More Mac Vs. PC Ammo Fer Ya

ex2bot

ex2bot

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

Doug
 
Captain Code said:
Steve Jobs used to use IBM laptops right when he came back to the company.
Click to expand...
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! ;-)
 
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."

Check out this month's issue.

Cheers. :)

Doug
Click to expand...


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.
 
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."

Check out this month's issue.

Cheers. :)

Doug
Click to expand...


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 $$.
 
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 $$.
Click to expand...
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 :D
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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....
In reply of the whole message above (the whole, that's just the intro).

contoursvt, I like to read what you say since you are well documented and work with both systems.

So I do, and therefore I have to agree with some of your observation - but I utterly disagree with some other, particularly with one.

I mainly work with WXP and W2k on the PC side, some of them work as network servers and web servers, some others work as simple workstations.

I work with 2 Apple computers, one iBook G4 and one PowerBook G4, both running OS X Panther. I've been using a G3 for 2 years now using OS X Jaguar (10.2). In this side, I use them for extensive graphic and video editing. They do not work as servers, but on daily basis I have to run up to 10 programs at the same time squeezing the CPU.

I also have a XP Home laptop for my personal affairs, as with a PowerBook G4.

I bought the PowerBook G4 three months ago and I only felt in the need of reseting due to a kernel error once (when hot-plugging and hot-unpluggin some USB devices when the computer was asleep and awakening the computer at the same time).

The PC's with W2k are reseted daily (no, not all of them, of course, but there's always one issue with one of them), due to numerous failures, most of them difficult to understand. They are well protected and maintained. We have 5 IBM technitians working in-house for us.

My personal XP computer I had to reinstall the OS already 5 times. It has no more than 8 months of life.

I reset it everyweek, no matter what I do, one day or another it fails. Believe me, I'm very concerned with clean computers, so I just can apply that unestability to the OS itself.

My iBook G4 has never been reseted, and will probably never be. That is for the past 2 months.

So you tell me that W2k/XP compares in stability matters to OS X, and I have to disagree.

However, OS 9 sucks (even though some people whose economies are probably unable to afford updates do not think so). It is an extremely grown OS that has inherited many faulty diseases. Certainly, OS X is a huge step.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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. :)
 
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. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top