# More Mac Vs. PC Ammo Fer Ya



## ex2bot (Jun 12, 2004)

Here's a new one:

After someone that barely knows anything about computers tries to explain to you that you're foolish for using Macs, you can say, "Well. The Editor In Chief of PCWorld owns a 12" Mac Powerbook."

Check out this month's issue.

Cheers. 

Doug


----------



## applewhore (Jun 12, 2004)

nice one!!!  ;-)


----------



## speedfreak (Jun 12, 2004)

They only tell you that you are foolish to use a Mac because they are insecure about their own choice  of computer and to make themselves feel better they try to denigrate your choice.  The only reason it would upset you is that you are insecure about your choice of computer.  

After using many different computers with various OS's I am very confident in my choice of the Mac.  Try not to take it personally. Do not give them the satisfaction.  Why do you feel the need to defend yourself when you know you are right? Just tell them that you are happy with your computer and hope that they are happy with theirs.


----------



## applewhore (Jun 12, 2004)

speedfreak - you're absolutely right...  there's no point getting emotional about the whole pc vs. Mac thing...

...but it's still nice to be able to say "well, it's interesting that editor of pc world etc. etc."!!


----------



## ex2bot (Jun 13, 2004)

I didin't say I get upset when someone does that to me. It is, however, unsettling! Makes me wonder what these people are thinking. 

And, as applewhore wrote, it's nice to be able to say, "Well, I'm not the only fool that uses Macs. There's also that silly. . . EDITOR IN CHIEF OF PCWORLD." Wink wink.

Doug


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 13, 2004)

Steve Jobs used to use IBM laptops right when he came back to the company.


----------



## ex2bot (Jun 13, 2004)

Hmm. . . Running OpenStep, huh? I wouldn't mind owning a Thinkpad--as long as it was running Linux.

Doug


----------



## applewhore (Jun 13, 2004)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> Steve Jobs used to use IBM laptops right when he came back to the company.


when Steve Jobs went back to Apple, I was using IBM ThinkPads, but I'm certainly not any more...

and I'd hazard a guess that neither is Steve!  ;-)


----------



## contoursvt (Jun 13, 2004)

dktrickey said:
			
		

> Here's a new one:
> 
> After someone that barely knows anything about computers tries to explain to you that you're foolish for using Macs, you can say, "Well. The Editor In Chief of PCWorld owns a 12" Mac Powerbook."
> 
> ...




Maybe the editor and Cheif of PCWorld doesnt know anything either   No but seriously, does anyone really care? Not to sound harsh but everyone has their preference. I'm primarily a PC guy because I enjoy being able to put stuff together and know that if a year or two down the road, the mainboard dies or something, I can get a replacement from a different brand and it wont cost an arm and a leg. 

I dont care much for asthetics. As long as the enclosure is well made and can hold my 3-4 SCSI hard drives and keep them cool, then thats what I want. Stability has never been an issue for me since NT4 rolled around (ME / 98/ 95 sucked bigtime in my opinion). I used to use OS/2 in the old days which was also great.

I have a G3 450 with 384 megs running 10.2 which is OK but to be honest, I prefer win2k/XP over OSX. Its not as polished in appearance but that doesnt matter for me. Its the snappiness and stability which I enjoy (OSX is stable too but I find XP/2k to be easier to use overall). I play some games from time to time and its also easier to get current games. Especially automotive games. I just picked up Toca race driver 2 which is very nice.

By day I administer a network of about 60 computers - about 1/2 mac and 1/2 PC. The macs are all G4 667 and older. The PCs are PIII 800's and older (Dells).  About half the macs are running OSX and half running OS9. All the PCs are running 2K.  I can honestly say that in general we have more issues with the macs in the office by a factor of about 5:1

The PCs tend to have problems such as viruses or spyware..etc that somehow got through. No hardware failiures in 2 years since I've been at the company. Not even a drive or RAM. No I'm wrong. A Geforce 2 card failed when the fan seized.

