Options
Looking into the PC vs. Mac debate
SloYerRoll
Registered Users Posts: 2,788 Major grins
Due to the popularity of MS. There are quite a few statements that are blanket statements at PC's which should target the MS OS instead. This is a swinging guess, but I'd say about 85%+ of all the servers for major corporations are running PC's. They just aren't running MS products.
There are tons of third party software collaborations and GNU OS's that are rock solid and can be run for years w/o reboot. Of course these systems need talent to operate since they use terminal and bash line prompts. But there are options out there for point & clickers that are built on the same framework as OS X. The most popular right now being Ubuntu (a derivative of the wildly popular Linux OS).
So I ask this:
In the midst of the great MS vs. OS X debate. What is the driving force is behind each OS for you?
Is it hardware or the actual OS and GUI that drives you to your decisions?
Do you use any other GNU (Open Source) OS's like Unix or others? Success of horror stories? i.e. running WINE (windows emulator through *nix OS's)
Please provide examples for comments..
I don't intend there to be a winner at the end of this thread (if it even takes off). I'm just interested in hearing some of the technical reasons you like what you like. So others and myself can look at the pertinent data and make educated decisions vs. sorting through the mountains of data that companies provide.
Feel free to chime in if you say you don't give a lick about the nuts & bolts, it just looks cool too or makes it easier to work! Give examples of why it's cool or how it helps though. But please keep the PC's or MAC's rule! comments to a dull roar.
There are tons of third party software collaborations and GNU OS's that are rock solid and can be run for years w/o reboot. Of course these systems need talent to operate since they use terminal and bash line prompts. But there are options out there for point & clickers that are built on the same framework as OS X. The most popular right now being Ubuntu (a derivative of the wildly popular Linux OS).
So I ask this:
In the midst of the great MS vs. OS X debate. What is the driving force is behind each OS for you?
Is it hardware or the actual OS and GUI that drives you to your decisions?
Do you use any other GNU (Open Source) OS's like Unix or others? Success of horror stories? i.e. running WINE (windows emulator through *nix OS's)
Please provide examples for comments..
I don't intend there to be a winner at the end of this thread (if it even takes off). I'm just interested in hearing some of the technical reasons you like what you like. So others and myself can look at the pertinent data and make educated decisions vs. sorting through the mountains of data that companies provide.
Feel free to chime in if you say you don't give a lick about the nuts & bolts, it just looks cool too or makes it easier to work! Give examples of why it's cool or how it helps though. But please keep the PC's or MAC's rule! comments to a dull roar.
0
Comments
Mac OS X just works -- it's stable, reliable, and easy to use. This is somewhat because of Apple's hardware/software integration, and it's somewhat because Apple focuses on making an OS which is stable, reliable, secure, and easy to use. There's a ton of focus on this, and it works well.
OS X is also largely focused on consumers -- "Could my mom or grandma use this?" is always considered. Windows spends a lot of time focusing on making something that can easily be tailored to business, etc.
If you focus on the hardware when looking at Macs versus PCs, you're going to miss what it's about. Apple is a software company (actually, Steve will refer to Apple as an "innovation company"), and that's where most of the value is. It's just that the business model is curious -- most of the revenue comes from the hardware (which is on of the reasons you can't buy OS X for PC hardware -- if Apple allowed that the revenue stream would go totally sideways).
Note this hardware/software thing doesn't *just* apply to computers -- look at the iPod and iPhone. Sure, the ID is nice on those things, but what's really appealing is the software -- if you compare the way the iPhone works and behaves compared to the crap that is a Motorola product, you'll have a good laugh. Maybe such a good laugh you'll wet yourself. Oh, and compare the fact that Motorola spends $500M/year on software development for their phones (no joke!), which is more than Apple spends on R&D for software, and you can laugh for a few more hours :-)
GAMES!!!
I am an avid video gamer, and the simple fact is that the large majority of games are released for Windows first, and then if they are every ported to MAC or Linux it is usually months or years later.
