New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mac vs. PC

post #1 of 29
11/8/05 at 10:44pm
Thread Starter 
I need the top 10 (or more) reasons why PCs are superior to Macs.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 29
11/8/05 at 10:54pm
Link - just scroll down

Amazing how google answers so many questions!
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 29
11/9/05 at 1:15am
here is my short list.

1 - PC are CHEAPER
2 - PCs give you more options in terms of OS and other Software
3 - you can build a PC to your own spec
4 - PCs are FASTER
5 - you can GAME on a PC if you choose to do so.
6 - large user community for when you need help
7 - competition keeps prices down and development up
8 - FreeBSD is meant to be FREE! (not $100 OS X)
9 - Systems come with more features
10 - new technology gets introduced on PCs first.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 29
11/9/05 at 1:33am
most importantly, more CHOICE

there are a bazilion pc notebooks, and 2 mac notebooks...

pc's cover everything from computers that fit in your pocket to 2" thick monsters which can outperform a powermac G5. there is always one that is perfect for you.

on the software side, there is a ton more software(especially games) written for pc's, and then theres linux...
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 29
11/9/05 at 3:34am
i'm writing this on windows, but if i were stranded on an island and had to chose only one computer, it would be the mac.

the mac just pwns. i can list pros and cons of both, but the mac just keeps you coming back for more. i can't quite put my finger on it, but me thinks it has something to do with the phrase "it just works".

no bullhonkey to deal with, stable unix foundation, all those power apps out there just love OSX. as far as raw speed, a wintel can probably kick it, but i guess that's why apple is switching to intel.

if you want games however, you're screwed(except for the big ones).
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 29
11/9/05 at 3:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by abf
here is my short list.

1 - PC are CHEAPER
2 - PCs give you more options in terms of OS and other Software
3 - you can build a PC to your own spec
4 - PCs are FASTER
5 - you can GAME on a PC if you choose to do so.
6 - large user community for when you need help
7 - competition keeps prices down and development up
8 - FreeBSD is meant to be FREE! (not $100 OS X)
9 - Systems come with more features
10 - new technology gets introduced on PCs first.
1 - compare a $3k mac to a $3k wintel
2 - correct - but you surely know that all the major apps have been ported
3 - PC wins
4 - i'd rather drive 55mph in a merc than 90mph in a pinto...take into account the user experience when making this statement
5 - you may also game on a mac if you choose so, fewer games of course(no leisure suit larry sorry!)
6 - 25,000,000 mac users is a big enough support group for me
7 - PC wins...but the mac is 200% less costly than it was 5 years ago, surely that couts for something
8 - FreeBSD is free.
9 - it depends what you define a feature...
10 - mosaic(the first ever WWW client to ever exist for the internet) was ported first to the mac after being built on a NeXT(hey there's Steve Jobs again!) box in unix, only later was it ported to x86
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 29
11/9/05 at 4:36am
There is only one reason I purchased a PC to go with my Mac - and that is for gaming. Plenty of gaming available on the Mac if you're a casual gamer, but it's frustrating if you want the latest and greatest.

Still much prefer Macs for photo/video editing and all around ease of use. Probably has to do with what you get used to. The perfect laptop (IMO) would be an AMD based CPU with the Go 7800 nVidia GPU in a PowerBook skin. While I'm dreaming, I guess I could add that I'd prefer the mobility of a 15" display...
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 29
11/9/05 at 4:37am
I cannot see how this thread will end well.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 29
11/9/05 at 11:26am
4 - PCs are FASTER


I may be mistaken but I was always in the understanding that mac with operating speeds was similar to amd vs intel, but mac is better than amd.

Lke a 2 GHz Mac = 2.8 GHz AMD = 4.8 GHz Intel exaggerated intel a bit

Am I wrong?
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 29
11/9/05 at 11:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanniedz
4 - PCs are FASTER


I may be mistaken but I was always in the understanding that mac with operating speeds was similar to amd vs intel, but mac is better than amd.

Lke a 2 GHz Mac = 2.8 GHz AMD = 4.8 GHz Intel exaggerated intel a bit

Am I wrong?
Well if Mac Procs are faster than why are they switching to Intel?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 29
11/9/05 at 12:00pm
i know they used to faster, but with IBM's snail paced development of the G5 the mac has slipped quite a bit, which is why they are switching to intel.

i know back in the glory days, when the PowerPC architecture was in its infancy, the mac could run circles around it's intel counterparts; but then again a 60mhz 601 moto powerpc was $5k and the a 60mhz P1 was around $2k
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 29
11/9/05 at 12:09pm
Ok, so does it have anything to do with possibly a better coded OS allowing apps to more fully use the proc? Or are macs just behind in everything now?

I ask because I know someone who wanted a mac, and I thought they were better myself, I never went with it because unfortunately windows has allowed me to create a little rut of laziness for my computing and I dont wanna put the extra energy into macs. if that makes sense

So say we have for example, a laptop, a sager 9890 with 1 GB DDR 533 ram, pentium 670, and the 7800gtx, what mac would beat that in ability, or at least come in ~ the same level of performance?

