For the past three years my school has had a laptop program wherein a Mac Ibook is provided to all students for free. From that I learned most of what I know about computers. However I have always had a PC for a home computer and it has never really let me down.
Unfortunately the state has decided to cancel the laptop program because they decided to be short sited under fund it, and my current PC is slowly dieing, I intend to keep it alive as long as I can but before long I'll have to take it out back and execute it. This is where my dilemma arises; I want to get a new computer and I'm completely impartial to either Mac or PC (besides the slight apprehension of serving his satanic majesty Bill Gates). I figured somewhere in that vast sea of nerds someone could finally end the debate and tell me which one to buy so I don't have to waste too much time thinking about it.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
There is no end to the debate. Each is good at its own thing. It all boils down to what you intend to use it for.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
That’s what I figured, in retrospect it was probably a bad idea to phrase it that way, what I'm really looking for is an objective comparison so I can make a good decision.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I used a Mac at work, but of course, we were a studio and used it with a lot of music things.
I'll keep my PC, thanks. Along with the daily wombat sacrifices to Bill Gates.
-pH
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I use both a Mac and PC at home. I use the Mac for web surfing and digital art stuff (photos, videos, drawing, etc.). I use the PC for programming and gaming.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
When it comes to laptops, Macs and PCs were roughly equal at the same price point a year ago; PCs have again pulled ahead. But the general rule of thumb is just to buy the one you're most comfortable using.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I use a Mac for web surfing, games, email, web design, making movies, writing music, programming, kernel debugging, well, everything. I don't even know how to use Windows. So I'm a little biased...
Everyone I talk to says they stick with whatever platform that runs the software they have bought. So, whatever you buy, plan on having it for a long time the second you start buying software.
You might want to look at what people are saying about the future OS'es. Apple says if you want to know what Vista is going to look like, you can see it now in the form of OS X 10.4 (oh, and there is already a Vista virus/worm/whatever-I-don't-even-have-antivirus-software-so-I-don't-pay-attention). I'm starting to hear what 10.5 is going to have and it sounds realllly cool. 10.5 will come out about the same time as Vista.
Really though, you got to take what I say with a grain of salt. OSC hates Apple, so...
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Linux.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't think now is the time to be buying an Apple laptop. They plan to start the switch to Intel processors with their laptop line next year.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
mac's are less prone to virus / trojan infection etc as most viruses are currently writen for Windows. So you get a bit of extra security there.
however, if everyone starts buying mac's that will no doubt change.
Must think about setting up a decent firewall ARGH
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by firebird: mac's are less prone to virus / trojan infection etc as most viruses are currently writen for Windows. So you get a bit of extra security there.
however, if everyone starts buying mac's that will no doubt change.
Must think about setting up a decent firewall ARGH
There are no real viruses for Mac. There is malware (opener/renepo). It is possible to write a virus for Mac, ala someone once offered a competition and Apple told them to shut it down, no reason to give people an incentive to figure out how to do it, and I've heard of sneaky ways to do stuff on Mac that doesn't exist on Windows, so the current virus writters just haven't bothered to go looking.
If you are using a Mac, ipfw is built in and can be turned on in System Preferences->Sharing->Firewall. Or you can do it the he-man way and run a startup script executing ipfw commands. You should only worry about running a firewall if you have turned on any form of Sharing (web, file, applescript, remote desktop, etc).
I'm not sure you want to wait for the Intel Macs and get in on the first shipment. 1.0 versions of stuff usually has problems...
If you don't mind a 15in, Apple just introduced a new model. But people are complaining about the brighter LCD because some get dim at the edges... I'm not sure what to tell you. I think buying computers sucks unless you are spending someone else's money.
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
I grew up on windows, but when I graduated from high school I got an ibook G4 as a present.
After using both of them I have decided that the mac is the better product. That also includes their support system. The only real drawback is that Bill Gates has a strangle hold on the "homework" software. i.e. Word, powerpoint, excel, etc. I manage to get by with text edit but there are a lot of advantages to word.