I was having this debate with a friend on Saturday night. I told him it came down to the fact that there are two things I love doing on a computer. Photo editing and gaming. On the MAC I only get one of these. On the PC I get both.
I also really enjoy the homebuilder aspects of the PC and windows. I like building my system from scratch, and installing everything myself. Until the Mac OS is realased for people to isntall on their own systems that is another clincher for me. This in turn directly relates to price. I can build my own systems for much cheaper than what a MAC would cost.
Just my 2 cents! By no means am I trying to say that my way is the only way! I perfectly understand those who do choose MAC over PC.
Now, at work, I have a 3.5-year-old PC Laptop and a 3-year-old Mac Laptop. My upgrade is coming soon and I still haven't decided on a MacBook Pro or a new ThinkPad. I like them both. I'm leaning toward the Mac because of it's underlying Unix OS and the ability to run XP in VMware/Parallels.
We were always a PC house, through many incarnations of Microsoft OS. Endured the blue screen of death, found some happiness with XP. I want my computer to work - turn on and run, no farting around. Never really had that in the windows world - would have trouble installing software, running things that should run, and then ultimately in finding antivirus programs that didn't eat the whole memory of the machine. Had the XP box die on us, and made the error of buying a Vista machine. And the few months I tried to edit photos on what should have been an insanely fast, competent computer, drove me crazy.
Bought the mac, took it out of the box myself - hubby (personal IT support tech) not home, plugged it in, and I was up and running. And still am. Have had minor issues requiring reboot but that was it - away we go.
And yesterday, the plain speed and ease of use of the major editing I did, just totally affirmed my decision.
and btw, it is really pretty to look at!
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
The best way I can sum this one up is that if one wants a personal computer, than Mac operating system seems to be the way to go. If one wants a computer that is designed for a power user and to be used for "work" than a Windows operating system seems to be the more consistent approach. However this opinion is also based on the hardware
The reason for this opinion is based on my experience with a MacBook Pro over the past four months or so. My Gateway machine died, so it was time for a new laptop. My wife is happy with her iMac 21" so I looked at the Mac family. I travel for work quite a bit so it needed to be a laptop.
It runs Adobe Creative Suite and Lightroom pretty darn well and fast. It seems to do most things okay. However then I started to have challenges with the hardware. No docking station, so I have to buy a third party solution that is really just a quick way to insert all the connections. Then comes the fact that there is no second button on the touch bar for right click (yes, I know how to configure it to act as one).
So now when I have questions and get stumped, I can find more answers for Windows based questions than I can for Mac based questions.
I also run Ubuntu LAMP for a testing server at home. That was a little more work than I wanted to make work but it go there.
So here is my opinion
For core business support (back office): Linux or a like solution seems to be the most reliable. Although I can crash those as well
For desktop work support: Windows seems to be more supported and flexible
For personal stand alone work: iMac and Mac OS.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
Dang, I forgot about that... why can't Apple make a decent dock for something they label as "Pro"?
I had a single two year old Dell desktop. A few months back, the motherboard started beeping and, somehow, I managed to keep the damn thing alive by sticking an oscillating fan behind it to keep temps down.
When I had a bit of money saved up, I bought a new case, mb and cpu and brought over my ram, hard drives and beautiful monitor. Then came the time to decide on an OS. Plan was for a media center and so I tried the Linux options but the motherboard was too new for proper linux drivers. Thought about osx86 but gave up and ended up with Vista. For all of its faults, it has a phenomenal media center built in. A few weeks later (Black Friday), I went out and bought a Macbook (my first Apple product and first laptop).
So now I have a Vista desktop where I still do all PP via Lightroom on a great monitor. I also have the Macbook which currently is used mostly for on the couch internet and, recently, video editing.
The macbook is definitely more fun to use and the multitasking/memory management of the os is a pleasure. For all of the years spent tinkering with PCs and, as much fun as that can be, there really is something to be said for a pc that works out of the box and allows you to use it more intuitively. I find myself trying stuff on the mac because I figure it's how something should funtion and it usually does. Meanwhile, Vista is a slow-moving beast despite a fast CPU and reasonable (2 gigs) of ram.
