Question

Locked

What is better an Apple computer or a standard PC??

By joshua.smithers ·
I was wondering if the hardware quality in an Apple computer is better than a standard PC.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

17 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Answers

Collapse -

A 'standard' PC covers a wide range of possibilities.

by OnTheRopes In reply to What is better an Apple c ...

Define standard.<br>
We just bought an eMachine's PC with XP Home Edition from Walmart for 400 bucks. I expect that even a low end Apple machine will have better hardware.<br>
My wife has an eMachine that's been running fine for the last 5/6 years with just routine maintenance although it has been upgraded in several areas.

Collapse -

There's one significant disadvantage with an Apple Computer ..

by OldER Mycroft In reply to What is better an Apple c ...

By and large, you can ONLY attach other Apple hardware to an Apple Computer - this rule applies to ancillary equipment AND to internal system upgrades.

Whereas upgrading a PC can be done using any PC-compatible upgrade from the raft of manufacturers that cater to the PC.

For example - check out the reults from these 2 Google searches:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=scanner+for+Apple&btnG=Search&meta=

How many links point straight to Apple?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=scanner+for+PC&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

These links point all over the place.

Collapse -

If I bought an Apple PC it would be a tinker toy.

by OnTheRopes In reply to There's one significant d ...

Something to dink around with.<br>
I hope to be running XP for a long, long time.

Collapse -

Now thats just ignorant stuff (insert your own expletive)

by JamesRL In reply to There's one significant d ...

That was somewhat true in 1985. But since then there have been many manufacturers other than apple whose peripherals work fine with Macs.

As for your example, HP Canon, Epson, Nikon, Microtek, Umax, Fujitsu, Pentax, Konica Minolta and others all sell scanners and software for the Mac.

When I did a search on CNet for Mac Printers, I only found 1663 results.

I remember hearing this lame argument when I was selling Macs twenty years ago. I could then pull out a catalogue with over three thousand listings for third party commerical software, and I'm sure its bigger now.

The only significant gap for Macs are games. There are many good games available for the Mac, but not every trendy game is available. With the current trend to consoles I'm not sure this makes much difference.

James

Collapse -

You may be right ...

by OldER Mycroft In reply to Now thats just ignorant s ...

I only ever experienced Apple in a professional graphics workstation environment. Mainly in the commercial print field.

Collapse -

Yeah I know nothing about it

by JamesRL In reply to You may be right ...

...except that I ran a newspaper using Macs for typesetting (onto Linotypes for the resolution). And I used Macs for typsetting brouchures for various clients.

I did colour separations on a Mac 20 years ago, in fact I went to a commercial printing exhibition back then on behalf of a Mac dealer and we sold quite a few units.

So yeah I know nothing about commerical printing, except it paid some of my bills.

James

Collapse -

My My - Touchy Touchy ...

by OldER Mycroft In reply to Yeah I know nothing about ...

At no point did I suggest that you 'knew nothing'.

However, now that you've introduced the possibilities ...

#1 You didn't use Macs for typesetting - the Macs were the vehicle that ran QuarkXpress and QuarkXpress did the actual typesetting, not the Mac.

#2 You didn't ever do colour separations 'on a Mac' - the colour separations would have been done on an industry-standards scanner (hopefully a rotary chamber scanner, spinning upwards of 10,000 rpm). The Macs would have handled the imposition of the separations, for page make-up and imposition into QuarkXpress or some such other Desktop Publishing software.

Any introduction of non-scanned spot colours would have been handled 'on a Mac' by the Pantone Colour Matching System, working in tandem with QuarkXpress.

However, now that we have entered the 21st Century and Apple no longer despises the Intel family of processors, industry-standard producers like Quark and Pantone have all joined the Intel bandwagon and all of the above procedures, once the sole capability of the Apple Mac, can now be produced with equanimity on an equally capable PC.

Collapse -

Its just the attitude....

by JamesRL In reply to My My - Touchy Touchy ...

That since you had experience with Macs, you knew everything. I sold Macs, supported Macs, used Macs for publishing, taught DTP classes on Macs,etc.

As for typesetting, the software (Quark Xpress) ran on a Mac. And the software can't run on its own, hence, the Mac did the typesetting. Likewise, the Linotype was simply a high end printer that accepted PostScript files directly from the Mac. Since we didn't own one of our own, I would walk into a service bureau, use one of their Macs and chose the Linotype as a printer the same way I would chose a laserwriter.

The scanner was the input device for the Mac on colour seps. When you draw with a mouse, is the mouse the peripheral or the computer?

I never said these programs were exclusive to the Mac. In fact I used to work for Corel which for most of its time avoided Macs (long story).

You said there were few non-Apple peripherals, and used scanners as an example, which clearly was mistaken. Because Apple abandoned both the SCSI bus and the proprietary keboard/mouse bus (ADB) in favour of USB, there are many devices available that work with the addition of a simple driver.

There are many reasons to buy a Mac, many not to. But lack of peripherals or software isn't one of them.

BTW I don't own a Mac, haven't for years. I game. But not everyone does. Horses for courses.

James

Collapse -

I cited my experience as a limiting factor ...

by OldER Mycroft In reply to Its just the attitude....

Not as a boast !!

My intention was to illustrate my limited experience as only being in a commercial print field with the Apple running as a graphics workstation -
THAT was meant to limit my experience!

Titling my post with "You may be right" indicated an admission of resignation to my limited knowledge.

I fear you have a chip on your shoulder but it most definitely wasn't aggravated by me.

Collapse -

An Apple computer is best for Graphics than a standard pc..

A Apple Mac computer is more expensive than a standard Pc computer, but you are limited to just Apple parts.
It depends what you need from a computer, whether it be good graphics or speed. If you are in the field where you do graphical work then a Apple computer would be your best choice.
Then again if you do not like the Windows system you can always load on a Linux system onto a standard Pc. You can do this on a Apple mac but the cost will not do it justice.

Back to Hardware Forum
17 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next

Hardware Forums