The OS9 machines are by far the most terrible. Seems every other day the drive is corrupt and have to run norton to fix major problems (problems big enough to stop it from booting). Also find that rebuilding the desktop is frequently necessary. The OSX machines are much more stable. The only issue seems to be the occasional repair permission or network issue which happens to be an NT4 domain.  Also we've had 1 G4 450 fail (mainboard) and at least 3-4 B&W G3's with failed mainboards. Also I find that we have a lot of failed HDs in the macs too. I think its because the circuit side of the HD is sitting nearly flush with the bottom of the case without much airflow so mabe the components heat up more. Not sure but I've replaced many IBMs and Quantums in them. 

Maybe I've just been lucky with the Dells which are Dimension XPS series. Maybe that line was very solid with good cooling.

Dont know but thats my experience. I think the G5 is a work of art but for me, its too much $$ to afford. I did test photoshop on a Dual G5 1.8 and it is faster than my P4 3.0 with HT. The difference on average was noticable but for other things it did feel somewhat slower so it depends on the application.


----------



## contoursvt (Jun 13, 2004)

dktrickey said:
			
		

> Here's a new one:
> 
> After someone that barely knows anything about computers tries to explain to you that you're foolish for using Macs, you can say, "Well. The Editor In Chief of PCWorld owns a 12" Mac Powerbook."
> 
> ...




Actually, never mind. The dual 1.8 is only a tiny bit faster than a 3.0Ghz P4 with HT. I had my HT off for testing and forgot about it. Enabled it and find the difference is about 3% in favor of the dual 1.8.  Still its a fast machine. I'd suspect a dual 2.0Gig to be about the same speed as a single P4 3.4 Extreme which is huge $$.


----------



## kainjow (Jun 14, 2004)

contoursvt said:
			
		

> Actually, never mind. The dual 1.8 is only a tiny bit faster than a 3.0Ghz P4 with HT. I had my HT off for testing and forgot about it. Enabled it and find the difference is about 3% in favor of the dual 1.8.  Still its a fast machine. I'd suspect a dual 2.0Gig to be about the same speed as a single P4 3.4 Extreme which is huge $$.


How much ram was in that G5? The default 256 which comes with the 1.8 isn't good at all whatsoever for doing big things. Give it another 512 or so and it'll tear your P4 to pieces


----------



## contoursvt (Jun 14, 2004)

The Dual G5 1.8 has 1 Gig RAM. My P4 also has 1 Gig . The benchmark I ran was an action file from the website www.barefeats.com. Its a collection of different filters I guess. I timed the G5 which took 29 seconds to complete the test. My P4 with HT enabled took 30 seconds. With HT off it took 33 seconds.

I wouldnt call 29 seconds vs 30 seconds tearing to pieces    The G5 was running 10.3 and I'm running XP Pro. Both the computers have Adobe Photoshop CS. I dont know if resolution makes any difference or not but the G5 screen resolution was set to 1280x1024 (or 960).. cant remember now. The P4 is set to 1600x1200.


----------



## contoursvt (Jun 14, 2004)

Ok just changed screen res to 1280x1024 and it did not make any difference so my time is still 30 seconds for the P4. Just figured I'd update.


----------



## gerbick (Jun 16, 2004)

who cares?  use what you use.  making excuses and justifications for what you like is just sad.


----------



## macgeek (Jun 16, 2004)

I'd agree that it's getting to the point where we don't need to defend Apple.  Even most PC people don't like their PCs anymore... but Mac people still love our Macs, because Apple keeps giving us reasons to love them.


----------



## cory1848 (Jun 16, 2004)

I have one question to add....The biggest complaint that I hear is that Macs are way to expensive. So lets compare a G5 to the P4 that was competing to the G5 in the Photoshop CS test.  How much did that PC cost?


----------



## contoursvt (Jun 16, 2004)

I will disagree. Anytime you buy anything that is made well and functions well, you will like it. Making a blanket statement like PC people dont like PCs dont really make sense. I really like my PCs and so do all my friends. Maybe its because we build our own but if I bought a high end 3Ghz or 3.2Ghz P4 Dell, maybe I'd like it too. I just like making them myself more.

Anyway people will use what ever they want as long as it does the job. Some prefer nicer looks and are willing to pay more and some are more into inside the box than the outside and rather keep some extra $$ in their pocket.