Figure that I'll stay with the current setup for at least a few more years or until a desktop mac comes out (not an imac - I like my monitor too much). The real limitation of my macbook is the hard drive space. It will never hold two 500gb SATA drives like my desktop has...
I might try the linux options when the desktop gets relegated to being a pure media center in the future. For now, both operating systems serve their functions - though with the mac being the easier one to navigate and use.
I have a friend looking into going completely open-source for his desktop/laptop needs. While that sounds great, the time spent tinkering with drivers and installs gets old (and interferes with time spent with my kids). That alone is worth the extra costs of the Apple way of doing things.
Hope that rambling made some sense.
E
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
The PC is definitely better for gaming. That said, with a Mac Pro and Boot Camp you can game pretty well in Windows on a Mac. The only limitation is the X1900XT graphics card is not so good compared with the current state of the art 8800's you can get in a PC.
Won't argue on the gaming. But you can't tinker with any laptops (really)... PC or Mac, so that part of the decision should be a push.
A few reasons:
1) Aesthetic reasons -- Where does it go, and does it get in the way of other ports?
2) Legacy reasons (i.e. you lose the ability to move ports around on future laptops without breaking the dock -- the reason that today, most Windows laptops STILL use a freaking VGA port... OMG in 2007!)
3) Technical reasons -- how do you push dual-link DVI through a port replicator
etc.
In case you were curious :-)
Right now the fact that the Cinema Display has a 4-in-1 cable and can act as a replicator is about the best you're gonna get
The main problem with this is the performance loss that can be associated with this. It kind of depends on what you are trying to play. Obviously older titles would work fine, but on something like Crysis I need every ounce of speed my poor machine can deliver! LoL...
Oh, and I agreew ith you on the laptop. Unless you are willing to spend ALOT of money on a notebook with a high end video card then gaming becomes a moot point. Although even on a MacBook Pro I would use bootcamp to run classics like Starcraft, Warcraft 3, thigs like that.
The port on the laptop goes on the bottom. You push the computer down onto the dock. All the ports are replicated in the back (hooked up to your external monitor, keyboard, mouse, card reader, etc), so getting in the way is irrelavent. I don't usually travel with things plugged into the back of my computer, they would tend to break off.
PCs do take a while to break away from the past, I agree. But, there are a *lot* of analog monitors still on the market. Some photographers still insist on them for photo editing because of better color reproduction.
Why does Apple need to worry about Legacy reasons? They control all of their own hardware. When a newer generation of laptop comes out, issue a new dock.
What's the exact technical reason here? It's just a signal right? Most docks/replicators are powered. I'm driving my 1680x1050 external monitor (through DVI) and my 1400x1050 laptop screen right now. I haven't heard of any limitation lately, but correct me if I'm wrong.
What I want is to be able to bring my MacBook Pro to work, plop it in the dock/replicator, and immediately have my network, full-size keyboard, real mouse, external monitor, external speakers, and card reader all hooked up and ready to go. I can't be alone in this....
I've been doing this with my PC laptops for the last 10 years. The docking setups have gotten progressively better in that time, but the designs are mature enough now that Apple should be able to come up with something workable.
My guess is that they just don't want to invest in the engineering time/production cost. I'm sure yet another iPod would be much more profitable...
I suspect the demand just isn't there. Macs are rare in corporate IT, which is where the bulk of the PC docking stations are sold. But I agree that there is certainly no technical reason that would prevent Apple from developing one.
From what I see, the demand is brewing... especially with the Vista flop. I'm not sure Apple wants to feed it, though! They like their (profitable) niche.
I am a big proponent in using a device that is suited for it. So for me serious gaming is done on a PlayStation 2, yes one can do basic gaming on a Mac or PC OS. I don't have a camera on my cell phone... yes a camera on a cell phone can be used to do basic P&S but it does not compare to a DSLR.
