Help Cloud9 make a decision about what kind of computer to buy

[Urban Ranger]

You know, there's absolutely no way to remove IE from XP. The best one can do is to hide its presence.

BTW how the hell can one get rid of that blasted netmeeting?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
The average user doesn't need that much control, but if they do it's right at their fingertips with a point-and-click interface and plenty of help files.

I am not sure about that, all computers can use some optimisation. Stopping all the unnecessary services, fixing the virtual memory, that sort of thing.

[Asher]

None of this is of any use to Joe Average user. That's at least 80% if not 90% of all Windows users.

Most people don't need optimization. Those that do tend to find out, via asking on Poly or looking on google or in the helpfiles/control panel...

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Verto
A friend recently bought a Dell, 1.4 Ghz, 256 RAM(with two more memory sticks free with rebate), a CD-RW, and a DVD drive, AND a flat panel monitor, for 1300. Can Mac compete with that?

I've raved long enough.

The middle-of-the-road iMac model goes for approximately $1400 and has all the above included.

It is, however, a 700mhz machine, but I've read that the calculations for chip speed are determined differently than that of a PC. Reduced Set Instructions Chip for the Mac vs. Complex Set Instruction Chip for the PC (or something like that).

As said above, though, I'm not sure how much interest an "Average Joe/Jane" user would have in that sort of info. I think stability and performance are prized above benchmarks and whatnot.

Anyway, I am a Macintosh owner/user. But I've also heard good things about Dell Dimensions, so I have no problem backing those as well.

Gatekeeper

[JohnIII]

Originally posted by Verto
It seems to be a testament to the superiority of Windows/PC, when Mac has to offer a program that lets you run Windows XP. Mac never gained a foothold in the market, and probably never will.

Most anti-Mac zealots seem to conveniently ignore the fact that pretty much every professional designer uses a Mac.

How cheap is it for Mac users to upgrade their systems? Is it even possible? Can they double their RAM with 100 bucks? Can they buy 40x CD-R drives?

Can you do some research? The answers:
1) Yes.
2) Yes (depending on how much RAM they have in the first place, just like a PC).
3) No, the fastest one I saw was 32X. OMG U WERE RIGHT TEH MAC SUX!

Seriously, Asher's argument with UR has gone from 'PC users have more control' to 'most users don't want that much control'. Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD, which gives it significantly more control than Windows for the 'power user'.

If you just want to get things like image editing, word processing, Internet use, and media playing done, then choosing a Mac is a viable option.

PC users spend far too much time bashing the Mac's specs when the real problem with a Mac is the price: the machines are overpriced. Yes, more thought is put into their design than most PCs, but it's still too much for me contemplate switching.

[moomin]

Cloud 9:

I am a long time PC and Mac user. A couple of years ago, it wasn't a contest - the Mac lagged so bad it wasn't even funny. These days (post Mac OS X, that is) I find myself using the Mac more and more.

The main reason is that it does everything I need in my line of work (Office, a couple of stat packages, some in-house math software) as speedy as my PC (note, this is percieved speed - everything happens at once on both platforms - I'm sure the PC benchmarks are better, though. Could care less myself). It's also, and this is a biggie a) silent - you have to listen hard to hear it, whereas my AMD XP 2000+ box sounds like a jet engine and b) cool, in the sense it doesn't generate enough heat to replace my house heating entirely.

So, for me, the Mac is a better work solution novadays. I also like OS X better than XP, mainly because I can access the real unix core for some real amazing prompt action, unlike the rather lacking line prompt support in XP. Might be important, might not.

However, if you can only afford one, and you know you gonna play games, there's only one choice - PC. If you do gaming, the PC is quite superior. I never play on the Mac.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I think I probably need to go to CompUSA and test-drive a Mac before I buy one, eh?

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
However, if you can only afford one, and you know you gonna play games, there's only one choice - PC. If you do gaming, the PC is quite superior. I never play on the Mac.

I don't know. I've walked into CompUSA before and have seen quite a few Mac games on the shelves. And most of these are all the good games; not a bunch of crappy ones like their are on the PC.

I don't mind seeing Mac games come out long after their released for the PC; I never have the money to buy them immediately anyway. And the games I already have keep me occupied until then.