Most of the software is written for windows (including viruses) but that's not a real problem unless you want to do nothing but play games.
For web surfing, music writing/editing/listening, movie making/editing/watching, and photo editing, nothing beats the mac.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I manage to get by with text edit but there are a lot of advantages to word.
If you really feel that way, you can buy Word for the Mac. Posted by Lime (Member # 1707) on :
You can also get OpenOffice for Mac. It creates/edits Word documents as well as a slew of other formats. And it's free. It's a little clunky in places (though to be honest I haven't used it for a while), but it's a darn sight better than your average text editor.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Or you could try Pages and Keynote (they're bundled together), which should satisfy your needs completely if you've been managing to get by with Textedit.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Or NeoOffice, ThinkOffice, etc etc (many OpenOffice takeoffs which usually cost).
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Oh, OpenOffice just released a new version for Mac:
Anyone who uses Mac should know about versiontracker.com and macupdate.com...
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I've always used Windows until I bought a Mac about three or four years ago. I still use a Windows PC at work, and it seems to work out just fine. Likewise, my Mac has seemed to do everything I've needed as well.
There are a lot of opinions regarding which is better, so I'll try to avoid reflecting any of those biases.
Software is important to consider because there is much more software available to Windows than Macs. However, this doesn't necessarily have to be an issue, because there are Macintosh versions of basically everything a consumer will probably need. For example, instead of having say 5,000 different CD burning programs to choose from, you might have to choose from 500 instead.
Many times this is not really a problem, especially since the Mac already comes with the software the you will most likely use. But what if there is a program that you really enjoy using that isn't availble for a Mac? Well, there's always Virtual PC which works really well with the Mac OS, although it's a little slow.
There are endless debates about whether Macs are inherently more secure than PC's, or if its security is a product of low marketshare. It does seem to be more secure, and the record of viruses would seem to imply that it is.
Games, or the lack thereof, has always been an issue for Macs. Although, if you're looking at laptops, a high performance gaming machine is not what you're expecting anyway.
I guess it all comes down to what you're the most comfortable with, as has been stated by others. You're in a good position to know since you've used both. I would personally recommend a Mac, but that's just my personal bias speaking. For me the sense of security and the seamless integration of key software programs is enough for me to prefer using my Mac. Oh, and if you do decide to go with a Mac, I wouldn't worry too much about waiting for the new line of Macs with the Intel processors. What Apple is selling right now is great in itself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What Apple is selling right now is great in itself.
Provided you don't expect to be able to run the coolest software available a year from now.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I have to switch to a mac laptop for the college I'm transferring to. They say anything from 12 inch iBook to 15 inch Powerbook is ok, and meets the basic requirements. I'm just wondering what model has the most reccomendations, I don't game, don't do much really, occasionally I edit photos from my digi cam. Also what differences will I notice between my pc and an apple, what do I need to expect?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Provided you don't expect to be able to run the coolest software available a year from now.
If I understand correctly, new software should be able to work on both platforms by means of universal binaries. If that is not the case, then yes, waiting would be better.
quote:Also what differences will I notice between my pc and an apple, what do I need to expect?
Unless you're tied to specific software, I think the main differences for most home users are simple GUI differences. For example, you'll have to get used to using the Dock instead of the Start Menu, the 'x' button doesn't actually quit the program, installing software uses a different process than the wizard that most Windows users are used to, and minor things like that.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Most of those things don't sound too bad.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:If I understand correctly, new software should be able to work on both platforms by means of universal binaries.
This is only true if the developer puts in the additional time and effort required to make it happen. Obviously, it's in Apple's interests to pretend that it's trivial to do, so they're talking like every program developed for the new Intel Macs will come as a universal binary.