----------



## guilly (Jun 17, 2004)

contoursvt said:
			
		

> Maybe the editor and Cheif of PCWorld doesnt know anything either   No but seriously, does anyone really care? Not to sound harsh but everyone has their preference. I'm primarily a PC guy because I enjoy being able to put stuff together and know that if a year or two down the road, the mainboard dies or something, I can get a replacement from a different brand and it wont cost an arm and a leg....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cat (Jun 17, 2004)

My GF uses my old G3 iBook, 366 MHz, 192 MB Ram and * MB video. I bought it in ... june 2000 I think. I used it for about three years and now she is using it. It runs Panther and since she is using it we only restarted it for updates. It literally never crashed or locked up. Beachball is rare, but of course it is slower than my current machine. Still, imagine installing the latest and greatest windows XP on four-five year old hardware ... and imagine how it will run ... IF it will run ...

I also had a PC for a long time, a Pentium II 333MHz. When I tried to run Windows2000 on it, everything became so incredibly slow that I reverted to 98SE. I replaced it with a FireWire enclosure and I really doubt I will ever try to resurrect my now defunct PC. Rather I am contemplating buying Office 2004/Virtual PC. For my needs that would suffice. 

ON eof the great strenghts of Macintoshes is their flexibility. No wonder all kinds of PC and Linux fanatics are buying macs of late. They can run the excellent Mac OS X, and Unix/Linux software, either in the terminal or in X11, and if you really really want to, you can get Virtual PC. All in one shiny aluminium package.


----------



## powermac (Jun 17, 2004)

I am not sure if this is old, PC magazine gave best OS 2004 to Mac OSX. I suppose, just another factor in how Macs are getting good publicity.


----------



## contoursvt (Jun 17, 2004)

The first question about the PC competing against the Mac in the photoshop CS - price wise. Well this is what the system was and how much it cost (in canadian $$)

Abit IC7 mainboard ($169)
Intel P4 3.0C 800Mhz FSB ($308)
Dual 512mb DDR400 OCZ Platinum ($449)
Adaptec 39160 dual U160 SCSI controller ($199)
Fujitsu 36gig 15K U160 SCSI boot drive ($209)
Fujitsu 36gig 15K U160 SCSI 2nd drive + swap ($209)
Western Digital 200gig 7.2K 3rd drive - data ($175)
Antec tower case with 350W supply ($93)
LG 4x DVD burner ($108)
ATI Radeon 9800pro 128mb ($320)
M-Audio Audiophile 2496 soundcard ($189)


So the total price of the system is $2428 in canadian $$. Might sound like a lot but look at the specs. Dual channel U160 controller, Dual 15K drives, 200gig IDE, Radeon 9800pro, amazing sound card.. etc.

For a more basic system, you could sub a 9600pro, no SCSI and no fancy studio quality soundcard. That would knock about $700 off the price so it would end up being around $1700 canadian or about $1200US.  

SCSI would not affect photoshop performance as long as the system has enough ram and doesn not have to swap a lot. The 3D capabilities of the video also have nothing to do with photoshop so a cheaper card is fine.

PS. Prices from www.canadacomputers.com (they change often so take a peek)


----------



## contoursvt (Jun 17, 2004)

Quilly,

We dont use OSX as servers here but I get called frequently to help users with computers that appear to be locked up or just spinning beachball. Sometimes I can force quit and othertimes not. There seems to be more OSX problems on the notebooks than desktops. 

As for our servers. We are running Win2k and NT4. The fileserver (win2k) has been up and running now 2037 hours (according to services) which works out to be almost 85 days. Probably last powered down and rebooted when we had a blackout.

Webserver runnin win2k has been up for 31 days since a reboot after a critical update. The NT4 domain controller was last rebooted 45 days ago after I installed NAV corp on it. 

Now mind you, I dont like people touching my servers. I'm the only one administering them and I dont like running lots of processes on them. Honest to god, I cant recall the last time the system locked up on any of them.  

On the other hand. The OSX that I maintain is in the hands of users. Maybe they are doing things to cause instability. I cant say for sure. I think if OSX was our servers and I was also trying to administer it, it would be way more stable than in the hands of your average user. I probably dont have a good view of OSX because I always see it suffering in the hands of people who dont know how to operate a computer


----------



## ged3000 (Jun 17, 2004)

Yea, Id agree with contoursvt on that. 

