Desktops

General discussion

MACS VS THE PC

by Krissa3 / January 3, 2007 1:11 PM PST

I would like to open a discussion about the pros and cons of macs over pcs and pcs over macs. I must admit I have been a devoted windows and Microsoft fan, but I have recently become interested in perhaps buying a mac because I have heard they are better for media creation ( I do photography so this is important to me), is this true? But are not macs less powerful than pcs and more expensive? Anyway just wanted to get this discussion going...

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: MACS VS THE PC
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: MACS VS THE PC
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
owner of both
by ramenoodles / January 3, 2007 3:54 PM PST
In reply to: MACS VS THE PC

I am an owner of both a mac and pc. My mac is a ibook 1.33 ghz powerpc g4 with os 10.4.8 while i have a self-built 2.4 ghz pc with windows xp professional. I prefer the max os over windows. it is feels much more better. the only downside i have is that most applications and programs are for windows. i cannot really compare the processing power of the 2. after using the 2 for the past year, i prefer to use my mac. i used macs in a class to edit photos. the program was adobe photoshop and i used the program on both computers and found that the mac was better at rendering and processing. the mac used in the class was an emac 1.42 ghz. i have yet to see the performance of macs with the intel chips but i plan to purchase one.

Collapse -
Does an artist blame their tools?
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / January 3, 2007 9:27 PM PST
In reply to: MACS VS THE PC

Both are tools. Use what you feel is better.

Bob

Collapse -
For the Money buy a PC
by 2pur400 / January 5, 2007 9:09 AM PST

I have both also. Some of the people who work for me like Macs and have grown up with them. So for these people I buy Macs. But as the person who pays the bill I can honnestly say that dollar for dollar you get more machine with a PC than you do with a Mac.
As an example, the best PC's in my office cost around $2,000. They are faster, have more storage and the grapich output is equal to that produced by the Macs. The best Macs in my office cost nearly $3,000. They are not quite as fast as the PC's but since the people who like them are more productive on the Mac is worth the extra money. I would rather spend an extra $1,000 on a machine than to spend thousands on re-training someone.

Collapse -
Its all good
by pfred / January 6, 2007 5:03 AM PST
In reply to: For the Money buy a PC

2pur400:

You are so right to give the Mac to Mac people. Their enhanced production EASILY overcomes the small increase in initial expense. ROI figures: what are the soft costs?? $25/hour, better attitude...

I think that the original argurements still stand, the Mac was DESIGNED as a GUI, WIndows is a kludge. OK, no flames please; just look at how many dlls & other calls need to be set up for Windows apps

Since the Wintel platform started as 'business' aps; many more application programmers wrote to that platform, more titles, cheaper...; more options for the harware from MANY different sources

Collapse -
Missing the point
by Jelly Baby / January 14, 2007 7:41 AM PST
In reply to: Its all good

I think you miss the point. The PC's offer more bang per buck. It's simply a matter of custom that the employees prefer macs - because that's what they are used to.
Starting from scratch there's no contest - Even photoshop offers more functionality on a PC than it does on a mac these days.
I've supported both for many years.(Since MacOS 7 / Windows for Workgroups networked to a Novelle 3.5 server)
In terms of functionality, stability and speed, Windows on the PC caught up with macOS around Windows 98, took the lead with 2000 and has firmly stayed there ever since.
Your point about Windows loading DLL's to run Photoshop also misses the point. Windows calls DLL's when the application loads (and, if the application behaves correctly, unloads them when it closes (Adobe please try harder on this one!!!) MacOS STILL needs to load everything at boot time - something which certainly amuses the Unix comunity but doesn't seem to perform any other function unless the application is called - at which point it will load a little bit quicker.
If you have used a PC at anything other than the most basic level there are so many things which will anoy you about MacOS and it's insistance that you work it's way. With any Windows PC I can set it up to do what I want it to do. MacOS denys access to far too much of the OS to allow you to fine tune it. I for one don't buy into the arrogance of the "It's perfect, why would you want to change it?" attitude.
And if you do have a problem.... remember the old MacOS 9 "It's not my fault...." That just about sums up the current Mac technical support attitude as well.

Collapse -
Give Me A Break
by robertmro / January 14, 2007 8:33 AM PST
In reply to: Missing the point

You sounded like you knew what you were talking about until you mentioned PhotoShop.

PhotoShop CS3 is now out in beta and will be release in a couple of months. It's universal binary and flies on the Intel Macs. Illustrator and AfterEffects to follow.

Goodbye PC.

