Mac v. PC

[bobbysamd]

We got off on this tangent last week, but the thread was lost after the board's database crashed.

Anyone have opinions regarding Macs versus PCs? Pros? Cons? I realize that less software is available for Macintoshes, but that's a non-issue for me.

I like the idea of how LAN, etc. and other networking is built into a Mac and that all you have to do is plug in such things as router cables, etc., turn the machine on, and you're set.

Thanks in advance for all replies and comments.

 

[bigD]

Oh d@mmit Bobby...it's a good thing this is a pilot's message board. Hopefully the discussion won't get too out of hand!

Here's my take, as I use both. For 99% of computer users out there, the Mac has whatever software one would need. Especially now that OS X is there and all the UNIX software is available, typically finding a tool you need on the Mac is a non-issue. The most notable exceptions are games, and perhaps relevant to us - MS Flight Simulator is not available on the Mac. However for flight sim purposes, I'd recommend X-Plane anyway, which IS available. So on this front, you have to look at what you think you'll need, and make sure the Mac can deal with it.

OS X vs. Windows XP. From a technical stadpoint, both are pretty solid OS's that "shouldn't" crash. People that are used to the PC tend to prefer Windows, and vice versa. I find this argument to be similar to a "high wing vs. low wing" argument. There's a intangible element of personal taste that just can't be argued. I use both OS's extensively on a daily basis, and when all is said and done, one isn't substantially more productive or better than the other. I do think OS X is a bit easier to use - mainly in the sense that it's better at dealing with new hardware, and apps tend to be easier to install, and especially, uninstall (remember that discussion about AOL before the boards died?).

Hardware - especially in the last couple of years, the PC is ahead. Regardless of whether you like the asthetic look and design of the Macs - Intel has run away from Motorola in the past couple of years. Apple is using dual processor Macs to combat it, but when you consider 533 MHz busses on the PC and 3.x GHz processor speeds, Apple has been lagging behind. Now this "isn't" a huge issue for most people. Only the most hardcore gamers that are counting FPS in Quake or something are going to notice the difference between a 3.4 GHz P4 and dual 1.43 MHz G4. The hardware has so completely outpaced the software in recent years, the vast majority of users don't use software that takes advantage of the speed. Even graphic designers and artists using tools like Photoshop don't care. I have a 2.6 GHz PC, and it feels essentially the same as my 1.0 GHz G4.

Odds and ends - the main reason I own a Mac is my iBook. The thing about Intel is that their philosophy in building chips pretty much boils down to stuffing more and more transistors into a small space, and deepening the pipelines to produce higher GHz yields. Higher GHz numbers makes for better marketing, but they're sacrificing efficiency and low power consumption to do it. Therefore you'll find that Mac notebooks tend to have better battery life than Intel counterparts. I get a good 4.5 hours of life with normal usage out of my iBook. My Dell for work gets less than half that. I figured that battery life was worth some of the advantages I'd get by having a PC (i.e. games), and picked the 'Book. I haven't been disappointed so far. But obviously power consumption isn't going to be an issue for you if you're not getting a portable.

Finally, it comes down to price. You'll find that Apple prices their computers pretty competatively with Dell's fully featured systems. That said, you won't find a bargain basement system for Apple - they don't have one. So if you're looking at a low end Dell with a Celeron processor for around $600, there's no Apple equivalent. Also, on the PC - you can build your own system and severely undercut Apple's prices if you choose. But then you'd miss out on warranty, etc..

So anyway, there are some things to think about. After using both pretty heavily for awhile, I find that there's really not nearly as much difference as the "Macs suck!" and "PC's suck!" camps would like you to believe. Usually the guys on both sides of the fence that unilaterally say, "XXX sucks!" are FOS. You may need to bring both a Mac and PC home and just see what feels right. Then bring the other back at the end of 30 days.

 

[bigD]

Oops...I didn't completely read your message it seems. I left out networking!

I do find that the Macs are a bit easier to network and get on the internet. But it's not a LOT easier. You don't have to deal with installing network drivers or configure the hardware on the Mac, which is a plus. But once you get the PC configured, actually networking them together isn't too much of a pain.

Since OS 10.2 came out, getting Macs to talk to PC's is easy and painless. Since the Mac OS is now a UNIX, it also comes standard with the typical FTP and SSH server software built in, as well as Apache for Web hosting. This may not be relevant to you, but it certainly satisfies the inner geek in me! I like SSH'ing into my home Mac from work and controlling it remotely. Supposedly, in the next version of OS X, you'll be allowed infinite (within limits of the hardware, of course) simultaneous graphical logins to a host. Meaning if you log into a Mac remotely, you can get the full graphical user intereface - not just a command line.

So when it boils down to it, the networking options for both platforms are pretty much the same. They both use the same hardware - it's just on the Mac, you don't have to install drivers or configure it - that's all handled by the OS.

 

[Timebuilder]

Bobby, the big differeences for me between the MAc and the PC platforms are what they are used to accomplish.

If you work with music, video, digital imaging, streaming files, recording and production, then the Mac is your machine. Every time I go to a session these days, it's ALWAYS Pro Tools software running on a Mac. The movie "Shrek" was done on the Mac.

Pro Tools SAYS that their software will run on a PC, but I don't know a soul who has tried to do it.

The PC adavantage is for just about every other task, for familiarity, availability, sheer speed, and cost. The Mac system I saw at Fry's in Phoenix last week went for just under five grand! While I am not eager to learn a new OS, I will when and if I build that home studio with ISDN for remote sessions, and that won't happen until I get on with someone who will give me a flying schedule.

Good luck with your choice!

 

[crash-proof]

I do a lot of work (graphic) that demands several windows open at once, and feel that the mac makes navigation between one and the other much easier. The way the windows (oops! no pun intended) on the mac move and minimize are much smoother. In addition, theres a whole slew of shortcuts (ctr + whatever) that the PC only dreams of having.

But animations (like flash animations) seem slower on the mac. Processor, maybe.

Heres an idea, perhaps you pc dudes can download the mac interface on your pc and play around with it. Ive heard its doable.

 

[Timebuilder]

I'd like to start to become familiar with the GUI before I buy a Mac.

Let me know if you find out how to do this.

 

[dmspilot00]

A Mac IS a PC!

 

[Timebuilder]

You might be too young to remember, but the term "personal computer" started with the marketing of the IBM product.

The Mac, short for "Macintosh" never used the "PC" moniker.

 

[jetdriven]

i stuck my wife in front of my home PC running Mandrake Linux 9.0 after I installed it. I told her it was a new version of windows and she took off with it. There were a few things like only having to single-click desktop icons to open, and having to choose between 4 web browsers. But overall it is very intuitive and has better icons. Plus no plugins, no buying office or photosuite. Even a cd-burning program is included.

The UNIX based systems are surprisingly easy to use if you are familiar with windows. Someone has even created a GUI that looks exactly like XP!

Linux even has a program that allows it to log onto windows networks and share files and printers. Some websites wont display properly with netscape, so there's an issue there.

 

[Timebuilder]

Some websites wont display properly with netscape, so there's an issue there.

Does this mean that the Linux system won't support an IE browser?