New buy, PC or MAC?
 

Still using my old viao laptop and am looking to buy a new computer this xmas. I was looking at a PC until the bright spark in PCWorld showed off the new MAc to me, must admit most impressed.
Looks like the right sort of thing, just need it for internet, photos, music etc etc.
Was not looking to spend quite so much, are they really worth the extra money??
I do know that most Mac users don`t go back to PC`s once tried.
Looking for any opinions and helpful coments, many thanks.

With £400 you can buy a Toshiba with XP from dabs.com. Buy it by the end of the month and you get £100 cashback so long as you spend >£100 on Tosh accessories, which includes a 2 yr extended warranty for £96.00. At that price you can afford to give it away once the warranty expires.

That doesn't actually mean that Macs are better.....LOL !!!!

You pays your money and you makes your choice (or in the case of Mac you pay more money and get less choice, :D I crack me up!)

Won't someone please think of the Applications? If there is anything that you consider essential, and can't find a replacement for, then moving might not be a great idea. :hmm:

I bought a MacBook and I'm very happy with it.

For the very few Windows apps that I still use I run 'em under Parallels3. NeoOffice is the Aqua port of OpenOffice and it replaces MS Office very well.

If you "just need it for internet, photos, music etc etc." then more and more makers are offering laptops with Linux distros (usually Ubuntu or SuSE) - enjoy a *nix OS and stop worrying about viruses and malware.

Mext desktop buy will be a Big Mac 'cos then I can run Mac, Linux and WinXP apps simultaneously.

Nothing would induce me to run Vista.

:ok:

Well if Mac was a "good guest", it would run happily in VMWare as a guest Operating Sytem, in which case you could choose whatever "big box" you wanted from any supplier - and still have available all those operating systems you wanted, via VMWare.

While the rest of the Operating System world is opening up, Apple is still trying to keep their doors locked. Sure there is a VMWare tool for running other Operating Systems in OSX - but not the other way around. It's just another exmaple of Vendor lock-in from Mr Jobs. I suppose he is still busy trying to get Java 1.6 running on Leopard, however since they managed to take the ZFS filesystem technology from Sun for use in Leopard, I would have expected that they also could have got the latest Java version running :D

It would have to be a very bad day indeed in the computing world before I bought a Mac just so I could run other operating systems :eek:

Used a Mac at home for 2 years now and love it. I did use them at Uni for 3/4 years so it was nothing new to me, I spent £1,000 making the best PC money can buy 4 years ago and had nothing but probems. Which was nothing new as PC's seem to always play up ... *Cough* Blue Screen of Death *Cough*

I am running all applications that I need with no problem.

But remember a 3GHz PC will not be as fast as a 2GHz Mac ... Infact nowhere near.

As a graphic designer I use a fairly powerful PC in work (something like 2.8GHz and 512Mb of Ram) and my Minimac at 1.66 Intel Duo with 512Mb Ram eats it alive.

My work PC is getting updated this week and the Mac will be updated soon to 1Gb Ram.

The only downfall was when I am doing ASP.net etc I need to use a PC :\

I found myself a PC on the Evo car forum for £50 and it's awesome for what I need ... albeit it still crashes.

Applications shouldn't prove a problem with the option of having Virtual PC or any other PC emulator.

I've convinced 2 people to convert and they all say they'd never go back and neither would I.


What Mac are you looking to get?

As I have said many times before, PCs give you choice and you have to exercise that choice carefully and manage your configuration. When the Mac world offers you that same level of choice, you will get the Blue Screen of death - as concretely shown as evidence by Leopard when you try and upgrade and you have a non-Mac USB device plugged in.

tallsandwich while we're on OS's you might want to take a look at:

Video 1

Video 2

Why Apple thinks you need a Mac here ... pretty funny.

You get what you pay for at the end of the day.

Is that where Bill Gates went wrong? as seen here and here

You'd think the boffins at Microsoft would know how to make their own software run wouldn't you? ... But if they can't make it run what chance does Joe public stand?