Ive been to two high schools, the first started with a win3.1 setup, and then upgraded to winNT4. I cant remember much about the win3.1 machines - i was only 11 at the time, but the public winNT4 machines did not work well. They suffered from the regular crashes that contoursvt describes on his OSX macs, and pupils took hitting the reset button to be a regular thing, that was just done.

The second school had a win98 network, and recently upgraded to win2k/XP. Again, the public machines have very poor stability and reliability, particularly the notebooks used in the science labs. But, a friend of mine uses win2k, without a hitch. His win2k machine is quite possibly more stable than my MacOSX.2.8 iMac.

My mum uses win2k at work, and swears by it. The only lockups I hear her talk about are few and far between, and normally happen when she does actions that are known to be buggy (mainly in M$ office...).

I guess what I mean is dont write off an operating system based on a public computer that uses it...


----------



## ex2bot (Jun 17, 2004)

contoursvt,

Did you say what version of OS X you're running? I had lots of little (and a few not-so-little) annoyances with 10.1. 10.2 and especially 10.3 have been virtually trouble-free.

As for aesthetics, I DO care about aesthetics and good design. OS X makes sense to me. Windows is ugly and illogical--to me. It is, of course, simply my opinion.(I also like not having to worry about security--viruses and spyware.)

I recognize that with the diversity of people out there, not everyone will agree. And that is fine. But I repeat, it is unsettling when someone, usually someone who knows  much less about computing than I do, takes me to task for using Macs. So, my thread was a lighthearted jab at such silliness.

Doug


----------



## mdnky (Jun 17, 2004)

The most stable version of Windows I've used is 2000 Professional.  XP Pro still needs to be ironed a bit, not to mention it's a bit much for the computer we run it on (P3 800 Laptop).  ME was an awful nightmare...probably the reason M$ killed it off as quickly as possible.  98 had some issues, but wasn't as nearly as bad as 95.  3.11 had very few problems when I used it, then again a 14.4 modem was break-neck speed at that time.

OS9 always had some issues.  10.0 was a bit of a pain in the backside.  10.1.x ran alright, though not perfect.  It has been a better OS for me (10.1.x) than any of the Windows version's I've had to use or maintain before.  I had 10.2.x on the iBook for a whole 5 minutes, before the upgrade to 10.3...so I really don't know about it that much.  10.3.x has been the absolute best OS I've used, bar none.  That includes ANY Win version, Linux, Unix (Solaris included), or other Mac OS version.

The only thing I can complain about in Panther is the FileVault sucking up freespace on the drive and the 'free-up' procedure at shutdown or logoff.  Stability wise it has never required a reboot and I doubt it would, other than for a mandatory one from an update or when I turn the laptop off and make it mobile.  I am having a bit of a memory issue at the moment, but it seems to be caused by Safari.

So, if I ranked them it would look like this.

Stability: 
1.) OS X (10.3.x)
2.) Solaris 9
3.) Windows 2000 Pro, OS X (10.1.x)
4.) BSD Unix
5.) Linux (Mandrake, Debian, SuSe, Xandros)
6.) XP Pro
7.) Rest of the Win versions

Productivity:
1.) OS X (10.3.x)
2.) OS X (10.1.x), Windows 2000 Pro, Solaris 9
3.) Win XP Pro, Win 98
4.) BSD Unix, Linux
5.) Win XP Home
6.) Rest of the win versions.


----------



## contoursvt (Jun 18, 2004)

Thats right. I did forget to mention.The OSX version we use in the office is 10.2. There is one new laptop that has 10.3. So far no issues except for a strange networking issue when connecting to an NT4 domain. Aside from this I cant say much other than I have not seen 10.3 on that laptop hang. 

10.2 seems like a good OS as well but in general I get more calls regarding users having some issue with it than compared to our win2k boxes. Its not a glaring difference but I'd say its 2:1 - its also possible that the users are still getting used to OSX. We still have quite a few OS9 machines which freeze every chance they get.

I wont bother to make a ranking list in terms of what I think is stable or not, but I will say this. Windows ME was the worst heap I've ever had the displeasure of using. I mean I hate win98 as it is and to take it and make it worse and make me use it... no way.  I'd rather use Win95A  

PS. I used to use OS/2 ages ago and it used to be rock solid too but not much could go wrong when you're zipping along at 66Mhz (had it running on a 486 DX2-66 with 32megs ram, 500mb SCSI boot drive and 1 gig data drive. That rocked back then!