[tniem]

Cloud what are you going to use the computer for? Honestly that is the question you need to ask yourself. When you have that answer you have your answer on what computer to buy.


I am going to make a couple quick assumptions, if you buy a PC you will get XP Home edition on your computer and this what you are going to use. While if you get a Mac you will use X. So those are my assumptions going into this.


The biggest difference as many people have pointed out is gaming experience and the professional experience. If games are important (and hell this is a gaming board so it has some importance) than a PC is advisable. Games are quicker to the PC version and in many cases exclusive. Civ III came to the Mac but later. So it would seem that if you will play a few new games a year - the PC is important.

Meanwhile, the Mac is huge for professionals. The structure of the Mac allows better software for design (both video and graphic) and I also believe egineering. If you plan in the future to edit pictures, videos, or anything along those sorts than a Mac is a better option. It is just better in those ways.

The Mac is going to be easier to use in terms of setup and help (only one company for driver support compared to the PC's Microsoft support and each company's hardware support as well). Only one stop to get new drivers is an advantage in my opinion.

Stability: even with XP which is plain amazing from MS in terms of stability, a Mac is going to crash less. There is a simple explanation for this. Apple gets to design their OS around a computer infrastucture. They are the only ones that make both parts. Meanwhile, MS has to build Windows so that it can work on tons of machines with so many varities. This is a lot more difficult to make an OS crashless than what Apple has to do. So stability goes to the Mac.

Macs are also going to be both more simple and more advanced than the PC. What I mean by this is that Mac OS X is a lot more simplified than the basic XP. It is easier to use (however if you have been using Windows for a while and know a little of the Control Panel, Start Menu, and a few other Windows tools this may not be the case). Yet at the same time there is more there to work with. Unix is the base of OS X and if you want to learn it, it gives you so much control over your computer. You can basically do everything to it. So there is just so much advanced computer things you can do under the hood that a Windows machine cannot do.

And about computer speed. That is not that big of an issue. Yes PCs are a little faster and on print look tons faster. But there is a lot of deceit in there. Athalon stopped printed clock speed a while back because while their chips were faster, Pentium could say our 2.1 ghz processor is better than your 1.6, even though the benchmarks said differently. With the almost excessive power of computers today, this should be a low priority issue. If you buy any computer today it should be fine for all you are going to do in the next couple years.


In the end when I was weighing this decision a couple years ago, I built my own system - a PC. If I didn't build it myself than I would still have gotten a PC because Macs were not doing so well four years ago. Now its a viable option. One that you should look at. But it comes down to what you want to do. If you are looking to game - then you have no choice - PC. Otherwise decide how important ease of use is, professional software, and cool hardware (such as the Mac's wireless networking and iPod) is to you. That is what you should make your decision on. Price can be comparable and their power will be about even.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Hey, anyone that wants a good laugh should check out this link:

http://www.apple.com/switch/ads/ellenfeiss.html

[Wraith]

--"and I have to say that I am very compelled to switch."

Might I ask why?

I will say that if all you're doing is basic office apps and web surfing, then pretty much any modern computer is going to be enough for you. If you do anything beyond that, you'll want to think again.

To answer a few of your questions...

Macs are at a disadvantage to the PC because they suffer from a monopolistic hardware vendor as well as a monopolistic software vendor. This, of course, limits innovation and keeps prices high.

They are not very compatible. Some accessories work on both (usb and firewire), and you can transfer files back and forth over a network.

There is some good Mac software, the question is whether or not the price/performance makes it worthwhile.

Mac, P4, AXP, it's not going to make a difference to your internet performance unless you've got a DS3 or something.

Macs will be slower and have less selection in games than the average current PC.

Can't speak for reliability.

From what I know, they are not easily expandable. Some of them are designed pretty much not to be, and the limited hardware available makes it more difficult anyway.

--"Most anti-Mac zealots seem to conveniently ignore the fact that pretty much every professional designer uses a Mac."

This is no longer as true as it used to be. It is also no longer based on a technical superiority, which the Mac did have for pro graphics desing for quite some time. They built up a good deal of brand loyalty, which is paying off for them now.

--"If you plan in the future to edit pictures, videos, or anything along those sorts than a Mac is a better option."

