Mac vs. PC and no, this is not a poll, kinda

[Joshimodo]

- Overpriced: Depends on what you want. You will always be able to build a computer with comparable hardware (ie. CPU, RAM, GPU, etc...) for less money than you'll be able to get from Apple. No argument there. What differentiates Apple products is build quality. Arguably not as big of a deal for a desktop. But, a huge deal for a laptop. A well built laptop will always cost a few hundred bucks more. Look at a Lenovo Thinkpad. No argument there. But, to say Macs are overpriced isn't really accurate. They're overpriced if you don't want what they offer. But, they're worth every penny if you do.

He zips through everything at lightning speed, making heavy use of all the OS' unique features. So, if I had to guess, the interface is probably the main appeal to such users at this point. Not to say that Windows can't handle the same applications admirably.

It doesn't depend on what you want at all. The starting Mac Pro is worse than my current PC (and generic store-bought PC equivalents), at twice the price.
Nor is the build quality anything special. It's standard stuff - Hardly some high-end enthusiast wiring or superb airflow management.

Granted, on the laptop side of things, Macbooks are far tougher than the competition due to the casing, but the parts aren't anything special there either. That said, the Macbooks are far greater value for money than anything else Apple sells.

In regards to your friend...That's nothing beyond being used to that environment. Aside from being able to mark folders and files easier, OSX offers no better UI or tools/shortcuts than Windows.

 

[Laughing Man]

I dunno but the advantage of owning a Mac seem to be very small if any at all. From my perspective I want something that is bang for my buck and in no single way does the Mac meet that requirement. The overall cost for what you get is frankly laughable, when you can build a similar PC for half the cost and it will be just as powerful.

Macs are for people who want someone else to think for them, tell them how it should look, how it should run, what they can do with it and then charging you twice the price for that pleasure. Several years ago maybe the arguments that still get thrown around today may have had some justification but these following arguments do not only hold no water nowadays they certainly do not justify paying twice the price for them.

Better for media type people
More stable
More secure
Better UI

The reality is ask a PC user some reasons why they own a PC and they can usually come up with some pretty decent and valid justifications and ones that relate to the actual use of the device. Ask a Mac user their reason and you'll either get some bollocks about how it looks or how well built it is (nothing to do with the device's actual use) or some long outdated reason like the ones I listed above. Of course I am willing to listen to any Mac users who can actually give reason as to why their half powerful twice overcharged computer is worth the money they paid for it.

 

[floobie]

- Overpriced: Depends on what you want. You will always be able to build a computer with comparable hardware (ie. CPU, RAM, GPU, etc...) for less money than you'll be able to get from Apple. No argument there. What differentiates Apple products is build quality. Arguably not as big of a deal for a desktop. But, a huge deal for a laptop. A well built laptop will always cost a few hundred bucks more. Look at a Lenovo Thinkpad. No argument there. But, to say Macs are overpriced isn't really accurate. They're overpriced if you don't want what they offer. But, they're worth every penny if you do.

He zips through everything at lightning speed, making heavy use of all the OS' unique features. So, if I had to guess, the interface is probably the main appeal to such users at this point. Not to say that Windows can't handle the same applications admirably.

It doesn't depend on what you want at all. The starting Mac Pro is worse than my current PC (and generic store-bought PC equivalents), at twice the price.
Nor is the build quality anything special. It's standard stuff - Hardly some high-end enthusiast wiring or superb airflow management.

Granted, on the laptop side of things, Macbooks are far tougher than the competition due to the casing, but the parts aren't anything special there either. That said, the Macbooks are far greater value for money than anything else Apple sells.

In regards to your friend...That's nothing beyond being used to that environment. Aside from being able to mark folders and files easier, OSX offers no better UI or tools/shortcuts than Windows.

The Mac Pro is odd. A good chunk of the price in that is the Xeon processor(s), the mother...er...logicboard that will support two of them and three PCI express 2.0 slots, ECC RAM, and a really easy to work on case (which is effectively cable and tool free). Most of those things don't come cheap, even if you buy them to build yourself. However, I think the choice to use the Xeon isn't very good anymore. They're so damn expensive for what they do. i7's these days seem to perform pretty close to or better than them for a fraction of the cost (based on the benchmarks I've seen, at least). My main criticism of their desktop lineup is the lack of a less "crazy" tower. Maybe offer something in the Mac Pro enclosure with an i5/i7, a less crazy logic board, regular RAM, that sort of thing for significantly cheaper. Buying a Mac Pro for anything less than mega hardcore audio/video/graphics design/server/etc... work is a giant waste of money. Its benefits apply to a very small group of buyers. The iMacs are a pretty decent deal, considering you're getting an enormous IPS display thrown in. And the all-in-one form factor is inherently more expensive. But, as many are quick to point out, you don't have many opportunities to customize the hardware beyond RAM and HDD after you've bought it. Like I said, I think there's a bit of a gap in Apple's desktop lineup. There isn't much there for those who like to tinker with their hardware, save for the Mac Pro. Which, like I said, is a waste of money for the vast majority of people. I doubt I'd ever buy a Mac desktop, to be honest. They don't make what I would want from them.