I assume you're comparing the same processor family here, and not comparing a NetBurst architecture P4 2.8GHz to a Core Duo architecture 1.66GHZ.

Apples and oranges.

I'll never buy a Mac until I can easily swap out components, or build my own, a la PC.

As I've said in other threads, I've been running Vista for months and I really like it. No crashes, no compatibility issues.

You can easily swap components?

I just upgraded my fathers PowerMac from 512Mb 667 DDR2 SDRAM to 4Gb ... I didn't see any problem? As Apple says "Isn't it nice when things just ... work?"


I've worked with Photographers that have invested thousands into PC's and decided a PowerMac is better. I see that movies in Hollywood are always being made using a Mac, and when I watch an international rugby match I see the coaches using PowerBooks in the stand?

Any reason? ... Nothing against PC's but I prefer a Mac, people love the iPod / iPhone / iMac ... etc so we can't all be wrong :ok:

Sin City was made by Hollywood with microsoft and AMD processors. The stranglehold MAC has in Hollywood is of the imagination.

Ok, special effects?

Lord of the Rings? ... Shake on a Mac.

Funny, Pixar uses Macs too? as seen here.

So lets just say that anything complicated/special effects/animation and 99% of movies are made on a Mac :E

That hasn't been true since Apple switched to the same Intel CPUs that are used in many PCs. I'll say it again: think applications. :8

If you want to use Weta Digital as a reference, note that they're primarily a Linux shop, according to their FAQ. Or, have a look at the Massive software they created themselves, for creating the mass battle scenes in LoTR, and its requirements. There is a Windows frontend version, but the backend renderfarm is only in Linux at this time. WETA use IBM (PC) blade servers for rendering (report). There is no Mac version.

Dreamworks, meanwhile, have a contract with IBM's big competitor, HP, and uses their PC hardware for everything, front and back. Didn't you see the HP & Shrek commercials on TV?

Maybe Macs ruled the graphics and FX world back in 1998, but it's definitely no longer the case, so much for your "99%" figure. Can you imagine how much more LoTR would have cost to make, had Weta Digital tried doing it all on Macs? :eek: I have no problem recommending a Mac if it's the best tool for the job - which is what this thread was about, I thought? Applications such as GarageBand, Logic, etc. do make a powerful case, and Leopard sure looks pretty. Whether you'll get what you pay for is a personal decision. Not everyone wants to drive an car with an automatic gearbox, either.

I don't mean to go on, but it doesn't help the original poster if you make claims about inherent superiority of Macs that might have been plausible years ago, but don't stand up to scrutiny today. There's more to the PC than Windows - just ask Weta - so even if Vista deserves all the criticism it gets, it doesn't mean that a Mac is the answer.

I just bought myself a Dell PC.. besides the fact that I've had it for just under 24 hours and it's had about 30 BSODs. It's running nicely after I disabled half of the startup programs and services.

I have an iPod, and it works perfectly well with Vista (as it did with XP before). It does a job, and it's very user friendly, I can't say I love it though. iPhone has a slick interface, no doubt, but the feature set is limited and it's very expensive. And I don't 'love' PCs either. I prefer them to Macs. They do the job I want with no hassle and easily upgradeable.I love Plymouth Argyle Football Club...doesn't mean they're better than all the other football teams..

I've just bought a MacBook Pro. My old laptop finally died, and when looking round comparing specs I discovered the "macs cost more" thing to be pretty much untrue. Sure, you can get a half decent laptop from a "PC" vendor for less, but look what it's actually got inside it... once you start comparing like-for-like specification-wise, there really isn't that much difference.

I'm a Linux-user by preference, and Microsoft consultant by trade (the quality of their software is so poor it'll keep me in flying hours for years to come), and the MBP now runs triple-boot OSX/SuSE/Vista. The aesthetics of the machine, attention to detail and the thought put into its design are fantastic; simple things such as the use of quality, branded hardware with plentiful driver support instead of obscure rubbish from some half-baked upstart who only ever bothered to write drivers for Windows. I randomly discovered the other day that when you pop the battery out, it doesn't just suddenly die - that's right, it will retain enough juice for you to change the battery without rebooting!