Possibly
PowerBook 17" 1.67GHz
Part Number: Z0CA
100GB Ultra ATA drive @ 7200rpm
SuperDrive DL (DVD+RW/CD-RW)
AirPort Extreme Card & Bluetooth
1GB PC2-4200 DDR2 - 1 SO-DIMM
Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
Estimated Ship: 1-3 business days


That was the 'best' i could put together on the apple site. Thanks for the input. I cant see how the architecture on the apple can be so vastly superior that the 1.67 GHZ compares to the 3.8 ghz 2MB cache on the pentium, but thats why im asking...
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 29
11/9/05 at 3:23pm
1-10. Choice. The PC world gives you options, Apple doesn't. As a former Windows XP & FreeBSD user I don't have too many good things to say about the Wintel world on the OS level.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 29
11/9/05 at 3:43pm

Dead on

Quote:
Originally Posted by benroethig
1-10. Choice. The PC world gives you options, Apple doesn't. As a former Windows XP & FreeBSD user I don't have too many good things to say about the Wintel world on the OS level.
That is why I finally abandoned Apple after a IIci, Q800, PM8100, PM9500, PB540c, TiBook 800. You can "think different" but only as long as its exactly how Apple wants.

x86 plus Linux plus any one of a myriad of GUIs gives you the ultimate power, customization and capability of any consumer grade computing platform. x86 plus windows gives you arguably the best gaming hardware and software selection.

PC hardware advances faster than Apples. Face it, a 1.67Ghz G4 with an ATI 9700 compared to 2.2Ghz P-Ms or 2Ghz 64bit turions and x700/go6600 or the truly awesome go7800, combined with the ability to run Windows games AND linux, there's no contest.

The only thing I see in apple's favor is that their laptop and desktop CASES look better than most PC chassis.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 29
11/9/05 at 3:56pm
what about the fact that most ports from software arrive on MAC like 2 year later... same thing with patches and fixes... Most games/software take 6 months longer to port to Mac...
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 29
11/9/05 at 4:21pm
A good 80% of the time porting games to the Mac is dealt with byte-swaping issues between x86 and PowerPC or dealing with proprietary Microsoft crap like directplay.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 29
11/9/05 at 5:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanniedz
Ok, so does it have anything to do with possibly a better coded OS allowing apps to more fully use the proc? Or are macs just behind in everything now?

I ask because I know someone who wanted a mac, and I thought they were better myself, I never went with it because unfortunately windows has allowed me to create a little rut of laziness for my computing and I dont wanna put the extra energy into macs. if that makes sense

So say we have for example, a laptop, a sager 9890 with 1 GB DDR 533 ram, pentium 670, and the 7800gtx, what mac would beat that in ability, or at least come in ~ the same level of performance?

Possibly
PowerBook 17" 1.67GHz
Part Number: Z0CA
100GB Ultra ATA drive @ 7200rpm
SuperDrive DL (DVD+RW/CD-RW)
AirPort Extreme Card & Bluetooth
1GB PC2-4200 DDR2 - 1 SO-DIMM
Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
Estimated Ship: 1-3 business days


That was the 'best' i could put together on the apple site. Thanks for the input. I cant see how the architecture on the apple can be so vastly superior that the 1.67 GHZ compares to the 3.8 ghz 2MB cache on the pentium, but thats why im asking...

It can't compare anymore. But a couple years ago the G4 beat the pants off the P4. The G5 running at 2.5 GHz is as powerful as a P4 running at 3.5. Unfortunately there are too many problems associated with putting a G5 into a laptop.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 29
11/9/05 at 6:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakaze
It can't compare anymore. But a couple years ago the G4 beat the pants off the P4. The G5 running at 2.5 GHz is as powerful as a P4 running at 3.5. Unfortunately there are too many problems associated with putting a G5 into a laptop.
That would follow too that a 3.5 P4 = 2.5 G5, so a 2.0 P-M is about equal to both as well. And much more effecient in both use and cost.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 29
11/9/05 at 7:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilCacciatore
That would follow too that a 3.5 P4 = 2.5 G5, so a 2.0 P-M is about equal to both as well. And much more effecient in both use and cost.
in other words:
3.5 P4 = G5 2.5
3.5 P4 = P-M 2.0
3.5 P4 = AMD64 2.2

and 2.0 < 2.2 < 2.5 or in words
in terms of efficiency:
P4 < G5 < AMD64 < P-M
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 29
11/9/05 at 7:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by abf
in other words:
3.5 P4 = G5 2.5
3.5 P4 = P-M 2.0
3.5 P4 = AMD64 2.2

and 2.0 < 2.2 < 2.5 or in words
in terms of efficiency:
P4 < G5 < AMD64 < P-M
thanks abf...my head is about to explode.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Desktop and Hardware Discussion