Collapse -
video game design
by bysusan / January 16, 2007 12:58 PM PST
In reply to: Give Me A Break

most game design is done on the pc for a large variety of reasons. The game industry is huge, and is still growing. I would not say "goodbye" to pc photoshop users. Maybe PC Photoshop users that are graphic designers. But not game designers, and that alone is plenty to keep PC photoshop in competition.

Collapse -
Reply
by robertmro / January 16, 2007 2:00 PM PST
In reply to: video game design

To my knowledge, game engines are written to run on the PC. Whether there are UNIX versions of lets say the Real engine, I don't know but can easily find out.

What is happening is the cross breeding of the feature film visual effects and the video game worlds. Any high end visual effects shop will have a variety of different platforms, Windows, Mac and UNIX. I would imagine that high end video game companies like EA are operating in a similar fashion. All the the different platforms can communicate, so there is no reason to be tied to one particular OS. A bigger problem is the lack of standardization of formats, in particular with 3D programs. But regardless, the biggest difference between features and games is that game developers generally use 3D Max while the feature industry uses Maya more often.

The speed of the Mac was inferior until the adoption of the intel chip set. Mac users have been waiting a year for Adobe to port all their software to universal binary. PhotoShop CS3 is the first to come down the pike. I am not in a position to run tests to say for sure which platform is actually faster but I have no doubt that the PC is no longer the leader.

Though it's not an Adobe product Vue 6 runs faster on the Intel Macs according to some authorities.

I could go on and on about about things like Shake, After Effects, Mondo, Nuke, Fusion, Maya, 3D Max etc. The bottom line is that I don't expect PC Photoshop users, especially hobbyists, to throw away their PCs and buy Macs. A lot of people have major investments in software licenses and Adobe is one company that will not allow you to use the same license on both platforms.

When I say Goodbye PC, I'm only referring to the speed advantage.

Collapse -
Are Your Macs Intel?
by robertmro / January 11, 2007 10:18 PM PST
In reply to: For the Money buy a PC

My experience is that the Intel Macs are faster.

Collapse -
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
by Shinau / January 6, 2007 12:42 PM PST
In reply to: MACS VS THE PC

PLEASE DO NOT GET A MAC! They are overpriced, are incompatable with everything, and the only reason they stay alive is because they are user friendly. Unless you plan on doing NOTHING administrative, go with the pc PLEASE!

Collapse -
I'm impressed. Here's why.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / January 6, 2007 12:54 PM PST
In reply to: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Ever install the MacOSX? Piece of cake. Slip in the OS CD and boot from it. It will even offer to save your files.

Does Microsoft treat your files with care?

Bob

Collapse -
About MS in my opinion
by meisinscotland / January 11, 2007 7:28 PM PST

"Does Microsoft treat your files with care?"

Yes, of course they do. All of this Anti-competitive BS I'm tired of. I once hated them, because I had watched too many YouTube videos, listened to too many n00bs, and let my opinion be formed by others who were hellbent on shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throats.

Until I found out myself that Bill G isn't as evil as we all thought. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he invest in Apple to save the iPod? The Windows Kernel is coming to a point where it will be hard to improve except by bloating out the OS (like Vista)

Also, the fact that Bill Gates steals other people's ideas is nothing less tnan 100% true, but no less of other companies either. It's CALLED BUSINESS!! THE REAL WORLD! If people didn't nick others' ideas, it wouldn't be the same world.

I know we have always disagreed since day 1, and I may even have got the wrong end of the stick, but hey.

Collapse -
Why msft "invests" in its competitors
by clsgis / January 13, 2007 1:33 PM PST
In reply to: About MS in my opinion

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he invest in Apple to save the iPod?"

MSFT poured hundreds of millions into Apple (inflated "porting fees" for Explorer and Office) to keep it alive. MSFT is an illegal trade monopoly. But that's difficult to prove under an antitrust law that hasn't been revised since the age of steam locomotives. Apple helped MSFT fight that prosecution, just by being there. It wasn't real competition but it looked enough like it to make the antitrust case more difficult.

When MSFT beat the rap in the US, it didn't need Apple any more and the subsidy stopped. That was when Apple really needed to find another business besides Macintosh. Ipod and itunes, now a fancy PDA/phone.

Now MSFT is being prosecuted as an illegal trade monopoly in the European Union. MSFT admitted years ago in its SEC filings that free and open source software is its only serious competition. Now MSFT is pouring money into Novell, owner of SuSE Linux. This time MSFT doesn't *want* Explorer and Office ported, so they're doing a "patent exchange." That'll end when MSFT beats the rap in Europe.

