-spec'ed Windows machine.
> 
> ...




if anything goes wrong I'll fix it myself, for the most part, or find someone who knows how to do it. Computers are everywhere. Its not hard to find free good service from a couple friends you have over for a beer or two. 


no, they aren't higher, 1,000 plus 78 dollars isn't much (going rate for WinXP Pro..)


Free shipping and handling is almost standard nowadays. If you know how to find a good deal, you'll get one, and I hate to say it, but Macs aren't always it...


----------



## contoursvt (Nov 18, 2005)

Actually I own one of those Asus laptops. I picked it up a year ago. Its a cenrino 1.6, has 768mb ram at the moment and a 5400rpm 60gig drive, firewire, 3 usb 2.0, built in card reader, 1x pcmcia, combo drive, intel 10/100 ethernet and 802.11g. Its a 12.1" laptop and weighs 3.4lbs  http://www.ynot2k.com/products/laptops/m5n/m5n.ht7.jpg

its basically a bare bones when you start off. No processor, no ram, no HD but it has the rest.  Nice laptop. The fan in it is a bit louder than I'd like when its going at full speed but aside from that its nice.


----------



## Viro (Nov 19, 2005)

128shot said:
			
		

> if anything goes wrong I'll fix it myself, for the most part, or find someone who knows how to do it. Computers are everywhere. Its not hard to find free good service from a couple friends you have over for a beer or two.



So.... I fail to see your arguments and I think you're just trolling. Firstly, you're saying that Macs are more expensive because you can cobble together a PC for cheaper. As Eldiablo pointed out, Macs don't cost too much compared to similarly configured PCs. Such cobbled together PCs aren't used by the majority of PC users, only the enthusiasts like yourself. By the above quote, you've basically agreed since how many home users know how to fix PC problems?

What would you pay for a machine that was easy to maintain and you didn't need to ask for favors from a technologically knowledgeable friend? Compared to Dells, HPs, and other large PC manufacturers, Macs don't cost too much. 

Apple isn't the be all end all of computers. If they don't suit you, go elsewhere. Just because it doesn't fit your needs, doesn't mean it doesn't fit the needs of other people.


----------



## powermac (Nov 19, 2005)

Apple isn't the be all end all of computers. If they don't suit you, go elsewhere. Just because it doesn't fit your needs, doesn't mean it doesn't fit the needs of other people.[/QUOTE]

I can't agree more with that phrase. My opinion is many PC people come into the Mac and windows argument with that attitude. Maybe because M$ is so dominate they feel anything else is challenging. My opinion is my Mac fits my style, what I am comfortable using, and solves my day-day solutions. In the end, it is a preference. I prefer the Macintosh over a PC for several reasons. Design of the computer, stability & reliability, and mostly I prefer OSX over other OSs, particularly windows. With this said, it does not mean windows is not useful, or that I could not get my work done on a PC. It is just means I prefer Apple.


----------



## Porce (Nov 19, 2005)

Browsing is faster on Windows XP than Mac OS X [but the PC is 512 MB while the iBook is 256, so I don't know if that has any effect], but nearly everything else about Mac OS X is better now.  I only turn on the PC when I have to burn a DVD or leave [something] downloading over night.  It's such a chore to use.


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 19, 2005)

My issue has never been with PC hardware.  I absolutely LOVE PC hardware.  This is why I use it to run Linux or other open source operating systems.  My issue has always been with Windows.  Just using it, in my opinion, is akin to that feeling you get before you go to work on a Monday.   You have to do things in Windows' way even though your way might be the most optimal.  That, and all of the useful stuff that is lacking in it (security, performance, etc.).  The only thing that it has going for it is games.

I love having control of my system, and Unix variants help me do that on my PC.  Mac OS X also lets me do that, but it goes way beyond what even the other Unix variants have yet to accomplish: a wonderful user experience on a robust Unix system.


----------



## Viro (Nov 19, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> I love having control of my system, and Unix variants help me do that on my PC.  Mac OS X also lets me do that, but it goes way beyond what even the other Unix variants have yet to accomplish: a wonderful user experience on a robust Unix system.



To be honest, I've found that the latest stable GNOME release is very very usable. It's been very user friendly (IMHO) since 2.8 and I would move to Linux in a heart beat if I wasn't saddled with a Powerbook .


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 19, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> To be honest, I've found that the latest stable GNOME release is very very usable. It's been very user friendly (IMHO) since 2.8 and I would move to Linux in a heart beat if I wasn't saddled with a Powerbook .



I'm doing just that on my HP laptop from work using Ubuntu.  I'm quite impressed with Gnome 2.12, especially now that someone had the brains to include the hierarchical tree list in spatial view.  This is the only thing that was missing from spatial view that made it worth using, something that the Mac OS in its Classic day had for a while.


----------



## 128shot (Nov 19, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> So.... I fail to see your arguments and I think you're just trolling. Firstly, you're saying that Macs are more expensive because you can cobble together a PC for cheaper. As Eldiablo pointed out, Macs don't cost too much compared to similarly configured PCs. Such cobbled together PCs aren't used by the majority of PC users, only the enthusiasts like yourself. By the above quote, you've basically agreed since how many home users know how to fix PC problems?
> 
> What would you pay for a machine that was easy to maintain and you didn't need to ask for favors from a technologically knowledgeable friend? Compared to Dells, HPs, and other large PC manufacturers, Macs don't cost too much.
> 
> Apple isn't the be all end all of computers. If they don't suit you, go elsewhere. Just because it doesn't fit your needs, doesn't mean it doesn't fit the needs of other people.





Seems like the idea of cost cutting isn't conveying here very well...


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 19, 2005)

We'd all jump for joy if Apple slashed prices on all or some of their machines.  We're not against lower prices here -- you'd have to be a fool not to be happy about a lower price.

We're just saying that we understand why Apple doesn't cut prices on their machines.  Apple offers plenty of low-cost solutions for those that cannot afford a G5 tower machine.

Plus, Apple is not saying (nor are we saying) that purchasing an Apple machine for $XXXX.XX will get you hosepower on par with a PC that costs the same amount.  There's a lot more built into Apple's pricing than raw horsepower -- just because it costs more doesn't mean it'll crunch a floating point operation quicker.  If you think that's just crap coming from an Apple apologist, it's not... take a look at how comfortable we Mac users are with our computing experience (from the price to the OS to the computer) vs. how frustrated and/or unaccepting you seem to be with yours.


----------



## contoursvt (Nov 20, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> ...We're just saying that we understand why Apple doesn't cut prices on their machines.  Apple offers plenty of low-cost solutions for those that cannot afford a G5 tower machine.




I think the problem is that a lot of people - at least the ones I know in PC land like the idea of towers because of their upgradability in terms of adding more drives as well as having better cooling solutions. Nobody wants to be boxed in.  

Heck I'd guarantee that if apple released a single G4 1.25 or 1.42 in a 3/4 sized tower similar to the G5 towers for quite a bit less (but more than the price of the minis), that they would have a ton of sales. Maybe its just me thinking that but I'd never buy a mini. I dont see 'cute' as a reason to buy a computer. I want speed and sometimes speed is not just processor related but RAM and HD related...

Heck just take a G4 tower, toss in an SATA controller and a pair of WD raptors and tell me that wont feel like its more peppy than even a G5 for all but number crunching tasks 


Anyway I will stop rambling. I know I'd buy a G4 tower with SATA support.


----------



## Viro (Nov 20, 2005)

contoursvt said:
			
		

> Heck just take a G4 tower, toss in an SATA controller and a pair of WD raptors and tell me that wont feel like its more peppy than even a G5 for all but number crunching tasks
> 
> 
> Anyway I will stop rambling. I know I'd buy a G4 tower with SATA support.



I'll bite. It won't feel more peppy than a G5 . That's due to the lack of FSB bandwidth the G4 suffers from. Unless of course, you're talking about the new dual-core G4 processors, which IMHO rock as they have an on-die memory controller (_a la_ Athlon64/Opteron).


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Nov 20, 2005)

i pay for the industrial design.  it's perfect.


----------



## 128shot (Nov 20, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> We'd all jump for joy if Apple slashed prices on all or some of their machines.  We're not against lower prices here -- you'd have to be a fool not to be happy about a lower price.
> 
> We're just saying that we understand why Apple doesn't cut prices on their machines.  Apple offers plenty of low-cost solutions for those that cannot afford a G5 tower machine.
> 
> Plus, Apple is not saying (nor are we saying) that purchasing an Apple machine for $XXXX.XX will get you hosepower on par with a PC that costs the same amount.  There's a lot more built into Apple's pricing than raw horsepower -- just because it costs more doesn't mean it'll crunch a floating point operation quicker.  If you think that's just crap coming from an Apple apologist, it's not... take a look at how comfortable we Mac users are with our computing experience (from the price to the OS to the computer) vs. how frustrated and/or unaccepting you seem to be with yours.





I'll come out and say it-those problems I never had with windows-well, yesterday, she floated down the river and sank, to put my curse words midly hehehe.


I love the whole hardware upgradeabily aspect of it all though. I hope apple is at least wise enough to make a good solid x86 machine that is upgradeable after a wee bit. 



I honestly love the iMac, it would be the perfect solution to getting rid of clutter around me. then maybe I could get a surround system going in here.


----------



## M_a_c_X (Dec 3, 2005)

theirs also a glitch in mac os x, that freezes when u open, u noitce that?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 3, 2005)

Huh?  Are you sure it's not a "glitch" that's specific to your machine?

Also, when you open what?  Can you elaborate?


----------



## Stridder44 (Dec 5, 2005)

Theres also that sound that makes the thing happen when you click on the stuff


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 6, 2005)

ahhh platinum sounds ^_^


----------



## fryke (Dec 6, 2005)

Hm. This thread moves closer and closer to its end. At the very beginning, I thought that the day would come when its title would become the subject, although at the beginning, it wasn't.

So let's just say: Two more trolling comments in this thread and we get rid of it. (So _one_ can still walk away freely, fryke? Are you sure?!) - No, I'm not.


----------