Personally, I wouldn't bet the cost of a new computer on that happening.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
On a side note, maybe my computer is weird or maybe it was purposefully a subliminal message. When I installed Office 2004 on my iMac, it put the icons in my dock. The order it put them in was W (for Word), X for (Excel), and P (for Powerpoint). So reading from left to right, you have WXP. Now what also has the abberviation WXP? Windows XP. Kind of odd that.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If you use Entourage, you can spell "EW, XP!"
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:If I understand correctly, new software should be able to work on both platforms by means of universal binaries.
This is only true if the developer puts in the additional time and effort required to make it happen. Obviously, it's in Apple's interests to pretend that it's trivial to do, so they're talking like every program developed for the new Intel Macs will come as a universal binary.
Personally, I wouldn't bet the cost of a new computer on that happening.
Making universal binaries will be trivial for most developers. Photoshop and Office? Probably harder. What that means is that Photoshop may not be *natively* available for Intel Macs, not the other way around. Right now there isn't any software that *only* runs on Intel Mac, but there is a lot of software right now that only runs on PowerPC Mac.
For software that isn't native yet, there is Rosetta, which will run PowerPC binaries emulated on x86.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I'm a gamer, so for me there is only one choice - PC. Almost every computer game is made for the PC (I'm excluding XBox, PS2 games, etc). I can't think of any major computer games that were Mac or Linux only.
PCs give me the flexibility to upgrade and customize my computer so that it can play any game I want. (yes, Linux does this too, but doesn't have the same game selection)
Lastly, PCs let me do everything else that I need to do - program, run spreadsheets and databases, do word processing, etc. Maybe it's not quite as fashionable as the Mac or as /.y as Linux, but it meets all of my needs.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Yup, if games are really important to you, Mac isn't your choice. If you would like to play some games, you still can on the Mac, but the game aisle for Mac is very very very small compared to the game aisle for PC. But I do see most of the popular titles there. ALSO. There are tons of games on the internet for Mac that aren't on store shelves, but they usually aren't the top quality that the top games are. But a lot of them are actually very good and free (if you don't mind non-fps games).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: Making universal binaries will be trivial for most developers.
Making universal binaries will be easier (not trivial) for developers that already use Xcode. It will be even easier for developers doing entirely new applications rather than updating an extant codebase.
For developers that are not using Xcode, or that are working with large extant codebases, making universal binaries will be far from trivial.
Of course, you won't hear that from Apple. That wouldn't be Insanely Great, and of course then they'd have to admit that they spent years touting the greatness of AltiVec and getting developers to optimize their code for it (not to mention getting IBM to graft it onto the PPC 970) only to turn around and say "Whoops! Sorry! We're taking AltiVec away now!"
quote:For software that isn't native yet, there is Rosetta, which will run PowerPC binaries emulated on x86.
Again, according to Apple. But emulating PowerPC on x86 isn't exactly an insignificant task, and no matter how well-optimized the emulator is it will incur a significant performance hit.
Seriously, I think you're trivializing what has already become a massive undertaking. You may not see many problems as an end user, but that doesn't imply that many developers will be working long hours on this for quite some time.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Of course, you won't hear that from Apple. That wouldn't be Insanely Great
For some reason that phrase really made me laugh.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I guess I'm leaning towards a Powerbook. If I decide to go Mac should I wait for the new line to come out or will it not make much of a difference.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If you currently have no Mac software and can afford to wait a fair while, wait for at least the second revision of the Intel-based PowerBooks.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
If you can afford to wait, then wait. But if you need a computer now, I wouldn't worry too much about buying a Mac.
Only certain Macs will begin to use the Intel processors next year. That means that Apple will be making both Intel and PPC Macs for the next couple years. The major software developers will have to support both platforms during that time. And considering there are millions of PPC Macs out there, most developers will probably choose to support both anyway.
By the time Apple and software developers decide to abandon PPC altogether, it will probably be time for a new computer anyway.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's also true, particulalry for laptops. I believe that Apple has committed to supporting PowerPC through 2009.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Seriously, I think you're trivializing what has already become a massive undertaking. You may not see many problems as an end user, but that doesn't imply that many developers will be working long hours on this for quite some time.