As to the interface, I'll have to disagree. Features like Expose, Spaces, the trackpad gestures, the liberal implementation of dragging and dropping stuff (I frequently attempt to drag and drop stuff into other stuff in Windows with no result) makes for a pretty quick to use interface. I mean, I've used Windows for 20+ years, and OS X for like 2.5, and I work faster in OS X than I ever did in Windows. Granted, your preferences may differ, which is fine. And, also granted, most of those things can be done with Windows through third party software. Edit: There is, however, one feature in Windows 7 that rules so hard. The window-snapping thing... where you drag a window to the edge of the screen, and it automatically resizes to take up half the screen.

 

[darkfire613]

With multitouch gestures, I meant. Not clicking on other tabs or other stuff. Two finger swipes left and right switch between tabs, three fingers up and down raises and lowers volume, etc. Mainly this is bred from laziness, as I now can do most of my internet browsing with only minimal mouse movements.

Ah, I see, though it actually sounds like more work than with a mouse, more movement with muscles that is. I only slightly move my wrist when moving my mouse and I only have to slightly use my pointer finger to click and middle finger scroll or use the right click. What you are doing sounds like you are moving your whole hand and your arm at times, since you are the mouse yourself and you aren't using an object(a mouse) to take away half or more of the movements that would be needed if the object wasn't there for use.

I'm actually laying on my bed and the only time my arm moves is if I am typing, other than that it lays completely still when I am using my mouse.

Though such an interface wouldn't work for me since I'm using a 32-inch HDTV as my computer monitor, and I don't think I could ever go back to using small screen when using a computer.

It really only requires tiny finger movements; the entire surface of the mouse is a touch sensor, and I have the sensitivity of the gestures turned way up.

 

[King Toasty]

I prefer PCs where possible, but Macs are alright too. I don't get all this, "Blarg PC sucks" or, "Kraw, Macs are sex toys".

 

[bob1052]

Macs are overpriced compared to PCs of the same specifications, their OS is essentially a more limited version of unix and the only argument people have in favor of Macs is that they are better for image and video editing, which is wrong and has been an outdated statement for more than a decade.

Sure you could say that user friendliness of the interface is a factor, which is completely subjective on which is better, but when you lose features user friendliness becomes less important.

 

[Da Orky Man]

Despite being a PC owner and user through-and-through, I quite like Macs. Good design, solid programming, and good warranties.
What I don't like about them is the way Apple is so controlling. I like open-source software. I've probably saved several hundred quid by using open-source like Miro and OpenOffice over the "official" software. And much open-source won't run Mac.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

They're identical for the creative industry these days. Anyone who says different is talking out of their ass or just woke up from a coma that lasted 12+ years.

Macs used to have a major advantage in that they've pretty much handled floating point operations from day one. Windows didn't handle floating points natively until NT (and thusly XP for general desktop use). For reasons I can't remember and can't be arsed looking up floating point operations are massively important to visual work.

Oh, and for people designing for print Macs are good because Apple monitors have been piss easy to colour calibrate since they started offering them.

The major reasons Macs are still dominant in graphic design are familiarity and resistance to change.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The Mac Pro is odd. A good chunk of the price in that is the Xeon processor(s), the mother...er...logicboard that will support two of them and three PCI express 2.0 slots, ECC RAM, and a really easy to work on case (which is effectively cable and tool free).

All of which should tell anyone with claims to computer hardware knowledge that the Mac Pro is designed primarily as a low end workstation ... which explains some of the apparent price inconsistencies.

Although, to be honest, if I was going to buy a workstation I'd build it myself.

 

[kits456]

Macs are kind of like designer handbags. You can buy a perfectly suitable bag with a lot of functionality and still good design, or you can get one with a symbol(a bitten apple in this case) on it, is considerably smaller, and costs considerably more.
Basically, Macs are fashion statements with severely limited software libraries.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I like PCs, but mostly cause the mac users I've met (outside my college roommate) are all pretentious dicks. Now, that doesnt mean they all are, just hte select few I've had the.... well, just the ones i've met.

Plus theres alot more freedom in PCs (at least I think) and you dont have hte sense of superiority that (some) Mac useres get when they hear their machine cant be hacked or get a virus (which is of course BS).

 

[Joshimodo]

Oh, and for people designing for print Macs are good because Apple monitors have been piss easy to colour calibrate since they started offering them.

The major reasons Macs are still dominant in graphic design are familiarity and resistance to change.