----------



## guilly (Jun 18, 2004)

Obviously this comparisons we are making could be (and most probably are) utterly wrong.

Why?. Well, the stability of an OS is 90% a responsability of the owner/mantainer - also it depends on what processes are running, that is what is the demand for that or those computers and/or operating systems. Often the unstability comes from third party software which is not well round up.

It is true that - for instance - my Windows XP Home at my laptop, which is fairly well maintained (in real life I'm a total disaster, but in computing world you should see my Windows desktop), hangs up often, but certainly 2 to 3 times lesser than those from my brothers, and certainly a hundred times lesser than the one from my father (he is the master of reset).

But it does hang up very much often than my OS X Panther. I do similar tasks on both so I do not see the "why".

In my job, PC computers are demanded intensive work, secure transactions, intensive overnight processing, db2 interaction with cobol unreadable coding, etc. That is certainly something that can decrease a lot the stability of an OS, however I believe that THAT should not happen - but since many of the software used is taylor-made (even though it is made my IBM engineers) that could explain why the Windows OS can hardly handle one week of perfect functioning.

I do not use OS X as server (except as a home server) for intense processing such as the ones with the PC servers - therefore I perhaps can only compare it to the workstations. Still, it is very much more stable.


----------



## speedfreak (Jun 18, 2004)

contoursvt said:
			
		

> The first question about the PC competing against the Mac in the photoshop CS - price wise. Well this is what the system was and how much it cost (in canadian $$)
> 
> Abit IC7 mainboard ($169)
> Intel P4 3.0C 800Mhz FSB ($308)
> ...



What about the $200 for your copy of windows xp pro? There is no point in adding "for a more basic system" because you are comparing to a powermac which is not a basic system.


----------



## contoursvt (Jun 18, 2004)

speedfreak said:
			
		

> What about the $200 for your copy of windows xp pro? There is no point in adding "for a more basic system" because you are comparing to a powermac which is not a basic system.



I can get XP Pro for $180 but thats fine, close enough. Compared to a dual channel 15k scsi system with a more powerful video card, the powermac in this case is a basic system.

Subtract the SCSI card, drives and leave only the IDE drive, then pull the 9800pro and put in a 9600pro. Actually no, remove the 9600pro and put in an FX5200 which is even worse, then you end up with a very basic computer. Sorry thats the truth. The only thing that makes it not so basic is the fact that its got dual processors and to be honest, it needs it in this case. Putting a single 1.6 or 1.8 up against a 3Ghz or 3.2Ghz P4 would be a bad idea. The case doesnt add to the functionality and the cooling is not much better than you'd get in a good Antec type case.

If you calculate the cost for a dual 1.8 with 1 gig ram (2x512) and the FX5200 card and a smaller 160gig HD, you end up with a price of $3254 which is already way over the price of the P4 system with dual U160 controllers, dual 36gig 15,000RPM 8mb cache  drives, a 200 gig IDE drive and a radeon 9800pro. Even if you add the price of XP Pro. Its still over $300 more and its missing all that stuff. 

Its a fairly basic computer that looks nice and is about the speed of a 3 to 3.2Ghz P4. It would be the same as buying or building a 3Ghz PC with a DVD burner, 160gig drive, 1gig ram, ethernet, sound, and an FX5200 in a decent quality tower. I'd consider this PC basic as well. Maybe my definition of basic is different.


----------



## fryke (Jun 18, 2004)

Well, for me as a macosx.com member, I think basic means 'eMac'. Less basic would be a 'PowerBook' or a 'PowerMac'. I don't care much about the stuff inside everyone's home-built PCs, or I would go to a PC-centric forum.


----------



## contoursvt (Jun 18, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> Well, for me as a macosx.com member, I think basic means 'eMac'. Less basic would be a 'PowerBook' or a 'PowerMac'. I don't care much about the stuff inside everyone's home-built PCs, or I would go to a PC-centric forum.



All I was getting at was that in relation to the build PC, the dual 1.8 is pretty basic as far as computers go. So comparing computer, you'd have to compare similarly equipped machines.  Now if the dual 1.8 had a 9800pro and dual 200gig IDE with raid, then I'd say it was more than basic.