CLS
http://notwindoze.blogspot.com

Collapse -
Well to be quite honest I don't care
by meisinscotland / January 16, 2007 9:47 PM PST

I got myself a life months ago when I realised that sitting in front of a computer dissing Microsoft, fussing over how Bill Gates' head worked and being lonely among all of it just never worked. I have since found my friends once again, let the computer do what it does best, which is be Windows, got a MySpace and since became the people's person, ish.

Seriously folks, computers are tools, they should be no more than that. People who see it as an accessory need to get out - really, it works.

So what if Bill Gates plays dirty? I couldn't give a rats ***!

Collapse -
Does Microsoft treat your files with care?
by Jelly Baby / January 14, 2007 7:44 AM PST

Ehhh yes!

Collapse -
Yes :)
by alawaiblowfish / January 11, 2007 6:16 PM PST
In reply to: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

PLEASE GET A MAC!!
Don't let XP/Vista Rule your lives!!!

Macs are a great value, despite all the naysayers. Just the productivity gained by not having to constantly maintain your system is value enough. Furthermore, they don't look like big ugly grey boxes.

They're compatible with practically everything. With windows, you have to install drivers, restart, cross your fingers, plug in the usb cable, install further hardware and software packages, and then hope it all works without crashing. Macs...plug it in, mac knows what it is, and it works

Too bad PCs are so complicated that administrators are needed to address their shortcomings.

Collapse -
Touche
by hustle7 / January 11, 2007 11:37 PM PST
In reply to: Yes :)

I concur.

Collapse -
Sorry Your Wrong
by robertmro / January 11, 2007 10:27 PM PST
In reply to: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

I have both a Mac and a PC and I have had no problems networking and sharing files between them.

The Mac is much easier to use and dare I say, more fun. Every thing is integrated, something I can't say for the PC.

More expensive? That's debatable but you get what you pay for.

You know, this debate will never end.

Collapse -
macbook/imac
by bobbyy9 / January 8, 2007 7:57 AM PST
In reply to: MACS VS THE PC

when you buy a mac people say its is over priced but you can get a macbook 1150 canadian with a core2duo running at 1.83 to find an equal pc laptop you be paying well over the price of the mac same goes for imac its about 999 canadian for an imac with the same specs and to get core2duo in a desktop pc its is over 999 in most cases plus then you need a monitor most people also forget you get a monitor included in the price of a mac also dont be fooled by the fact macs come with less ram because they are much more efficient and can run off literally like half the ram of a windows pc and perform the same no viruses no spyware i had a macbook and sold it i loved it though i bought a pc but only cause i wanted to hook up to my lcd and my xbox other wise i would of kept that baby if i could have afforded to so if your looking for somthing for photos or video editing i would defintely go for the mac

Collapse -
Punctuate please
by packjazz / January 12, 2007 6:30 AM PST
In reply to: macbook/imac

What's the deal with no punctuation? It's hard to read and understand your post if I can't decern one sentance from the next. I'm sure you made a good point, but I gave up two lines into it because it was too cumbersome to read.

Oh, and for my two cents, this whole argument can be summed up to: They each have their pros and cons...try both and pick the one YOU like best!

Collapse -
Mac is best!
by muffindell / January 11, 2007 6:29 PM PST
In reply to: MACS VS THE PC

I've been using Macs since 1986, they are built to last, they are built so that each piece of software interacts with another seamlessly and without fault, Macs have a much more stable platform that PC users can only dream about, Macs can run several programs at the same time without either slowing down or locking up, Macs are much easier to use than any PC, there are no speed issues when comparing Mac with PC's, they are a little more expensive than a PC but they work out of the box and will keep on working without problems year after year. Loading software on a Mac is so easy that a mates 3 year old daughter did it to his amazement! Macs are the choice of the graphic arts industry, they are the choice of desk top designer, Macs have style, looks and reliability, they are not the choice of the gamer but the choice of the professional. How much more do I need to say to convince you that Mac is best?

Collapse -
Is Mac the best?
by freighterman_1999 / January 12, 2007 9:03 AM PST
In reply to: Mac is best!

Could be.

I have been a Windows user since the 3.0 version, but I just bought a 24" imac because it gave me the option of running XP either as a virtual machine, or on a partitioned drive. Besides, it is a cool looking machine. it has many features that are not available on XP, for example the remote control.

More important than this to me is it's security, using whatever browser or email program you prefer. Personally I like FireFox and ThunderBird. No more running a virus/spyware program that is sucking up system resources. No rmore utility programs to clean up the registery, to remove junk files and folders left on the system by poorly written uninstall programs. No more fooling with "plug and pray" hardware installations.