Apple's strategy of moving to Intel chips and binning 30 year old legacy stuff like BIOS is a good one and holds substantial benefit for those who want to lever that technology. Think if it as ripping out all your old, traditional, knackered avionics and putting a G1000 in.

Vista, that's an interesting one. As computer use has grown over the years, so has the average capability of computer users to administer their systems. Yet conversely with Vista, Microsoft do their best to isolate you from doing what you want, instead forcing you to do what they think you want. It might keep joe public (who quantifies resource-hungry eye candy as progress) at home a little safer, but there are many very valid reasons why business adoption is going to be slow at best.

Being a relatively recent MAC-convert myself, I must confirm the old "Once you go Mac, you never go back" saying.

In the past, people were reluctant to jump from PCs to Macs for several reasons, the most important ones being fear of non-compatibility and old habits (which were mostly unfounded).
They were afraid that, after buying a Mac, they would be cut-off from the PC-using community and would no longer be able to exchange documents and files. Furthermore, many experienced PC-users had grown accustomed to a bunch of little programs they would no longer be able to use (although Mac-equivalents are were readily available).

Today, with the Intel-based Macs and the possibility of running Windows with all of its "little programs" (it's basically like having a PC-laptop with better looks), PC users are reassured. IF one day, they run into the need of running a piece of windows-based software, they can.

On a lighter note : Macs and OSX are great! Just go and get one, fool around with it and feel reborn!

Also, in his previous post, TightSlot might unwillingly have given the impression that Macs are no good for professional use and that use is restricted to internet, email, photos and DVD-watching. This, of course, is not (no longer) the case.

Quite agree - sorry if I did so: In the original post that started the thread Serenity mentioned those kinds of functionality so I was pitching it there. Clearly the mac can do clever tek stuff also - those who need to do the tek stuff probably know that already, or at least know enough to discuss the relative O/S and hardware merits ad nauseam - Serenity appeared to be a more entry level user, as indeed I am.


:)

OSX can get as techy as you want it to. Yes, it looks good, it's user-friendly, it's stable, it's well thought-out, but from a geek perspective it has one huge and insurmountably superior trump card:

bash

Sorry Microsoft, but for power users "command prompt" doesn't even come close.

OSX 1-0 Vista

Last couple of posts speak for themselves really :8

Review from 'Computer World' on the reliability of a Mac v PC.

Review from Walter S. Mossberg of 'The Wall Street Journal' on Leopard.

Review from 'PC magazine' on Apple's iLife '08.

A little knowledge is not enough....
 

Before conclusions are drawn, remember that command interface "bash" means Born Again SHell which is an extension of the Bourne Shell (sh) and maybe the Korn SHell (ksh) depending on how you look at it.

All these shells come from older versions of Unix from many platforms, Apple just stole the ideas from someone else by including a well known command line interface, so please stop this rubbish about M/S taking other people's ideas. Funny how none of the Mac heads know that Leopard took technology from Sun (with permission), as they are so blinded by their own righteousness that they can't imagine that Apple does EXACTLY the same thing as M/S.

I'm happy to let people choose their own OS, but just as I can't stand born again christians who act in a superior way once blinded by their faith - I also cannot abide born again Mac users who are so blinded by their Macs that they think Apple invented all the good things they find in OSX.

Go buy your Macs if you like, but get off the holier-than-thou soap-box-bandwaggon. You think it's so great you can pop into a virtual windows environment but from everything I have seen (trying to work with Mac heads) these virtual windows environments are pretty limited in their abilities; fine if you only need to run one windows app once in a while but otherwise quite pants.

I've worked on over 21 operating systems - each had its plus points, so anyone who trys to tell me that one is better than the other (the Mac or Linux is better than Windoze argument is as cr*p as the Airbus Boeing one) is just inexperienced.

Why are so Many Macs in the Movies we see, cos Apple pays for product placement just like Silicon Graphics paid to get their boxes in the Jurassic Park movie. Also most people seem to think Macs look good (not me) so that explains the "image" created for certain Mac using characters in films.