----------



## jonmichael23 (Jun 18, 2004)

interesting thread, in my experience I would have to say the mac experience is by FAR superior to windows. I have had my iMac for almost a year now, and I am glad to say it's never frozen, I've had one application unexpectedly quit (which used to be a common occurence on my PC) and that was Safari Beta. I experienced the beach ball twice in Jaguar, and I have not seen it yet in Panther, which I bought roughly a week and half after it was available. I have restarted only whenever Apple has released a 10.2.x or 10.3.x update, or the like. I usually have at least 8 to 15 apps open, if not more. That includes Safari, MSN Messenger, iChat, Photoshop CS, Konfabulator, iTunes, Camino, and Mail constanty open. 

On the other hand, my old eMachines ( I know they aren't good but I bought one of the more expensive ones, at the time) that had Windows XP Professional failed me on a daily to weekly basis. I ran similiar programs on there as well, and I'm not computer illiterate either. I knew that I couldn't suffice to have more then say 4, 5 apps open at a time during those days. Otherwise I'd almost expect one or two of those open apps to freeze up, unexpectedly quit, or the whole system to just go down every once in a while.  That machine had a 1.8 ghz P4, 512 mb ram, and an Nvidia card (dont remember what it was) with 64 mb vram. My iMac is quite comparable to this system, with a 1 Ghz PowerPC G4 with AltiVec, 512 mb ram, and a 64 mb Nvidia Geforce 4 MX card. Now I know simply because the processor is 1 Ghz that doesn't mean it isn't as good or better then the 1.8, but either way you would think results on both machines would be similiar. This is not the case. And I do not blame eMachines for the reason why it wasn't the case, I hold it entirely responsible to Microsoft. I even run Virtual PC with Win XP Pro on my iMac, and hey it may be a lot slower but It's way less problems in terms of unexpectedly quitting/freezing/and viruses ( haven't had one yet, but I've heard you can get one?) 

My friend's Dell (1.5 ghz P4, 512 mb ram, 32 mb nvidia card geforce 2 mx) which is running ME, is almost a joke. No , it is a joke. He runs dial-up, almost never gets on the internet, doesn't run any "P2P' apps or anything that would give him spyware or adware, and he had 12 viruses when I ran norton over there the other day. It gets to the point where when it freezes, you can't even hold down the power button to turn it off, the only remedy is turning off the power surge which is horrible. And, my other friend's Gateway freezes at least 3-5 times a day (his dad may not be computer literate, but he only uses it for internet) and sometimes his cd drive will uncontrollably just start opening and closing for no reason. His computer has similiar specs to that of the Dell. Also, the friend with the gateway bought a 333 mhz iMac off of eBay. He put 512 mb ram in it, upgraded the processor to 600 mhz G3 and put firewire on it thanks to Sonnet. His parents no longer use the Gateway, they go in his room to use his Mac. They've also decided their next home computer is going to be an eMac, as has my friend with the Dell's family. 

Also, I hate when people make the comparison that PCs are cheaper then Macs. Take this scenario, my friend with the Gateway's sister and her husband just got a new Dell about a month ago. The cheap one that you see in their non-stop commercials that is I believe 599 (at the time it was at least) , after an $ 100 dollar mail-in rebate. So really they are paying 700 dollars and hoping they get the money back from the rebate. It has Win Xp Home, a Intel Celeron at 2.4 Ghz, 128 mb of ram which is pitiful, 40 gb drive,  and the Intel Built-In Graphics. The reason this computers so cheap is obvious, first Intel Celeron? bleh. 128 mb ram? more bleh. Intel Built-In Graphics? this is starting to become very ugly......Win XP Pro? better then running ME or 98 i suppose, but its still Windows. Also, a CD-RW cd drive, and an ugly big black case and monitor.  The only good thing about this cheap computer is the 40 GB HD, at least its not 20. Look at what you could have gotten if you'd thrown in 100-250 more bucks. 1.25 ghz G4 - obviously WAY better then a Celeron, maybe even a P4. 256 mb ram - respectable, much better then only 128. 40 GB drive (only 50 bucks more for an 80) - respectable like I said for the Dell. Mac OS X Panther - this is were the extra 100-250 really shine, for this is why a Mac is so much more valuable.....throw in the new iLife with Garageband and wow. ATI Radeon 9200 with 32 mb vram - MUCH better then built-in intel graphics. Also, two firewire 400 ports (probably none if one on the Dell), thre USB 2.0 and two USB 1.1, all the software that it comes with besides iLife ( quicken, appleworks, two games , world book. And alos a free HP hp printer or 99 off any HP all-in-one product. The difference is substanstial, and the price difference not much at all, you could even go get an older 1 ghz eMac off a Apple Reseller or eBay and probably match the price of the dell. Oh and a great looking white enclosure with a great looking flat 17" crt built-in screen. Also, you can play DVDs too on it thanks to the combo drive. This iny my eyes justifies the fact that macs are better then pcs, and are as affordable as them as well for what you are getting. I am tired of the PC vs. Mac comparisons, when there really shouldnt be any. Alas, everyone is free to their opinion and it's their right to like what they want too. Please do not take anything I've said against you if your a pc user, its only my opinion.