After doing a XP installation (using Paralles), which BTW works very niclely, I took one look at the XP screen and tried to put my self in the place of a new Windows user. The first question that came to mind was, "what the f??? do I do now"? Of course I knew what had to been done and that settting it up would take about three hours. Just the simple task of updating the XP security patches and fixes took about half an hour and this is an automated process. I won't boor you with the hassle involved setting my printer and internet connection. However, if I didn't know a few trickes and fixes I would still be screwing with it. Of course once up and running XP runs great. XP can be a b/?%)...its a big help if you have an experienced Windows user show you around. It is just not as user friendly as the imac.

When I booted my imac for the first time every thing worked. Of course it seemed a bit strange ( and still does), but I am finding my way around quite well.

One thing really, really, bugs me....resizing windows. Compared to a Windows machine, X Windows sucks. No longer can I use a graphic program that allows me to open multiple windows within a window and then minimize the entire program to the tool bar while I do something else. Resizing one window in OS X is even a pain in the butt with a 24" screen. Of course there is the problem (for me) of the separation of the window from the tool bar; but I will get used to this. It is my impression that this would be of no consequence if I started with an Apple computer from the get go.

Out of necessity I must continue to run XP in a virtual machine, that is if I want my printer to work, if I want to use a really good newsreader and graphic program, along with Open Office, (I am still trying to get this progam to run in OS X). And yes I am also married to Nero for burning, copying and backing up needs.

Bottom line I have the best of all worlds with two operating systems. What I can't do with one system I can do with the other, with one click of the mouse button.

The Realtec sound drivers in OS X are the best found in any operating system, bar none!!!

As for speed, both systems appear to me to be the same. The only difference I have found is that running FireFox in XP with the Google accelerator, or in OS X, is faster than Safari; FireFox doesn't quit on me every now and again like Safari.

One last thought...If you intend to run XP, or Vista, in a virtual machine, you better have at least 2 GB's of memory on board. One will work as long as you are not running any memory intensive programs.

For Windows users I have one recommendation.....make your next machine an imac.

Collapse -
X Window System v MS-Windoze
by clsgis / January 13, 2007 2:31 PM PST
In reply to: Is Mac the best?

"Compared to a Windows machine, X Windows sucks."

I guess it's what you're used to. I've been using the X Window System for about 16 years. To me it's the way a computer user interface ought to be. Choice and configurability. And a paste button on the mouse.

Now and then I use a friend's or an employer's MS-Windows or Macintosh native window system and they drive me up the wall. So much more work to do the same thing. No choice of mouse focus policy, it's click-to-focus with auto-raise or nothing. (I like focus-follows-mouse and no auto-raise. You can't do that on MS-Windoze.) No paste button, the mouse only has left and right! You can't type in a window unless it's on top, no wonder you need a two foot screen. You only get one desktop, I'm using seven right now. You can't have a desktop bigger than your screen, mine grows as big as I want it. If I don't like the way window resize works, I can switch into a different window manager or lay a different theme on the one I'm using, without even closing any windows.

I've never had a problem with window resize, you just drag the edges or corners, and if a corner is off-screen you drag the whole window with alt-left-button. Except on Tom's Window Manager, but nobody uses twm any more. If you don't like the default behavior, change the keybindings and mousebindings until it works the way *you* want it to.

If you don't like the desktop manager that came with the X Window System from Apple, just switch to another one. I've settled on K Desktop Environment. (KDE.org) You might prefer the equally bloated GNU Network Oriented whatever, GNOME.org, or something streamlined like IceWM (IceWM.org).

f you want X to behave like the MS-Windows desktop you're used to, choose KDE, set the virtual desktop count to one and the desktop size to the size of your monitor, choose the Redmond window decorations theme, and set the mouse policy to click-to-focus with auto-raise. And jam a toothpick in the middle mouse button so paste doesn't work. Voila.

They do give you a choice of desktop managers on Apple's X Window System, don't they? If not, then it's not really The X Window System, is it?

Oh, by the way, virtual desktops are why nobody cares that most applications don't know how to collapse and restore all their windows in a bunch. (You can tell KDE to do it for them.) If you've got an application that needs a million windows open (e.g. the GNU Image Manipulation Program, GIMP.org), just give it a desktop for itself. Right now I've got eleven Seamonkey windows. The tv guide and my ebay are closed, and the rest are on the desktops where their web sites are relevant. Desktop per task, more or less. If Seamonkey was all windows up or down, together, I'd have to switch to some other Web browser.

