MAC vs PC - What do you Prefer? - Page 14 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-18-2004, 01:54 PM   #131 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3
Default depends on your needs

Mac's are more stable and reliable very good for photo editing, and video editing. However, they aren't compatable with software you would commonly use on common PC's

the new G5 does not outperfom the new AMD 64 FX-51 or the P4 Extreme's because its operating system OS-X limits its hardware performance and Mac is issues coupons to people who purchased the G5 because it isn't performing up to par.

PC's are more common for users who like to mess around with computers. That's why PC's are more unstable than Mac's because you can mess around with everything
__________________

unknownperson08 is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 10:10 PM   #132 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14
Default

I don't care what anyone says. PC IS BETTER!!! I will sooner never use a computer again before I use a MAC. No where near the gaming possibilities.
__________________

unfortunate is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 11:56 AM   #133 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
HoLoCroN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Plant City, FL
Posts: 1,305
Default

Wow..... this is something else.


This is the culmination of an epic battle.... The great and numerous PC pitted againt the Almighty MAC which is outnumbered by its PC rival but strong enough to hold its own agains such numbers...

It wouldn't matter which way the tides turn... there will always be a sure fight for both rivals.... This epic battle will continue until one dominates completely over the other...crushing its enemy with swift and powerfull blows.... Who will become the next Lord of the cyber realm be???


Only time will tell..............



(P.S. I don't have a single MAC at the moment...Muahahahahaha)
HoLoCroN is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 12:38 AM   #134 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

ok, the P4 extreme only performs like 10% faster than the 3.2GHZ, the G5 outperforms the 3.2GHZ by at least 20%
The G5 is now at least 1.5 years past its release date, the slight increase in performance you get with the Athlon 64 FX considering how new it is compared to the G5 is still poor. Apple must be long into designing an even newer system by now

the price of an Athlon 64 FX system with features as high as the G5 (2-8GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, all performance parts) compared to the G5 itself, is still as high if not higher.

the G5 also comes with Macintosh-only features, so if you could get them on a PC the price of the type of system I mentioned above would be even higher still.

I'm sick of people saying the Mac's aren't compatible with anything, the Mac's are in fact even more compatible than the Windows computers, the upgrades: AGP, DDR RAM, USB, speakers, IDE, SATA, are all the same as Windows PC's, PCI-X is the only real different expansion slot. also the software itself is no problem, like I said before, WINDOWS EMULATOR, among with - you may or may not realise - the already abundant software for Mac's (not all of it is on the shelves) it can also run Windows programs, although most people don't need to!
__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 02:21 AM   #135 (permalink)
The Original Mac User
 
mac_mogul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: America
Posts: 1,515
Default Re: depends on your needs

Quote:
Originally posted by unknownperson08
Mac's are more stable and reliable very good for photo editing, and video editing. However, they aren't compatable with software you would commonly use on common PC's
Really? Macs aren't compatible with common PC software? Hmm, hadn't noticed that.:sigh:

Quote:
the new G5 does not outperfom the new AMD 64 FX-51 or the P4 Extreme's because its operating system OS-X limits its hardware performance and Mac is issues coupons to people who purchased the G5 because it isn't performing up to par.
Yes, well. It's nice to know that the G5 processors can handle up to 8 GB of RAM. It's also nice to know that the AMD's can handle only 4 GB. The PMG5 out performs everything but supercomputers when equipped with the full 8 Gb

Quote:
PC's are more common for users who like to mess around with computers. That's why PC's are more unstable than Mac's because you can mess around with everything
Oh yes... the common consumer wants to buy a PC so they can open it up and tinker... Yes. That's it exactly...:sigh: And if that's the only reason PC's are less stable than Macs, I don't even see the point of buying a PC.