----------



## contoursvt (Jun 18, 2004)

jonmichael23 said:
			
		

> interesting thread, in my experience I would have to say the mac experience is by FAR superior to windows. I have had my iMac for almost a year now, and I am glad to say it's never frozen, I've had one application unexpectedly quite (which used to be a common occurence on my PC) and that was Safari Beta. I experienced the beach ball twice in Jaguar, and I have not seen it yet in Panther, which I bought roughly a week and half after it was available. I have restarted only whenever Apple has released a 10.2.x or 10.3.x update, or the like. I usually have at least 8 to 15 apps open, if not more. That includes Safari, MSN Messenger, iChat, Photoshop CS, Konfabulator, iTunes, Camino, and Mail constanty open...



No offence taken. I have a mac at home too. Its old. A G3 with 384mb ram running 10.2. The thing with buying a mac is that its a lot easier getting a decent computer.. I can agree with that. Buying a PC is a lot bigger gamble because if you're not someone who builds a computer, its hard to tell how good it will end up being (components..etc.).    

As a PC guy who builds my own, the only PC brand I'd get thats pre-built would be DELL and even then, I'd have to get their higher end items.  When friends ask what they should buy (PC wise) I just tell them to get a Dell and to avoid Celerons and fork over the extra for a P4. 

I think the best PC you'll ever end up with is one built by a PC geek friend or a mom and pop shop that really knows what they are doing - 2nd choice would be to get a top of the line dell but it will be far more expensive.

The one thing I dont like about macs (towers) is that you're limited to one source for repairs and replacement parts - major components like power supply, mainboard, processors..etc. Replacement parts can be really expensive.


----------



## ex2bot (Jun 18, 2004)

contoursvt, your price of $3200 for a dual-1.8 G5 is WAAAYY too high. (Are you using Canadian dollars?)
[**EDIT: Oh, duh. I read through the posts again, and you are using Canadian money.**]

I paid $1728 for my G5 system (educational pricing did save me $200). --> Dual 1.8 G5s w/256 mb memory, 80 gig serial ATA hard drive, ATI 9600 XT w/128 MB in 8X AGA slot, Combo drive (cd-r/w, read DVD-ROM), Applecare extended warranty (total of 3 yrs.)

Now, when I upgrade the memory, I will probably pay: $80 x 2 =$160 for two Kingston or similar 512 MB DDR DIMMS, making 1.25 Gigs total. Adding a second hard drive, I can have 200 gigs for about $130 at 7200 RPM or--to more closely match your expensive SCSI--I can get a 74 gig 10,000 RPM serial ATA drive for ~$190.

TOTAL cost of upgrade:                       $290 (w/7200) or $350 (w/10,000).
TOTAL (approx.) retail cost of system: $2290             or $2350

Is there something of a price premium for Macs? Yes. Are Macs worth it? For me, yes. There are many factors to consider when making valid price comparisons betw. Win**** and Mac machines. Macs do come with a lot of good software, for example. And who buys extra RAM from Apple? Macs can, of course, use standard hard drives (incl. SCSI w/additional controller), printers, optical drives, etc.