I bought a Vista Beta but never got around to trying it. Did they do virtual desktops yet? MSFT usually adopts features from unix, when they've been around long enough.

One more nitpick. "The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when referring to this software: X, X Window System, X Version 11, X Window System, Version 11, X11. (Not "X Windows.")

Collapse -
Other things to consider...
by genotypewriter / January 11, 2007 6:39 PM PST
In reply to: MACS VS THE PC

Ask the following questions too:

* Which one is easier/faster/cheaper to repair?

* Which one will not make you feel like "I can't run application X with person A to collaborate" most often?

* Which one is easier to let go of in case you get hit by a bus so that you don't come back as an eternally hungry ghost? Happy

Good luck!

Collapse -
.....no problems
by muffindell / January 11, 2007 7:11 PM PST

Why would you worry about repairing a Mac? They very, very rarely go wrong. I've worked in studios with 30-40 Mac's for the last 20 years, in all that time we've had one power supply failure and one logic board failure, the units are switched 24/7 and run cool and quiet. In my experience, just about anything created on a Mac can be displayed on a PC without problem so cross platform sharing is not an issue. Almost everyone I know who have used a Mac for any length of time will never turn to a PC (the dark side!).

Collapse -
Shortcomings of the Mac
by gunsosan1940 / January 11, 2007 7:11 PM PST

Macs are lovely, attractive computers, and generally work well. But the amount of software available for them is a lot more limited than for the PC, and is sometimes difficult to find. Moreover Apple sometimes abruptly changes things without warning, and leaves you in the lurch. I bought a state-of-the art iMac in 1999. Within two or three years it was rendered almost completely obsolete by the introduction of OS X, and some of the software was suddenly scrapped. Remember Claris Works? Remember Hypercard? Neither of these works on OS X. Macs, moreover, are expensive for what they are. Although Mac prices have come down in recent years, you still get much more bang for your bucks if you buy a PC. And although Macs are very reliable, they sometimes go wrong, and finding a repairer at short notice can be a real nightmare. Perhaps these considerations help to explain why Macs have a world market share of only 5.8 percent.

Collapse -
won't work on OSX?
by muffindell / January 11, 2007 7:38 PM PST

OSX will run on any G3/G4/G5 and intel based processor, so I don't understand what you say about making your '99 model machine useless. Mac's have had less population exposure due to being a more 'professional targeted tool',. However, there are few movies (US or UK) produced which when featuring a computer don't actually use a Mac. I think the problem arises from the fact that you can constantly switch and upgrade a PC with new boards etc, where as a Mac has everything you need built in from the start. In fact the best way to improve a Mac is just fill it with memory, speed differences can be incredible. Mac is the annimation studios choice (PIXAR), so they can't be all that bad even if Steve Jobs does own shares in that particular studio!

Collapse -
I thought iMacs still had Motorola processors?
by meisinscotland / January 16, 2007 4:08 PM PST
In reply to: won't work on OSX?

Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but I've been in a bit of an exploratory phase recently, and have come to learn that modern Macs do run on Intel processors, but I thought the iMac didn't have Intel Processors?

And if I went out and bought Mac OS X today, could I install it on my Windows Laptop, as easy as pie? (I'd love to triple boot Windows 2000 Pro, XP Pro and Mac OS X!!)

Just interested...

Collapse -
No
by robertmro / January 16, 2007 11:22 PM PST

More then a year ago Apple decided to switch to Intel processors which was a wise decision in many ways.

They accomplished the switch in record time. So the current generation of Macs have intel processors, though you will not find a sticker anywhere on their machines.

Even though OS X now runs on an Intel chip it will never run on a PC. This is because Apple is a very successful hardware company and they will never allow this to happen. Recently, someone successfully ran OS X on a PC and Apple quickly took him to court to stop it.

As you know you can run Windows on a Mac, but you will never be able to run OS X on a PC. Sorry.

Collapse -
Wicked. Jobs: 1 Gates: 0
by meisinscotland / January 18, 2007 8:25 AM PST
In reply to: No

Makes a change though

anyway thanks for the insight/correction of my knowledge. I thought it was a bit too simple just to buy an OS X disk and stick it in a PC and dada it works but thats what some people seem to think around here - at least I have been corrected by better knowledge now thanks!

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 47,885 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,322 discussions
icon
iPhones, iPods, & iPads 3,188 discussions
icon
Security 30,333 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,177 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,932 discussions
icon
Phones 15,713 discussions
icon
Windows 7 6,210 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,510 discussions

Tech Tip

Know how to save a wet phone?

It's not with a dryer and it's not with rice. CNET shows you the secret to saving your phone.