I'd have to disagree with that one. All the major software is available on both platforms (AFAIK), and a lot of the high-end equipment for this stuff is not available for the Mac. It's much easier to get a workstation-grade graphics card for the PC, for instance.
Macs have also fallen too far behind in the performance arena to be recommended for video editing. That is one of the tasks that needs a lot of processor power, and the current Macs are totally outclassed by current PCs, even in the mid range.

But, yes, in the end it comes down to what you want to do with it.

Wraith
"Drink up Socrates - it's all natural!"

[Asher]

Originally posted by JohnIII
Seriously, Asher's argument with UR has gone from 'PC users have more control' to 'most users don't want that much control'. Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD, which gives it significantly more control than Windows for the 'power user'.

My argument with UR is that the PC users have much more control, in the bounds of STILL BEING EASY TO USE. While Mac OS X is based on BSD (not FreeBSD, but Mach...), good luck getting 99% of the userbase to figure out how to use the FreeBSD parts of the OS. It's nowhere near as using all of the tools given forth in point-and-click interfaces in Win2K/XP.

There's a difference between giving lots and lots of power in an obfuscated and cryptic way, and giving them a nice point & click graphical interface to do it, that's consistent with Windows...

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Asher

My argument with UR is that the PC users have much more control, in the bounds of STILL BEING EASY TO USE. While Mac OS X is based on BSD (not FreeBSD, but Mach...), good luck getting 99% of the userbase to figure out how to use the FreeBSD parts of the OS. It's nowhere near as using all of the tools given forth in point-and-click interfaces in Win2K/XP.

There's a difference between giving lots and lots of power in an obfuscated and cryptic way, and giving them a nice point & click graphical interface to do it, that's consistent with Windows...

Are you sure you're not confusing the older Macintosh models (from the last few years) with the newer one's, Asher?

[Asher]

And about computer speed. That is not that big of an issue. Yes PCs are a little faster and on print look tons faster. But there is a lot of deceit in there. Athalon stopped printed clock speed a while back because while their chips were faster, Pentium could say our 2.1 ghz processor is better than your 1.6, even though the benchmarks said differently. With the almost excessive power of computers today, this should be a low priority issue. If you buy any computer today it should be fine for all you are going to do in the next couple years.

PCs are far more than a "little" faster, first of all.
Second of all, your clockspeed gibberish boggles my mind. No one is saying anything about the PC being faster from clockrate. It's faster because IT IS FASTER. The memory, the system bus, the CPUs -- they're faster because they do more. Apple's hardware is incredibly obsolete in PC terms, and I don't understand why people want to rationalize it as being okay. You're being ripped off, bigtime.

PCs are faster, cheaper, and have more software available.
Macs are slower, more expensive, and have a far more limited base of software.

Further, some of the cool stuff Apple introduced (iTools) are now not free. In fact, you've gotta pay $100/year now for iTools, just to get a mac.com email & webspace and do stuff they advertise for OS X like trading music/pictures online. Did I mention you also have to PAY to upgrade to the new patch for OS X? It's equivalent to a Service Pack for Windows, which MS offers as a free download.

Apple enjoys milking their customers for all their worth, and it seems most people who buy Apples have more money than sense. Maybe they're afraid of change?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Are you sure you're not confusing the older Macintosh models (from the last few years) with the newer one's, Asher?

Um...yes, absolutely positive.

And for the person who said if you want to do video/picture/audio editing, get the mac: What are you smoking? You can get the same programs across the board for all of that stuff, but you can get them cheaper and they'll work faster on the PC...

[JohnIII]

Originally posted by Asher
Did I mention you also have to PAY to upgrade to the new patch for OS X? It's equivalent to a Service Pack for Windows, which MS offers as a free download.

No it isn't, Apple have just gone back to the version numbering standard: 0.1 (features), .0.1 (bug-fix), 1.0 (architecture). They screwed that up from OS 7, and now they've gone back.

I don't think the upgrade is worth $129, but you calling it the equivalent of Service Pack doesn't help your argument, because it isn't.

And for the person who said if you want to do video/picture/audio editing, get the mac: What are you smoking? You can get the same programs across the board for all of that stuff, but you can get them cheaper and they'll work faster on the PC...

Yeah, sure. That's what all the people who've never used a Mac for media work say.