Other, somewhat less tangible benefits with the Macs: access to the whole world of open-source *nix software, tens of thousands of excellent Mac apps, and a well-designed OS that doesn't insult you with:
-activation and pop-up speech bubbles
-search doggies and wizard guys in pointy hats
-a useless firewall
-a disorganized mess of controls
-spyware (from Microsoft!) Win Media
-the travesty that was Windows ME 
-thousands upon thousands of viruses
-a window close button so poorly designed (on the left side) that they had to add ANOTHER ONE on the right!
- Windows software aesthetic (read: none)
and I could go on and on, but don't get me started! 

Doug


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 18, 2004)

Canadian prices for stock 1.8, 2.0 and 2.5s without any discounts are $2,799.00, $3,499.00, and $4,199.00.


----------



## ex2bot (Jun 18, 2004)

Captain Code! That was some quick research.

Incidentally, no Radeon 9800 for me. I'll wait a couple years and a couple generations before upgrading.

Doug


----------



## Foxman26 (Jun 19, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> Well, for me as a macosx.com member, I think basic means 'eMac'. Less basic would be a 'PowerBook' or a 'PowerMac'. I don't care much about the stuff inside everyone's home-built PCs, or I would go to a PC-centric forum.



RICKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE MAN, I MISS YOU BUD, PLASE UNBLOCK ME OR PUT ME BACK ON YOUR BUDDY LIST, PLEASE!!!! I LOVE YOU MAN!!!!


----------



## mdnky (Jun 19, 2004)

guilly said:
			
		

> Well, the stability of an OS is 90% a responsability of the owner/mantainer - also it depends on what processes are running, that is what is the demand for that or those computers and/or operating systems. Often the unstability comes from third party software which is not well round up.



That's definitely a part of it, but also another reason not to use Windows IMO.

I spend the vast majority of time at my current job keeping the Win2KPro boxes updated (security & virus) and running (maintenance, reinstalls, etc.) which is not something I want or like to do.  I'd rather be handling the marketing of the properties we have listed...which was the primary duty I was hired for.  IT work was just a secondary thing.  Instead a good 60% of my time is wasted on fixing those darned things...time better spent elsewhere.

In the past month I've spent maybe 2 hours working on the iBook, and the majority of that was backing up junk and removing it from the HD to clear up space.


----------



## guilly (Jun 21, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> In the past month I've spent maybe 2 hours working on the iBook, and the majority of that was backing up junk and removing it from the HD to clear up space.



Geeeee


----------



## fryke (Jun 21, 2004)

foxman... you meant Ricky or me with that strange message?


----------



## Anim8r (Jun 21, 2004)

contoursvt said:
			
		

> No offence taken. I have a mac at home too. Its old. A G3 with 384mb ram running 10.2. The thing with buying a mac is that its a lot easier getting a decent computer.. I can agree with that. Buying a PC is a lot bigger gamble because if you're not someone who builds a computer, its hard to tell how good it will end up being (components..etc.).
> 
> As a PC guy who builds my own, the only PC brand I'd get thats pre-built would be DELL and even then, I'd have to get their higher end items.  When friends ask what they should buy (PC wise) I just tell them to get a Dell and to avoid Celerons and fork over the extra for a P4.
> 
> ...



I think you are wrong in this to an extent.
Very few people build their own machine. I have in the past, but for PCs I now use Boxx. I can't take the risk of having downtime and they offer one day turnaround for complete system replacement.
The majority of pc users are far better suited to getting a commodity system from Dell or god forbid, Gateway.

As far as Apple being a one-shot source of replacement parts, this is only true of parts like the motherboard which in all honesty rarely have issues.


----------



## gerbick (Jun 21, 2004)

My Apple G4 Cube motherboard has died on me 4 times, before I finally got frustrated with Apple's lack of support, and bought one off of ebay for parts, basically modded the hell out of it, upgraded the G4 CPU, RAM, HD, DVD-ROM, video card, and even case... before that, I had an Apple IIGS that basically made me swear off Apple's due to it being so problematic.

What you experience is what you experience.  There's no "wrong" or "right" to it.  It just is something you experience.

And for the record, I build 100% of my PC's, and my last two have been around for some serious work and hours.  About as much as my coveted Cube, in fact.

Still as far as PC vs. Mac ammo goes... who cares.  Use what you can use/afford/like.


----------