Regarding the dock stuff, Lenovo (previously IBM) got it pretty much right on their dock, the Gateway dock was okay. The Lenovo dock connects through a separate port on the bottom of the laptop, it has a DVI, a VGA, USB's, serial port, parrallel port, Sound In and Out, network, PCMCIA Slot, PCI Slot... etc. The dock had to be purchased to match the laptop. I can handle that. It seems to make sense to me. It also allows for the hardware to be updated as needed. It might be a thing of the Mac would be quicker to be adopted in Corporate IT if there was a dock... so which comes first acceptance or a tool to improve acceptance?
Now having said that, the Airport Extreme Basestation is pretty cool for easily sharing a bunch of USB devices.
I am going to repost from my Blog (http://blog.bradfordbenn.com/?cat=12) a few things that make me lean toward a PC if I had it to do over...
I did figure out how to turn off autoimport and the sleep feature got worked around by DevBobo and other developers.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
The issue is, people buy a computer, buy a dock, then buy a NEW computer, and want it to work with their OLD dock. This is the main problem -- once you issue a dock people want it to be good for longer than the life of the computer. And having to design a NEW machine to an OLD dock spec causes issues.
The iPod solved this with the 30-pin connector (or whatever it is) compared to Firewire, but that's very low bandwidth.
DVI resolution is chump change. Dual link DVI is very bandwidth intensive... 2560x1600 @ 60 Hz is a lot of pixels to push. The MBPs can all drive a 30" display (not sure if many PC laptops can), but that's a lot of bandwidth to push through the dock. Basically if you don't just push the Dual-link DVI straight through to a separate connector (and you wouldn't want to do this), you have to worry about pushing FW800, USB, and Dual-link DVI through a single connector. It's a lot of bandwidth, and not a simple thing, from what I gather. But the caveat is I'm not an engineer and I haven't looked at the specs personally
I don't want to start a Console vs PC war here, but this is just my opinion.I have several consoles and a PC that i use for gaming. But if I want the ultimate gaming experience from a graphics perspective nothing can touch the PC. Crysis on a good gaming PC blows anything on the PS3 or 360 out of the water. Real Time Strategy, First Person Shooters, Turn Based Strategy, all of these are genres that in my opinion are much better played on the PC with a mouse and keyboard. Not to say graphics are everything. I also have the Nintendo Wii and love it, even though the graphics aren't all that.
Anyway, I'm done! I just needed to inject that into the pro PC side of things!
Now back to your regularly scheduled PC/MAC debate!
There are enough VS. threads out there. I'd much rather hear why it works for you.
Just a quick question. What's the Mac equivalent to the Geforce 8800 GTX?
I'm not really sure what the equivalent would be. I'm guessing the Quadro series, but I'm not really sure. I don't think the 8800 series is available for Mac yet.
There is no equivalent. The fastest card currently available for gaming is the RADEON X1900XT. That's 2 full generations behind state of the art. So if you're going to play Crysis, you should go for the 8-core and hope that it is CPU bound rather than GPU bound :-)
The NVIDIA Quadro is way more expensive, but it is NO faster for gaming. No Quadros are faster than their comparable "consumer" parts (i.e. GeForce). The Quadros are more expensive because they have certified drivers (typically for CAD/CAE). This market is small, so people that NEED this have to bear the fact that they're a small market and it's expensive for NVIDIA to do this work. On the Mac, there are few CAD/CAE applications, but the one thing it offers is Stereo 3D support. So if you have the goofy goggles and you do molecular visualization, you'll pony up the extra $1500 or whatever for this card. It's only like 0.5% of your research grant you got from the government (heck, you're in biotech or academia), so it's chicken scratch. If this sounds like mumbo jumbo to you, take comfort in the fact you don't need the Quadro.
Interesting! I did not know this! Actually Crysis is both CPU and GPU limited. Although just throwing more cores at it won't do much of anything. I have the 8800GT and Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and I run it at high settings with no AA. My CPU is a year or two old, while my video card just came out last month. I would say Crysis is more limited by the GPU that the CPU.
Cheers,
-Jon