(btw, for anyone who is sick of this thread, sorry for bringing it back up)
__________________

17" MacBook Pro
2.3ghz Intel i7 // 8gb RAM
The older computer
2.53ghz Intel e7200 // 4gb HyperX // EVGA 9800 GTX 512mb // Win7
mac_mogul is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 02:40 AM   #136 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

Re: depends on your needs


quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by unknownperson08
Mac's are more stable and reliable very good for photo editing, and video editing. However, they aren't compatable with software you would commonly use on common PC's
-----------------------------------------------------------


mac_mogul: Really? Macs aren't compatible with common PC software? Hmm, hadn't noticed that.

me: a Windows Emulator, all you need, well actually most people with a Mac don't but you know what I mean

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
the new G5 does not outperfom the new AMD 64 FX-51 or the P4 Extreme's because its operating system OS-X limits its hardware performance and Mac is issues coupons to people who purchased the G5 because it isn't performing up to par.
-----------------------------------------------------------


mac_mogul: Yes, well. It's nice to know that the G5 processors can handle up to 8 GB of RAM. It's also nice to know that the AMD's can handle only 4 GB. The PMG5 out performs everything but supercomputers when equipped with the full 8 Gb

me: so that means that unlike PC's, the G5's perform better with more RAM?


quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
PC's are more common for users who like to mess around with computers. That's why PC's are more unstable than Mac's because you can mess around with everything
-----------------------------------------------------------


mac_mogul: Oh yes... the common consumer wants to buy a PC so they can open it up and tinker... Yes. That's it exactly... And if that's the only reason PC's are less stable than Macs, I don't even see the point of buying a PC.

me: well said
__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 03-20-2004, 02:45 AM   #137 (permalink)
The Original Mac User
 
mac_mogul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: America
Posts: 1,515
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by apokalipse
me: so that means that unlike PC's, the G5's perform better with more RAM?
Ha ha... I laugh...:laughing:... It took me a few seconds to fully understand that little statement...It's late and I don't know where I am...
__________________

17" MacBook Pro
2.3ghz Intel i7 // 8gb RAM
The older computer
2.53ghz Intel e7200 // 4gb HyperX // EVGA 9800 GTX 512mb // Win7
mac_mogul is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 04:01 PM   #138 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Default

i agree with those mac fans that windows XP SUX big time!!!!

I used to crash xp every 3 days!!!!

but when it comes to stability.....just use linux.....it never wud crash in its lifetime!!!! (btw i'm using Mandrake Linux now....never crashed in the past 3 months....and btw i shut down my computer once in 7 days only; so that does prove the stability of linux)

basically I cant comment on MACs because I have nt used a mac much....except for the cost and the compatibility factor, i wud go for a MAC......they just look so nice!!!!
DesiLILO is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 11:37 PM   #139 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 529
Send a message via AIM to alecjahn
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by apokalipse
Ive only owned one Mac but it NEVER EVER CRASHED ONCE IN ITS ENTIRE OPERATING EXISTENCE, however both of the Windows machines we've had have crashed heaps of times. one of our computers was like Windows 2.0 and this one has got XP and has crashed sooooo many times
Ok, first off, EVERY computer crashes at some point. Even the multi-million dollar server systems made by companies such as Sun Microsystems crash once in a while, and theyre built for stability, not ease of use like most home computers.

Windows 2.0 (and up to 3.11, especially 3.11) were VERY stable operating systems. But when it comes to stability, it all boils down to the user who is operating the computer. A Mac is built to be very user friendly, which in turn lowers the ammount of "tweakability" of the operating system. They dont let you do that much on the OS itself, so there arent many ways to get yourself in trouble with errors and lockups. Windows XP has been more like a mac in the way that everything is all colorful and automated, and "easy to use" but you can turn all that off and make it useable for a person like me who does more than check their email, chat, and play some games all day, which is what a majority of the computer owners in the US do. Period.

All the regulars on the forum use a computer much for much more than that, and thats when a mac's little colorful dialogs and help systems (and windows xp's crap it has, also) just get in the way.

ok im rambling...