Yeah, that's the one thing that Macs still have over competition - Their displays are superb. It's the only thing actually in-house about them anymore. Very good for prepping work.

 

[carletonman]

Then there's the way apple treats their customers. They weld the CPU to the motherboard on their desktops (so a big fuck you to anyone who would rather upgrade a cpu than their whole damn machine), they manufacture their laptops so a special tool is needed to open them (forcing users to go to the mac store and have them install new HDDs/RAM).

Don't know where you got your facts from dude, but the "specialized tool" is nothing more than a phillips screwdriver (albeit a very itty-bitty one). Having replaced both the HDD and the RAM on my MacBook Pro, I suggest you check before making such bold claims about the ease of owner-serviceability.

OT: Having used both for an extended period of time, my preference boils down to this. Macs are far and away superior for things like media editing. Working in the field of Journalism, even "identical" software (like photoshop) runs smoother on OSX. That being said, I don't appreciate having to dig to access the "guts" of my OS. Hence, why I have 2 machines! The laptop goes with me to school and takes care of all my media needs, while the desktop sits at home and plays the games.

 

[floobie]

The Mac Pro is odd. A good chunk of the price in that is the Xeon processor(s), the mother...er...logicboard that will support two of them and three PCI express 2.0 slots, ECC RAM, and a really easy to work on case (which is effectively cable and tool free).

All of which should tell anyone with claims to computer hardware knowledge that the Mac Pro is designed primarily as a low end workstation ... which explains some of the apparent price inconsistencies.

Although, to be honest, if I was going to buy a workstation I'd build it myself.

Exactly. Comparing it to a more gaming/consumer-oriented desktop isn't particularly meaningful.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The Mac Pro is odd. A good chunk of the price in that is the Xeon processor(s), the mother...er...logicboard that will support two of them and three PCI express 2.0 slots, ECC RAM, and a really easy to work on case (which is effectively cable and tool free).

All of which should tell anyone with claims to computer hardware knowledge that the Mac Pro is designed primarily as a low end workstation ... which explains some of the apparent price inconsistencies.

Although, to be honest, if I was going to buy a workstation I'd build it myself.

Exactly. Comparing it to a more gaming/consumer-oriented desktop isn't particularly meaningful.

They kind of bring it on themselves, though, with the way they market them. Very rare to see a Pro marketed as a workstation outside of certain industry publications. You push them as personal computers and that's what they get compared against.

 

[Dys]

Then there's the way apple treats their customers. They weld the CPU to the motherboard on their desktops (so a big fuck you to anyone who would rather upgrade a cpu than their whole damn machine), they manufacture their laptops so a special tool is needed to open them (forcing users to go to the mac store and have them install new HDDs/RAM).

Don't know where you got your facts from dude, but the "specialized tool" is nothing more than a phillips screwdriver (albeit a very itty-bitty one). Having replaced both the HDD and the RAM on my MacBook Pro, I suggest you check before making such bold claims about the ease of owner-serviceability.

Really? Absolutely not the case with my girlfriends macbook. I had a pretty close look before abandoning my own tools and having to borrow a friends more specialized wedge like thing to pry the fucker open (the screws were phillips heap, but the clip joints could not be handled without damaging the case or using a specific tool). Even if they have since fixed that absurd design, it still doesn't excuse the welding of CPUs to the motherboard and the fact that they ever did it at all tells me that they have absolutely no respect for the customer.

 

[Conza]

quad core i7 since you're gaming

multi-core benefits very few games. save money and play better with a large cache, high speed, single or dual-core processor.

http://www.intel.com/consumer/game/desktop/index.htm

i7s are the best choice for gamers, period.

I completely agree, multi-core processing is still not utilized enough, and therefore, clock speed should be the deciding factor over core, however, the best processors for gaming are quad core processors, 3GHz+, i7s will have higher caches, and increased FSB speeds (Front side bus, is the speed at which the processor can communicate with ram, and dictates the highest speed the ram can be).

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Even if they have since fixed that absurd design, it still doesn't excuse the welding of CPUs to the motherboard and the fact that they ever did it at all tells me that they have absolutely no respect for the customer.

A lot of 'brand name' laptops come with their CPUs welded on... Which I kind of like because it gives me another excuse not to work on the bastard things.

 

[Dys]

Even if they have since fixed that absurd design, it still doesn't excuse the welding of CPUs to the motherboard and the fact that they ever did it at all tells me that they have absolutely no respect for the customer.

A lot of 'brand name' laptops come with their CPUs welded on... Which I kind of like because it gives me another excuse not to work on the bastard things.

I fail to see how the cpu not being welded to the motherboard forces you to work on the thing. However, in having it welded it forces you not too.

It seems stupid to justify the lack of a reasonable alternative simply because it is not the most appealing one to you at this time (which, I might add, in this case it rarely is at the time of purchase).