True true true. But all it means is that everyone should be buying PowerPC now, not when Intel comes out. Because Rosetta will be for Intel machines, not PowerPC. Everything will already be native on PowerPC.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
My single biggest dislike about Macs is that if something goes wrong, there's no "popping the hood" to see if you can make things right again. If you're hosed, call Apple.
It's been said, but here it is again: if you like PCs at all, but don't want to give money to MS, get a Unix PC. It's not for everyone, but it's useful, flexible, and getting steadily better under the watchful eyes of people who are working on it because it's what they use, and they love it.
Although (true confessions) I'm typing this into a Win XP PC. I'm just not hard-core enough to give up on the vast amount of Windows-compatible software, myself.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:if something goes wrong, there's no "popping the hood" to see if you can make things right again.
If you're in the market for laptops, to be fair, neither Macs nor PCs allow you to do much for customizing.
The Powermac and the last couple years of iMacs do allow you to change most everything. The eMac and mini are about the only desktop Macs that you can't really do too much to on your own.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That isn't true about the iMacs -- they only allow you to add more RAM. They have no PCI, PCI-X, or PCIe expansion slots, and the video chipset isn't on a card seated in an AGP or PCIe slot, so it can't be upgraded either.
The Power Macs do have a decent amount of expandability, though it would be nice to have room for more than two hard drives. Still, eight RAM slots is nice (though it's worth noting that I've already filled six of mine).
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Hmmm, I guess I stand corrected. I thought I had read somewhere that the new flat panel iMacs were actually rather easy to get into and that you could replace a lot of stuff in it - though not necessarily upgrade to new parts. I only have the stylish lampshade model, so I can't really go and look inside.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
They aren't "easy to get into" in the same way that a Power Mac is; it's more analogous to getting into a laptop.
The Power Mac case, though, is an absolute joy to work inside. I've worked inside various PC cases from various manufacturers and nothing even comes remotely close to how elegant -- yes, I said it, elegant -- the layout of the G5 tower's internals is.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:My single biggest dislike about Macs is that if something goes wrong, there's no "popping the hood" to see if you can make things right again. If you're hosed, call Apple.
I don't see why people are in love with modifying their hardware. I could care less. Back in the 80's I understood it because you could build your own computer from scratch, as in, making your own motherboard and everything. Where I work there is a PC group and a Mac group (I'm in the Mac group). The PC group spends a lot of their time fixing hardware. We spend virtually none.
One thing you can't do with Windows is (legally) look at the source code. For Mac, it is all published. I find software much more interesting to tweak with.
I know this is just a personal preference thing. But I guess my point is that I think modifying hardware is highly overrated, especially when you consider what *other* cool things you can do.
quote:It's been said, but here it is again: if you like PCs at all, but don't want to give money to MS, get a Unix PC. It's not for everyone, but it's useful, flexible, and getting steadily better under the watchful eyes of people who are working on it because it's what they use, and they love it.
Agreed. If it weren't for Mac I'd be using FreeBSD or Linux.
[ October 28, 2005, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
If you're not afraid of screws and prying pieces off, you can upgrade/fix a laptop. I switched the faceplate (the plate around the keyboard with the track pad) of my iBook two years ago because I broke the latch and wanted a new latch. Not too hard, and I put the same number of screws in that came out
I have a powerbook that I inherited from my brother in law. The hard drive is in sad shape, but the computer runs completely normally from an external hard drive. In the next few weeks, I plan on taking that laptop apart to replace the laptop hard drive.
So, not impossible. Just not common.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*nod* Indeed, dabbler.
quote:For Mac, it is all published. I find software much more interesting to tweak with.
This isn't true. Darwin is open-source, but a lot of the stuff above it isn't.
quote:I know this is just a personal preference thing. But I guess my point is that I think modifying hardware is highly overrated, especially when you consider what *other* cool things you can do.