Another thing is that the majority of the computers out there are built by companies such as Compaq, HP, Dell, Gateway, Emachines, etc. and all of them have personalized software with the company's name on it and many extra "helpful" things thrown in. in my experience (except with Dell PCs, as theyre not quite as bad) this just is more crap that these computers have to deal with , and that they always seem to lack in memory just makes it all worse... again. the hardware used in a compaq is not near as good in quality as a ASUS or Abit product, hands down.

Much of these PC's reliability issues are from their crappy equipment. Its like they all use ECS motherboards.... ( :P )

Any person who builds a homebuilt PC correctly with quality parts, and a stable OS like Win2k, WinXP PRO, (NOT HOME as it is not near as reliable) or a Linux system will have wonderful compadability, reliability, and an all out good experience with their PC.



Ok, I guess what it all boils down to is, the user, the quality of parts, and the edition of OS.

Any person who has went thru a lemon of a PC has learned probably more from it then any other PC they've owned. Even if PC's arent as reliable, what doenst kill you will just make you stronger, right? So when a PC crashes REAL bad, (which again is probably a user-related Fault)
they will learn about it and be a stronger, smarter user. a mac person who doenst go thru any problems will never learn about the computer itself, how it works, why it works, why it doenst work, and how to fix either your own, or a freinds.

one more bone to pick... WHEN does the AVERAGE computer user EVER need 8 GB of ram? Having more ram in a mac doenst make it better, it probably means that it needs more ram to do the same thing a PC can do... and still have problems with some programs that arent specifically made to perform good on a mac. Max PC (magazine) Benchmarked the HELL out of the most powerful AMD, Intel, and Mac "consumer" pcs out at the time (P4EE, AMD 64 FX-1(?) and G5 dual 2.0ghz proc.) and the mac was WAY behind on most tests, except of course for the mac original sofware that is built to run great on a mac, and only had windows ports out (i.e., Quicktime conversions) ... ALL this and it has TWO "incredably powerful" procs? wow! id just have to say PWNED at that mac...

anyways, this is about all i can type in 10 minutes, as my minor CTS is hurting...

Sorry for all typos, grammar errors, and rambling that obviously occoured. no time.
__________________
You're the guy from that hamburger train, right?
alecjahn is offline  
Old 03-29-2004, 12:01 AM   #140 (permalink)
The Original Mac User
 
mac_mogul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: America
Posts: 1,515
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by alecjahn
Windows 2.0 (and up to 3.11, especially 3.11) were VERY stable operating systems. But when it comes to stability, it all boils down to the user who is operating the computer. A Mac is built to be very user friendly, which in turn lowers the ammount of "tweakability" of the operating system. They dont let you do that much on the OS itself, so there arent many ways to get yourself in trouble with errors and lockups. Windows XP has been more like a mac in the way that everything is all colorful and automated, and "easy to use" but you can turn all that off and make it useable for a person like me who does more than check their email, chat, and play some games all day, which is what a majority of the computer owners in the US do. Period.
Okay, first off... When you compare the stability of the Mac OS to Windoze 2.0 and 3.11.... You're actually comparing the same two OS's that just look different. Don't forget that the earlier Windoze OS's were just Mac knockoffs because that numbskull who was running Apple at the time didn't know what on earth he was doing when he signed on with microsoft. And as for "tweakability" as you called it, There isn't much that comes standard on a Mac for "tweakability" but there are hundreds of third party software packages that allow you to manipulate your Mac in many ways. For instance: The APE manager and any other visual editor for Mac OS X Jaguar and higher are very popular because of their 'theme changer' and there are countless bits of software that can manipulate the way your Mac works and thinks. The oldest would have to be the infamous "RamDoubler" which made your Mac act as though it had a greater amount of Ram installed.


And if you'll look again at your tests...
The mac was probably NOT equipped with the full 8gb of RAM....

AND NO, NO HUMAN SHOULD EVER NEED 8GB OF RAM!!!!!!

but hell... it's a nice thing to have
__________________

__________________

17" MacBook Pro
2.3ghz Intel i7 // 8gb RAM
The older computer
2.53ghz Intel e7200 // 4gb HyperX // EVGA 9800 GTX 512mb // Win7
mac_mogul is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.