Please spread the word on Mac if you are happy, but don't do it by saying PCs always crash and Macs don't, or that M/S is evil and just steal ideas but Apple does not etc. Those are just shallow one sided urban myths :yuk:

I'd love Win* to be better, but boy, the choice it gives me is HUGE :ok:

edited for spelling:(

Please remind me where Apple stole the GUI from? :bored:

This PC v Mac can go on and on like the Integrated v Modular thread or Airbus v Boeing as you mentioned. Neither is better than the other ... they are simply different and appeal to a certain customer.

Try telling Singapore Airlines they made a mistake with the 380 and should have waited for a 787 ... I think they are happy with what they have.

But the fact of the matter is for everyday living, surfing the net, playing music, etc or even editing a picture or two in Photoshop editing a video in Final Cut then a Mac might be the reliable option.

I am sure the original poster has enough information here to pick what his best for his needs.

No need to get all worked up there, cowboy.

First of all, it's not a VIRTUAL windows environment, it's an ACTUAL windows environment (on the Intel-based Macs anyway) and secondly :

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...s/article.html

:E

Utterly one-sided typical Mac-fanitic BOLLOCKS - EITHER the PC or the Mac may be the reliable option. Depends how you manage your machine :ugh:

In this thread, one person quoted bash as being a Mac great thing and another ranted about M/S lack of innovation - I took the 2 items and showed that Mac just took an already well known shell and made it availlable on thier kit, thus killing both arguments DEAD. There may well be other shells such as ksh, csh also on your Macs, if not you Mac is rubbish for Command Line Interface choice. I don't care about this on my PC as if I need these shells I can GET THEM FOR FREE IF I WANT THEM :D :} :)

I never said the GUI was stolen (help me as to who in the world would even want to steal THAT pukey Mac GUI theme anyway!!!!!) so stop putting words into my mouth :=

Too right - the original poster has info to make a choice, balanced and accurate info.

Depends which you run - the VIRTUAL Win environment which runs as a guest OS in Mac is pants, is the one I was talking about.

You ARE kidding?
 

+200 No Flags

I just looked at your link - I'm dying of laughter, AS IF you could run a test WITH ANY RELEVANCE to joe public about which laptop was the best performer - you have to specify the use scenario and what tools are installed and running.

If you trust that review you deserve all you get. I do perf tests for a living mate :ok:

So if Mac take something and make it better is this a bad thing?

Microsloth 'steal' without the permission from Apple and just can't make it work.

As you said Apple 'took' the idea from Sun with permission and improved it.

There are plenty of things that have been taken and improved upon in this world, it's not a crime it's evolution.

As for the GUI being 'pukey' are you telling me you're still using DOS?

Well personally having had Windows machines for years I've now converted entirely to Mac.

I still use MS Office and if I really need to use a program that isn't available on a Mac I simply run it on Parallels (the only program I actually run regularly is Front Page)

I do find that with Mac's I just get on and use them - I was getting a wee bit fed up with all the security issues and constant downloading of upgrades for virus scanners and the like on my PC.

But I suppose that as Mac's become more popular the security issues will grow and then I may make the leap to Linux....

I think I mentioned OS X's historic links to BSD, via NEXTSTEP, on a different thread. Apple can take no credit for the underlying UNIX architecture, shells and core utilities.

Apple didn't write bash, and don't control it - it's Open Source software. It's not the only shell, but it is the most common one, on Linux systems too. The choice of shell is only really important if you do shell scripting: if you're just launching programs, you may as well use the 30-y.o. sh.
You can even get a bash environment for Windows, if you want it - see Cygwin. Microsoft haven't been standing still, either, they've developed PowerShell, which is arguably more powerful than bash for e.g. text processing. I can see how Microsoft could be accused of "borrowing" bits of the OS X look for Vista, e.g. the sidebar. If so, they haven't done themselves any favours: Vista is also a bit pukey-looking in my estimation. :yuk:

As I said before - I think people should pick the best tool for the job, and that could well be a Mac. e.g. if I was a working musician who needed something to use on stage. It's a lot of money, though, so I'd recommend the original poster keeps his eyes open, and not be swayed by Apple's expert marketing. Claims that a Mac has any inherent superiority don't hold any water with me, and I'm especially put off by the patronising attitude that some Mac users have, as if I'm not "enlightened" because I haven't joined their cult. I like the idea of a UNIX-based system, but I have that already, on industry standard hardware, at no software cost: Linux. I'm not paying hundreds extra for a slightly fancier-looking GUI - which is really all that Apple is offering me. Your mileage may vary. :p

So getting away from the deep IT issues. It's back to the original post;

Lets keep the thread on subject guys, it's not a PC v Mac debate it's a computer buyer wondering if spending all that money is going to be worth it.

He's impressed with the Mac he saw in PC World (Of which most of the workers use Mac's too) and wants a computer for dealing with media files and surfing the net.

Serenity, are you looking for a desktop or laptop?

If that's the spec (just needed for internet music and photos) a PC is better for a wider choice of both in applications and hardware provider. If poor choice of applications and hardware is an acceptable loss for this guy in order to get a gain in predicatability, then a Mac is better.

If the Mac users showed more balance in their enthusiam for Apple, then people like me would not feel the need to cut holes in their biased arguments of Mac being best, and the thread would not degenerate into PC vs Mac. Windows users are typically more mature in this type of debate as they are much more ready to accept Windows has faults. This is actually important when making a computer choice, as if you were buying a car and one salesman told you the good things about 2 cars and another told you all the bad things about the same 2 cars, then you would trust the latter, right?

Alpha Male - I never said Apple improved anything they licensed from Sun, I just noted that they took superior technolology (ZFS) from elsewhere in the same way as do M/S in order to try and put some level argument into this thread - but as there are not enough Mac bashers out there, this type of fact that shows Apple as being as bad as M/S goes largely unnoticed and unknown. If people can bash (no shell pun intended) M/S for this action then I can bash Apple for it too. Let me know via PM what Apple got from Sun and then "improved"....

Can these people be wrong?

Apple v Microsloth

Debunking the price myth: Apple vs. Dell

tallsandwich you're turning this back into a PC v Mac debate?!? I'm not sayig they impoved ZFS but using ZFS technology in a Mac is an improvement to the computer world IMO.

Would you say it's wrong that Audi are 'taking with permission' the 10-cylinder FSI engine from a Lamborghini to put it in an Audi S8? or would you tell them they are wrong to use parts from the Lamborghini Gallardo to put in an R8 (I'm sure you've seen the advert on TV).

If Sun and Apple work together to improve a product then that's good. If however Apple decided to take the ZFS idea and make a half hearted effort to copy it then sell it to the public as a beta version then that WOULD be wrong. aka Microsoft Vista.

Well, i knew this would get some people a bit overheated, some of the arguements well over the top of my head.

Am looking for a desk top for reasonably basic use (as tightslot says).
Really wanted to know if Macs were worth the extra money, as i seem to be able to get a higher spec pc for less dosh. (may have just answered my own question)!!!

Thanks to all
:ok:

Want to buy a Mac Mini?

I'll do you a good price...

Quote:

---

Really wanted to know if Macs were worth the extra money

---

Compare a PC like for like with an Apple and you'll find the Apple as the same price if not cheaper.


This might not be a bad offer - I have a minimac and love it.

Only thing that is wrong with the above is it needs a £40 HD ;) that you can fit yourself as seen here

MiniMac v Dell PC

Alpha Male....

I think this example is illustrative.

This was without 'shopping around' the various PC manufacturers

I only visited the Mesh website for the PC, and the Apple website for the Mac:

20in iMac.
20in Monitor
2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (dual core CPU)
1GB RAM
250GB HD
128MB ATi HD2400XT graphics

Price: 799 UKP (incl VAT)

Mesh:
22in Monitor
2.4GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600 (quad core CPU)
4GB RAM
500GB HD
256MB Nvidia 8500GT

Price 799 UKP (incl VAT)

I know which one looks like better value to me!