Mac vs. PC

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
They are almost immune to such issues. Just got done working on my dad's Vista computer. Tons of spyware on the box. So much for IE being more 'secure' in Vista. He's using Firefox now.

The $1000 he dropped for this system wasn't worth it IMO. For $1100, he could have had a nice iMac and none of the O.S. & spyware headaches.


Or you could build a PC, put Solaris on it, and slap on a dual-boot with XP.......... Or use VMWare.......

For somebody who's never used a MAC, Solaris is potentially going to be just as alien as OSX... And you can build a more powerful system for less money, as you are not subject to Apple's premiums they charge for the exact same PC components.......

A Mac is no "better" than a well-built PC. The argument should be is OSX a superior OS to Windows..... As herein lies the REAL issue.

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


A Mac is no "better" than a well-built PC. The argument should be is OSX a superior OS to Windows..... As herein lies the REAL issue.


The real issue is how well built Joe Sixpack's Mac or PC are not some idealized PC that is maintained by an expert.

A Mac in the wild is more secure than a PC in the wild 90% of the time.

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: XS650
The real issue is how well built Joe Sixpack's Mac or PC are not some idealized PC that is maintained by an expert.


Don't forget everyone here is an expert in any field!

I find computers hardware and software to be a totally uninteresting topic. I have no urge or intention to ever to learn how to cobble my own system together. I'm a techno-idiot and rely on what works for me right out of the box. As I've previously said, I use both, PC and Mac, but for myself I won't buy anything but a Mac at this time. I'm simply more familiar with Macs, which, all in all have be about as trouble-free as can be expected. The folks around me who do similar work on PCs appear to suffer a lot more glitches and breakdowns -- and these people are probably a lot more computer savvy than I am.

 

[ConfederateTyrant]

For all those spouting how Mac is so much more secure, just wait until a larger part of the market is Mac based, then you'll start to see more malware/spyware/viruses that assault the Mac OS.

If you know what the f*** you're doing, then you can avoid viruses easily. From my own doings, I've never gotten a virus or massive infection. However, my brother-in-law got a vundo virus (causing adultfriendfinder.com pop-ups) on mine, but a reload took care of that. Now I'm more aware of how to remove the vundos without reloads, so it's not an issue anymore.

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
For all those spouting how Mac is so much more secure, just wait until a larger part of the market is Mac based


Thankfully that won't happen.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


A Mac is no "better" than a well-built PC. The argument should be is OSX a superior OS to Windows..... As herein lies the REAL issue.


The real issue is how well built Joe Sixpack's Mac or PC are not some idealized PC that is maintained by an expert.

A Mac in the wild is more secure than a PC in the wild 90% of the time.


You completely missed it. OSX is more secure (right now) in the wild than Windows. The term PC does no immediately imply the computer is running Windows. It could be running FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, any Linux Distro, BeOS. In fact a "MAC" IS A PC!!!!!!!

**** THEY ARE THE SAME HARDWARE ****

The name "Personal Computer" is applicable to anything that isn't a server, laptop or PDA. MAC's fall into that category, AMIGA's fall into that category, [censored], Commadore 64's fall into that category!!!!!!!!

The differentiation that SHOULD be made here is OSX is, currently, more secure than Windows!!! This has NOTHING to do with MAC hardware vs generic Intel/AMD hardware, since they can all run OSX for the most part (hence the OSX86project).

Apple's little commercials where they push the differentiation by calling one the PC and the other the MAC simply enforces this false classification scheme. What happens when "PC" has Linux installed, does he magically morph into another person?

It's a lame attempt to provide much desired segregation by the MAC community to make the fanatics feel "unique" when they are just running the same bloody Intel hardware that most of their IBM/DELL/HP/Compaq buddies are running on their Windows boxes.

 

[marcre]

Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
For all those spouting how Mac is so much more secure, just wait until a larger part of the market is Mac based, then you'll start to see more malware/spyware/viruses that assault the Mac OS.


See, that is a misconception. I'm not saying macs will never be susceptible to a virus, spyware or malware. But, the operating system is totally different than windows.

Simple terms, mac osx doesn't run off of executable commands like windows. A virus will not get in and make changes like in a windows based system. There is virtually no threat.

I always hear that when there are more on the market they will be a target. Like it or not, there are plenty of people out there using macs and there is no threat. Millions of people are using them and nothing has happened yet. There is a reason there are not viruses ect and it's not because people aren't using macs.

 

[Mystic]

I tend to believe (having used both Macs and PCs) that a Mac is somewhat better built than the AVERAGE PC. But there are PCs build every bit as good as a Mac. Also, sometimes it seems like Apple lags in some areas of technology. For example, the PC computer might have a faster running CD/DVD drive and able to copy files faster-stuff like that.

At this time Macs seem more secure than Windows PCs. I would assume this is because Unix type O/Ss may have some inherent greater security ability and also Macs are less of a target. In the future maybe Macs will be targeted in a major way. I don't know. I guess the bad guys are going to target whatever O/S is the most commonplace.