Over the next few years I'd like to be able to install processor upgrades, bigger/faster hard drives, a new video card, possibly a high-end audio card, more RAM, and maybe a new optical drive. The only Mac I can do all of these things with is the Power Mac, and all of them extend the machine's useful life. I don't think it's "highly overrated" at all -- it's a useful option to have. Most people don't need it, which is why the consumer lines exist, but that doesn't make it less useful.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Ok. So I am in an environment where I just get new hardware periodically and I don't have to worry about upgrading old stuff. So I'm not all wrapped up in hardware.
I mentioned the PC group I work with because I don't think it is unique. I believe the side effect from being able to build your own computers is that you end up having to repair hardware more often. I would rather use my computer than fix it, so I don't see the benefit from modifying hardware as worth it. But as I said, it is probably more a personal preference thing.
But if you really wanted to, it is possible to mod Macs. Dabbler mentioned taking apart laptops. I've taken apart many myself and installed larger hard drives (and broke a few parts, and ordered replacement parts off of ebay). And there are 3rd party processor upgrades available for even old beige desktops. And cube lovers are have gone so far as to put dual processors on their cubes. So the same stuff is possible, but the ways of doing it are a bit different.
So I guess what I really should have said was, you can mod a Mac just like a PC. But like everything else with Macs, you have to take a slightly different approach than PC.
Well, I just found out that a custom built kernel is missing some stuff from the retail OS X kernel. But the person who posts the xnu (kernel) code on opensource.apple.com said that the differences don't matter much. Doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. But that is more than you will ever get from Windows.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I guess I spoke a little too metaphorically. By "popping the hood", I meant not only if something goes wrong with the hardware, but if something goes wrong with the software. My experience with Macs (admittedly I don't have as much with OS X and recent iterations) is that if something goes wrong, the best you can do is buy an expensive Norton product and pray. Even Win XP, while steadily progressing the wrong way in this regard, at least allows you a look at the underlying directory structure, allows you to tinker with the registry, allows many system files to be tinkered with in plain text editors, and so on.
Most hardware problems, I'd be stuck whether I had a PC or a Mac; I'd just have to go further to find someone able to _fix_ the Mac. I have some rather embarassing stories about my own attempts to fix things on a PC...
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:the best you can do is buy an expensive Norton product and pray.
NO! NOT NORTON! There are more Norton horror stories on Mac than good stories! LOL. Really, Norton products do more damage to Macs than good. The best Mac tool is DiskWarrior. Usually because the most common problem is hard disk corruption and DiskWarrior always fixes it.
quote:Even Win XP, while steadily progressing the wrong way in this regard, at least allows you a look at the underlying directory structure, allows you to tinker with the registry, allows many system files to be tinkered with in plain text editors, and so on.
Mac has always shown you the directory structure. What else would it do? There is no registry on Mac. Everything is in text files and can be edited with plain text editors.
Unless you are talking about Mac OS 9 and before. Most everything back then was stored in a resource fork which was editable by ResEdit. I'm not sad to see OS 9 gone. In fact, the thing that excited me about Macs when I was making my choice between Mac and PC back in the late 90's was that I knew Mac was moving to Unix.
Yeah, if it weren't for OS X, I'd be using Linux or FreeBSD....
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Heh. If you're talking software, then I tinker a reasonable amount with my computer's insides. As a software approach to the laptop issue, I checked error logs, mounting logs, CPU cycling during hard drive churns, RAM usage, and running processes. Regularly on my computer, if something seems to be running a little funny I check how processes are doing. I can kill the appropriate process that's gone screwy with a single command in the Terminal.
The Mac OS X hides things like this from the average user. But if you're not the average user, then you're certainly not limited.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Oh, I routinely check on network problems in the Terminal, too. I can use the command line to ping IPs, traceroute, ssh, and scp.
Really just giving you an idea if you didn't realize that these things are done on the Mac just as they're done on most computers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I believe the side effect from being able to build your own computers is that you end up having to repair hardware more often.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)