What separates a Mac from a PC?

[Winston]

I've never actually operated a Macintosh computer, so I have no idea what makes it different from a PC. But I'd be interested to know what it is that a Mac does better, faster or more intuitively etc. And vice versa, what are the strong points of the PC over the Mac.

[RGBVideo]

Wait, isn't Mac a Personal Computer?

[Asher]

Mac's hardware is totally and completely inferior.

Their OS is different, but from a usability standpoint it's generally considered that MacOS 9 and Windows XP are the best, MacOS X is prettier but less functional as its predecessor.

It's good for if you like purty things and don't care for gaming, and all you want is a nice purty word processor, internet browser, etc. -- and you've got lots of cash to blow.

Read: Niche market.

[monolith94]

pc = more games and software with faster speeds
mac = more intuitive interface, better programs for digital photos, cameras, better mp3 software, etc. We have some great games too, just not as many. Better computer design. The new imac saves a tremendous amount of space.

Plus, if the deal with IBM pulls through, the speed will soon come to match PCs, and the latest Radeons are coming to Mac as well.

[Winston]

Tuomerehu,

Windows/Intel based PC, then.

I rarely if ever see Macs referenced as PC's, but anyhoo...

Macintosh vs. the Windows/Intel based PC.

[Asher]

Originally posted by monolith94
mac = more intuitive interface

Like, for example, on the Mac, you have a single menu-bar at the very top of the screen rather than at the top of each window. This is more "intuitive", because it surely makes far less sense to attach the window controls to the window itself like they do on the PC.

better programs for digital photos, cameras, better mp3 software, etc.

lies! Really.

Better computer design. The new imac saves a tremendous amount of space.

There are PCs that are smaller.

Plus, if the deal with IBM pulls through, the speed will soon come to match PCs, and the latest Radeons are coming to Mac as well.

Current benchmarks put it on par with late 2002 P4s...and IBM's chip is coming out in late 2003.

[monolith94]

"MacOS X is prettier but less functional as its predecessor."

As someone who has used both I can let you know that this is COMPLETELY false. I get things done with greater speed on OS X than I EVER did on OS 9. OS 9 is a bit less processor intensive, but that issue has been adressed by OS X updates.

"Mac's hardware is totally and completely inferior."
*cough* ipod *cough*

[Winston]

Great, this is very educational for me so far- and a bit entertaining as well.

[Asher]

Originally posted by monolith94
"MacOS X is prettier but less functional as its predecessor."

As someone who has used both I can let you know that this is COMPLETELY false. I get things done with greater speed on OS X than I EVER did on OS 9. OS 9 is a bit less processor intensive, but that issue has been adressed by OS X updates.

The finder in OS X is getting better but still not as good...

Plus I've read quite a few comparisons which state OS 9 is better functionality-wise.

"Mac's hardware is totally and completely inferior."
*cough* ipod *cough*

We're talking about computers, not horrendously overpriced consumer electronics.

(BTW, I got a Nomad Zen today...about half the price of an iPod, more features, longer battery life, supports WMA, 20GB )

[Asher]

Monolith: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3064

Conclusion

There are a lot of things we did not discuss in this article, but it would not be practical to write a real paper on these DEs. It would take me a month each and many-many pages. But I think this article summarizes well my view on how well these DEs they function and deliver what they are supposed to deliver to the user.

I acknowledge that there are good reasons for dealing with the negatives of Gnome and KDE, since there are other reasons for using Linux, and many people weigh the options and make that choice. However, today we live on times where everyone is pushing Linux on the desktop (or the corporate desktop by the mighty Red Hat) so including the main X11 offerings in this comparison article was appropriate.

Personally I much prefer overall the Windows XP experience with a close second the ones of MacOSX and BeOS. In fact, a DE that could have the best values found on these three operating systems, plus the power of Unix underneath, would make my utopian desktop environment. But there isn't such a DE (in fact, there is no such thing as "the perfect desktop", this is just a myth), so I usually reboot to them to enjoy their capabilities.

Here is the final rating, summed up from all the ratings above:

Final Rating:
Windows XP 8.55
MacOSX 8.33
BeOS 8.22
KDE 6.72
Gnome 6.61

[Winston]

Not many companies use Macintosh computers compared to how many private/home users have them, is that right?

And can you partially upgrade the hardware in a Mac like you can in a PC? Adding extra RAM, additional HDD and so forth.

[Combat Ingrid]

I can't really say whether the Mac interface is more or less intuitive than Windows. I only know that after using Windows exclusively for many years, MacOSX seems almost counter-intuitive, but that seems to go both ways around.

On the newer Macs you can upgrade at least some of the hardware, like RAM and graphics card, don't know about older models.

[Dis]

One is for losers

the other is for geeks

[Willem]

Originally posted by Winston
Not many companies use Macintosh computers compared to how many private/home users have them, is that right?

It depends on what the company does. Macs have been used extensively in any business that works with graphics, particularly the printing industry. They're also used alot for video and music production. They once were superior to IBM/Intel/Microsoft PCs in all those areas, but that has been changing for many years now.

And can you partially upgrade the hardware in a Mac like you can in a PC? Adding extra RAM, additional HDD and so forth.

IMO, that's one of the weaknesses of the Mac. Everyting is pretty much integrated so you can't configure it nearly as well as you can with the standard PC. Although adding RAM and HDDs are no problem, you're pretty much stuck with the default video/sound cards etc.

The flip side of that though, is that there's less problems with compatibility, unlike PCs which can be a real pain. Sometimes you just can't get things to work because your video card isn't quite compatible with a particular program for example, yet there's no problem whatsoever with other software.

As for HDDs, since Macs use SCSI drives, it's much easier to add more to your system.

[Winston]

Thanks Willem. I can see I have a lot to learn and adjust to if I ever get myself a Mac.

It's a bit intriguing how they've managed to have a reasonable amount of software available for such a comparatively small market. But then I understand that the Macintosh computer will typically have more additional software installed from the manufacturers than a standard PC.