An iMac is not too much more expensive than a average PC. But on the other hand a Mac Pro desktop is VERY expensive. Check the Apple Inc. website and search for the pricing. But a Mac Pro desktop makes a lot of sense to some computer graphics company that wants and needs to run 32 GB of Ram. Assuming you can afford 32 GB of Ram.

It has been my experience that Macs tend to be very reliable. However, anybody who says that Macs never have problems must not have a lot of experience with Macs. I was saved a couple of times with DiskWarrior. I read a book recently about Mac OS 10.5 (Leopard) written by a notable expert and he said that while he was writing the book he was saved by DiskWarrior.

Windows computers can be reliable also. I have been running Windows Vista for over a year. I can hardly remember the last time I had a BSOD-I think it was back in the Windows 98 days. Several years ago.

A lot of people who complain about security on Windows computers need to look in a mirror. Anybody who visits strange websites, opens email attachments from anybody, downloads lots of strange software from the internet, visits porn sites, visits the more undesirable peer-to-peer file sharing sites, uses pirated software, etc., is sooner or later going to be in or a surprise. There are people running Windows computers without antivirus software, with no firewall-you name all of the issues yourself. Those people cause grief for everybody because the bad guys take over those unprotected computers and use mass numbers of computers to send Spam and launch various kinds of attacks on networks and websites. How hard is it to have an up to date antivirus, an up to date antispyware program, and a operational firewall? You can get all of that stuff for free! I suggest Avast!, Spybot Search & Destroy, and Ad-Aware to the cheap guys who can't spend a penny in protective software.

In the end it depends on what you want to do with your computer. If you play a lot of computer games a Windows computer (or a gaming console) makes a lot of sense. Macs are really good for graphics although Windows computers can do graphics also. And don't forget-you can run Windows AND Mac OS X on an Intel Mac.

I like both.

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


A Mac is no "better" than a well-built PC. The argument should be is OSX a superior OS to Windows..... As herein lies the REAL issue.


The real issue is how well built Joe Sixpack's Mac or PC are not some idealized PC that is maintained by an expert.

A Mac in the wild is more secure than a PC in the wild 90% of the time.


You completely missed it. OSX is more secure (right now) in the wild than Windows. The term PC does no immediately imply the computer is running Windows. It could be running FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, any Linux Distro, BeOS. In fact a "MAC" IS A PC!!!!!!!

**** THEY ARE THE SAME HARDWARE ****



Once again you missed it Mr Pedant. I knew what I meant, most people with a little familiarity with computers knew what I meant, I think that even you knew what I meant.

PC is most commonly is used to describe an IBM compatible microcomputer.

Personal Computer (PC)
A microcomputer with its own processor and hard drive. Although technically this refers to all such computers, including Macs, the term PC is nearly synonymous with only the IBM-compatible microcomputers.
http://www.bbn.com/utility/glossary/p

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: XS650


Once again you missed it Mr Pedant. I knew what I meant, most people with a little familiarity with computers knew what I meant, I think that even you knew what I meant.


I knew exactly what you meant. And that is why I jumped on it, because the distinction NEEDS TO BE DRAWN. There ARE a large base of consumers that have NO CLUE that the hardware inside a DELL/HP/Compaq...etc system is potentially identical for the most part to the MAC that is twice the price.

Originally Posted By: XS650
PC is most commonly is used to describe an IBM compatible microcomputer.


I didn't miss anything. I am simply attempting to persuade people to use the correct terminology.

What is a MAC now that it runs an Intel CPU on an Intel chipset with an NVidia or ATI GPU with a standard SATA hard disk? Is that not a PC? Is it not an IBM-compatible Microcomputer?

Historically, with the Motorolla-based system, this was NOT the case (as I am sure you are aware) but since the hardware migration, the distinction between what defines a MAC and what defines a PC is basically just the OS!

THIS is the reason I attempt to force the differentiation based on OSX and Windows rather than the traditional hardware distinction, since for all intensive purposes, the hardware distinction no longer exists.

I'm not trying to be rude, I simply feel that the traditional Mac and PC classifications no longer apply because what traditionally defined a MAC hardware-wise, no longer exists.

 

[MONKEYMAN]

Well, after a strong learning curve, I am liking my G3. Put some ram in it from a Dell Optiplex and found the processor is 400mhz instead of 300mhz. Runs strong, loads fast with Tiger. I was finally able to install FileMaker Pro and it resolved the problem. The original archive was done on some Mac's and some pictures would not display on a PC with the same program. It is a relief to be using a PC again to write this post. From the discussion above I guess PC is not PC (Politically Correct) for a Mac, or is it?

Macs have some nice features. Love pushing one button and the side of the computer opens with the MoBo right there. Made upgrading ram ultra easy. Some of the features in Vista remind my of my newly acquired Mac. Can you say copy cat? (in my case Tiger 10.4).

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

MM, you make a good point, an old Mac is quite good to use. I have a tower model 733mhz, 1.5GB RAM running 10.4. Runs fine. Haven't tried Firefox 3 on this system yet, but FF 2 always coughed & sputtered while trying to use MLB.com or listen to XMradio live feeds. Safari worked flawlessly.

