General discussion

Locked

Mac Vs PC

By :Merr: ·
We were researching the differences between Mac's and a PC and were curious on what other people think, the general census was on Mac vs PC.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Hardware is incompatable

by mjd420nova In reply to Mac Vs PC

On a MAC. All parts and optional equipment has to come from APPLE or one of its approved vendors. And at inflated prices too. Why?? To keep those who have become dependent on Apples hardware and are afraid to try anything else. Their software is clunky and quirky to the frustation of any who try to master it. Whereas an Intel based PC can be festooned with a multiple of cards and software that will work on just about any machine. The hardware is readily available at any electronics supplier. I liken it to people who will not give up their BIC shaver for an electric razor. Personally I don't like knicks on my face or on my computer.

Collapse -

Whatch out for the fanboys

by mjwx In reply to Mac Vs PC

There are a lot of Mac fanboys, my advice is don?t buy the hype to which there is a lot of hype about Macs.

Same goes for Windows fanboys less numerous but just as rabid, Linux too I suppose but there is not as much Linux hype (Linux speaks for itself and yes I am a Linux fanboy).

But onto the matter at hand. The question is what do you want to use the computers for. I'll briefly explain what each one does. I am a network admin who looks after windows and Macintosh machines in a graphic design department.

Macintosh. Mac's are good for graphic design, everything else they do mediocre at best. Mac's are really only made for graphic designers. Putting a mac onto a windows domain is next to imposible. Proprietary hardware makes it difficult to get replacements quickly so its not so good for mission critical stuff (it took 3 days to replace a power supply). The range of applications are limited compared to Linux and windows because there isn?t much Mac development going on outside of Apple and Adobe. New operating system to learn but has the same amount of user-friendliness as XP and just as stable. Cost is also higher than that of a PC with the same specifications. Also its a bad time to buy Mac's due to the Intel switch. They are phasing out the PPC chips (which is good) for Intel Core Duo's. The Intel Macs are still in their first generation so not all the bugs have been worked out and not all the software is optimized for an Intel processor.

Windows PC. Made to do everything, does everything well enough but doesn?t do anything particularly well. Will work on any hardware so prices can fit you?re budget and you can easily customise a system (high speed graphics, word processing, Database). More applications are developed for windows than any other platform. Easy to use as most people know how to use windows. Good for general purpose computing.

Linux. Really made as a server, cant beat it for uptime or price. Lots of distributions to choose from, Lots of applications developed but not as many then for windows (mostly server apps). Most of what you need is built into the major dissolutions (Debian and Fedora Core to name two). Works on most hardware with a few exceptions. Hard to use, configuration can be a pain but once you have it working it just keeps on going. Its free also.

I say, stick with the readily available PC hardware and choose your OS, heck you can even have both.

Collapse -

Good Post!!!

by faradhi In reply to Whatch out for the fanboy ...

Concise, accurate, well balanced. Kudos. :)

Collapse -

Not Really

by GreenPirogue In reply to Whatch out for the fanboy ...

A couple of things from my perspective.

We have a mixed environment as well, and we don't have problems putting Macs on a Windows domain. (Or an old Novell domain, for that matter.)

I would say it depends what you do. If you do graphic design or movie creation, the Mac does things well.

I use a PC at work - I do mostly DBA work and data mining, and I doubt I could do it as well with a Mac (or a UNIX/Linux box). I attach to 12 different databases in all flavors, and many of which we have only tried to attach from a Win machine.

If you have a small office that will not interact with other offices, you probably can make a decision outside of who your computers touch.

I use a Mac at home and find that it is a good value - I have a laptop which is 10 years old. Were it a PC, I would have tossed it 6 years ago. It is a little long in the tooth and will be replaced shortly.

Don't buy the "Macs are too expensive" hype. That being said, if you are in a large office setting, you are probably drawn to PCs. You could probably do an office a lot cheaper with Linux boxes and extremely cheap (free) software. Because the Mac also runs on the same arch as Linux, many Linux titles have been ported to the Mac.

Collapse -

At present the biggest problem is

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Mac Vs PC

getting non-Mac software to run on the Mac. This is improving but still has a way to go.

In a recent comparison of costs and bang for dollar, I looked at what you get for a standard (not basic) Vista install and its Mac equivalent. The Mac gave better perfromance and more for oyur money, less intial cost and more software.

However, a vanilla PC with a lower standard of hardware was very much cheaper and could still beat both if you installed cheaper operating systems from Unix or Linux.

You need to do a proper business requirements list for the box and then see which will do that cheapest, observable performance is mostly software today - unless you go for the extremely short end.

Back to Desktop Forum
5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums