Poll: PC or Mac

[bobajob]

Isn't Windows 8 just Windows 7 redesigned for tablets & touchscreens?
If so, what's the problem with sticking with 7 until a viable alternative is developed?
Just wondered.

There have been a lot of "under the hood" improvements between both systems. Windows 8 uses a lot less RAM than Win7, for example, due to tricks like memory combining (reduced memory redundancy by crosslinking sectors) and application-specific hibernation (the program is frozen, its state saved to the disk, and can be reactivated quickly when needed).

Sounds interesting, but kind of redundant on a desktop with 8GB or 16GB or more of RAM?
Another feature that massively benefits portable devices.

For all the XP die-hards, Windows 7 can actually virtually run Win XP(an OS within an OS - Winception!) using one of your cores & 512MB of your RAM;(assuming your comp is less than say, 7 years old) Go Microsoft's website & download Windows Virtual PC, then subsequently the Win XP add-on for that. It's all free.

Comes in handy for dicking around & noticing those subtle differences in the UI for helpdesk peeps.

So, bleh.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

A $1500 pc> $1500 Mac

Also everything works with pc also.

 

[UrieHusky]

It really depends. For gaming (which I use my PC for) I would choose PC over a Mac any day. But for design and general use? I'd personally use a Mac.

So really I'm indifferent for the most part but as a gamer I would have a PC, I do design as well but the advantages of the mac don't outweigh using the PC for both jobs

 

[TpnySmith]

I received a warning for saying "Linux" and my post was hidden. Man! Some people get really uptight about this stuff.

 

[Joshimodo]

The monitor apple sells are IPS anyway. Well, the cinema display, iMac display and the Macbook Retina Displays are.

I know, I use them every day. Doesn't change the fact they are ridiculously overpriced and ultimately not worth it, especially since Apple are still shipping with that awful gloss coating.

Point is, Dell's IPS is half the price, performs the same. Doesn't have compatibility issues, doesn't have the ridiculous gloss, has better colour reproduction due to lack of gloss and CCFL lighting.

 

[Thaliur]

Personally, for most of my computing purposes, I'd prefer a ratio closer to 3:4 than any of the widescreen ratios out there. I'm not a big media consumer, and as a programmer using Emacs, which has a default line length of 80 characters, and somebody who has to read a lot of PDF files, it would be immeasurably more convenient for me to have a screen height in excess of the width.

As an engineer, I second that opinion, although for different reasons.

I frequently need to read datasheets of devices while planning/constructing things. A two-monitor setup is perfect for this kind of job unless one of them is a frelling Widescreen. You can barely fit a reasonably sized spreadsheet, mindmap or CAD window on those formats, and for reading anything longer than a Tweet (I'm exaggerating), they are useless as well. The only useful application I can think of would be audio editing (because you can see a little more of your timeline) and watching movies. Thw first works pretty much just as well on a proper screen, and for the latter I have a TV set (which is larger, better suited for movies colour- and contrast-wise, and can also be connected to my PC).

Screens that can be rotated for proper portrait format, now these are awesome. If you need a working area, you leave it in landscape, if you need to read/write large volumes of text, you turn it upright and the computer switches it to portrait mode.
As for the retina thing: While I do like higher resolutions, above a certain treshold, I just do not care. From a not-unhealthy working distance, normal-sized pixels are usually not visible individually anyway.

This might come off as really stupid by why don't people just use 1:1?

I mean, we pretty much went with 4:3 and 5:4 out of the gate.

I think it's because the 4:3 format is close to common paper formats and TV screens. They likely are not 1:1 because humans have a slightly oval field of vision, so we have a wider viewing angle horizontally than vertically. I don't know if the screen ratios fit the FOV aspect ratio, but those we use currently are closer to it than 1:1.

 

[BartyMae]

Perhaps it was answered earlier, but why is it that Windows is referred to as "PC"?

Regardless, Windows. It's what I've always used...and what little I used of Macs I didn't care for.

 

[Nexxis]

I prefer PC/Windows because I grew up with it and most of the programs that I use are either exclusively on windows, or the mac support is lacking compared to the Window's support. I had to use a mac for a short time in a class, and I felt so lost and confused by the functionality, I didn't care for it.

**Edit**
I forgot to mention that price is also a determining factor for me. Macs are too expensive for my taste.

 

[the abyss gazes also]

I have used both and I prefer the Mac OS to Windows. I find it easier to find things.

If I was into PC gaming still I might go with a PC because they are easier to upgrade, but I got tired of constantly chasing the next game to keep my system up to spec. (Yeah, I'm lazy.)

 

[Joshimodo]

I noticed you cut my post in half. Can't take the fact that I destroyed your notion of "but it's 16:10!".

I do agree that the Dell's are better for the money, hell I own 2 of them. A low end 23" 1080P E-IPS and a 20" 1600x1200 4:3 S-IPS which I adore. The point is the retina display on the macbook is a real selling point (and will hopefully bleed into the desktop monitor industry which has stagnated).

4:3 for the win. It's a shame it and 5:4 are all but dead.

That's because it's a moot point. 16:9 is more common, and thus should be considered industry standard now.

I wish people would stop referring to high pixel density as Retina Display. In any case, yes - Higher pixel density would be nice, especially for web content. As a designer, seeing everything online crunched down to 72 is quite horrendous.

 

[babinro]

PC - Compatibility rules all. Also, PC's pretty much never crash or freeze any more. Which was one of the major selling points for a Mac back in the day.