An old Mac is cheaper and works just as well as the newer Macs, just a bit slower.

 

[Mystic]

I agree with a lot of what you say OVERKILL. There are basically the same computer components in Macs as well as PCs. But I do believe that the average Mac computer is built a little better than the average PC, or at least compared to the cheapest PCs.

I don't know if it is because of the OS or what but I have noticed over the years that sometimes PCs seem to lead over Macs in some areas of technology. For example, the CD/DVD drive on a lot of Windows computers will run faster and copy faster than the CD/DVD drives on Macs. And Apple deliberately took a long time to start using USB 2 on its computers. Apple wanted people to use its own firewire. I personally like how upgradeable PCs are. New technology seems to be developed for PCs first. And it is cheaper to upgrade a Windows computer.

Basically except for OS (software) I don't see a lot of difference in hardware between PCs and Macs as long as the really cheap made PCs are not included in the comparison. I do think that Apple charges a lot for basically the same hardware.

So it comes down to what somebody is welling to pay for a computer and OS preference. I do like the Mac OS X OS but I find no major problems with Windows Vista. PCs win in cost considerations. And since Vista is close in quality compared to Mac OS X I think the PC wins by a small margin.

When it comes to security Macs win but this may be a false advantage. If Macs are more secure largely because of being a lesser target that is no security advantage at all in real terms. There is some evidence that if Macs were as commonplace as PCs they would be an easier target rather than a harder target.

I can remember a time when if a person wanted to do any serious computer graphics the Mac was really the only choice. That is simply no longer true. Vista is much improved in computer graphics compared to previous Windows OSs. If I was running a computer graphics company today I would run Windows XP or Windows Vista workstations. Those computers are available for about half what the Mac Pro desktops cost. Although a Mac Pro desktop can run 32 gb of ram.

 

[ConfederateTyrant]

Quote:
I can remember a time when if a person wanted to do any serious computer graphics the Mac was really the only choice. That is simply no longer true.

You hit it right on the head with that statement. If this were the 90's then Macs would still be the best for multi-media, but improvements in technology and software have blurred the line between the two.

 

[Mystic]

Thanks ConfederateTyrant. There are still some people who seem to think that Macs have some mystical ability to handle graphics better than any other kind of computer. That probably was true up until the late 1990's but it is certainly not true any more today. In fact, some people have pointed out that Adobe seems to be making Windows versions of a lot of its software sooner than that same software is available for the Mac. In my own experience Photoshop CS3 was compatible with Vista sooner than it was for Mac OS 10.5 and Abode Lightroom was compatible with Vista fairly quickly. It took a while for Leopard compatibility.

And Overkill is certainly right in pointing out that many of the mechanical components in a Mac are exactly the same as you will find in a Windows computer. You can find the same processors, memory, hard drives and so forth. Some parts may be made by Apple exclusively but many are shared. So somebody who thinks that Macs have some mystical superior build quality must be just trying to find justification for spending a lot more on a computer.

The big difference is the OS and I personally feel Vista is a very good OS. There are good and bad points either way. But a person certainly can do the same things with a Windows computer as can be done with a Mac while spending less on the computer and in a sense less on the OS (when you consider how often Apple releases a new OS). You can keep the Windows computer going with inexpensive upgrades. And software and hardware is going to be easier to find for the Windows computer.

 

[mormit]

Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn

An old Mac is cheaper and works just as well as the newer Macs, just a bit slower.


Hey. That might make a great topic: "Old beater computers" as opposed to some of the old beater car topics we have with cars that we keep going with routine maintenance and low cost.

My beater computer is my old Compaq I gave to my brother in law when we got our new one. He kept it three years doing a lot of gaming. He moved to a new PC so I asked for it back because I hate to throw away a good running machine. Does fine with Win98. Original hard drive....kinda like bragging about original drive train I guess.

 

[MONKEYMAN]

Originally Posted By: mormit
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn

An old Mac is cheaper and works just as well as the newer Macs, just a bit slower.


Hey. That might make a great topic: "Old beater computers" as opposed to some of the old beater car topics we have with cars that we keep going with routine maintenance and low cost.


Come to think of it, I have a 99 Saturn and now have a Mac made around the same time. Added some Ram to my Mac and it gets around just fine. Added oil to my Saturn then kept adding oil and it gets around just fine....

 

[mormit]

85 Volvo 240 runs great at 280,000mi. The original electronics would make any computer manufacturer proud.

9 year old PC is hanging in there. Winders98, 600mHz processor, and 256meg RAM are nothing to brag about.

 

[Mystic]

Actually I often wish I had kept my old Mac that could run Mac OS 9.1 and Mac OS X. If I still had it I would have two hard drives with 9.1 on one and 10.4 or 10.5 on the other hard drive.

I find myself increasingly going to Windows but that old Mac would have come in handy. And I am keeping my Windows computer operational with upgrades instead of buying a new computer.