Mac OR PC?

[seanheather]

That's EXACTLY the point.

If you spent an equivalent sum on a PC as you did on you Mac, you would end up with a more powerful processor in your machine.

In both cases you would be running Adobe Software on Intel processors but you would actually get more clock-cycles for your money which is relevant for running processor-intensive applications like Photoshop and Illustrator.

The ONLY reason your Mac is 'more fluid' than YOUR PCs is that you are not comparing like-for-like.

Regards

Dotty

You're still mising my point. I whole heartidly agree that if you spend £1000 on a PC and a Mac, the PC's specs would be higher than the Macs. Thats without question. The hardware isn't in question here at all. It's the way the software works with the hardware and over time, Windows just gets bloated and becomes ineficient.

My work PC is a 2006 build. I have MS office 2003 on it and when I perform certain tasks with it, it lags, freezes, un freezes, etc. Not all the time, but certainly atleast once a day. That shouldn't happen. My PC is 3 years newer than the software. It takes 2 minutes from start up to desktop and bet when it was new it didnt take that long. Ive used 12GB of the 120GB hard drive. It has Windows XP on it, so no where near as GUI intensive as vista, 7 etc. It should run like a dream, given what I actually do on it, but no, its rubbish. This PC should run just as quick as the day it was bought.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...Windows just gets bloated and becomes ineficient...

But that's normally down to the user not the OS. e.g installing software that add s itself to the start up process and the system tray etc. Admittedly Windows does make it too easy to do this in a way that Mac OS and Linux don't - but that is not the fault of the software per se.

Regards

Dotty

 

[seanheather]

But that's normally down to the user not the OS. e.g installing software that add s itself to the start up process and the system tray etc. Admittedly Windows does make it too easy to do this in a way that Mac OS and Linux don't - but that is not the fault of the software per se.

Regards

Dotty

I agree that response times is effected by activley running programmes, thats inevitable, but the software should do a MUCH better job of figuring out which ones the person is actually using. When you close a programme in Windows to the system tray (if its that style of programme) then it should be put to sleep, and use zero resources.

But thats part of the problem with Windows you see, because it's not tailored to a specific group of hardware it cannot possibly optimize system performance in terms of software. OSX is built for a specific set of hardware therefore it can manage the resources more effectivly.

Windows HAS to work with every PC above a minimum spec, made by countless manufacturers. Apple know exactly what hardware it's OS is going on and can therefore optimize it accordingly.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...When you close a programme in Windows to the system tray (if its that style of programme) then it should be put to sleep, and use zero resources...

You can't have a background process that uses zeros resources.

Unix is no different which is what Mac OS is based on.

Regards

Dotty

 

[jpink]

PCs are a bit of a false economy and these tend to be replaced much more frequently (say every 2 years) by hardcore users.

A mac is more initially - but Mac users tend to upgrade every 5 years or so.

I would also say with certainty that Macs are more reliable and require far less hours updating, cleaning viruses, defragging, rebooting etc

Over the course of a year those things make a massive difference to a business.

 

[seanheather]

PCs are a bit of a false economy and these tend to be replaced much more frequently (say every 2 years) by hardcore users.

A mac is more initially - but Mac users tend to upgrade every 5 years or so.

I would also say with certainty that Macs are more reliable and require far less hours updating, cleaning viruses, defragging, rebooting etc

Over the course of a year those things make a massive difference to a business.

Yes indeed. Makes life much easier.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...PCs are a bit of a false economy and these tend to be replaced much more frequently (say every 2 years) by hardcore users.

A mac is more initially - but Mac users tend to upgrade every 5 years or so.
...

IMO that is just an urban myth put about by certain Mac users who want to justify to themselves the extra money that have spent.

The beauty of the modular, open-architecture of the generic PC is that is is cheaper and easier to maintain than a Mac and therefore it can economically have it's life extended or put to different uses.

If you spend (say) £1500 today on a Mac and then spend the same on a PC , you will have a VERY powerful PC that will have far more processing power than is required for most business tasks. In 2 or (5 years) you will still have a very powerful machine.

Even if you don't want to continue to use it for your primary business task you will be able to cheaply replace / upgrade any components and maybe stick a different OS like Linux on it. You will certainly have more options than you would with 5 year old Mac.

Regards

Dotty

 

[andygambles]

Yes indeed. Makes life much easier.

The same can be said for Mac.

Since Hardware and Software are all from Apple it is one number to call if there is a problem. No blaming the hardware for windows failures.

It is easier to manage (especially the iMac). You plug it in with one lead and that is it. No extra for speakers, no extra for the monitor.

Gone from needing 16 sockets in the office to 4.

I use both daily and own both. At the moment I prefer the Macs.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...It is easier to manage (especially the iMac). You plug it in with one lead and that is it. No extra for speakers, no extra for the monitor...

Indeed. But as I keep saying 'PC' is a generic term and you easily buy an 'all in one' if that's what you want.

The 'one number to call' is a good a argument if you want the convenience of treating your computer as a 'consumer item' - that is one of the strengths of the Apple brand.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Ian@PinkChalk]

While there is a lot to be said for a one vendor solution such as Apple when it comes to support, this kind of situation can have a negative effect on pricing and you can end up paying a premium for equipment that has internals that are sometimes a little behind the times (such as the Macbook models 12-18 months ago, which had less than premium CPUs), and I do like the way that the PC market still has a bit of competition in it to keep the costs down...

These days I think most Macs have pretty much the same internals as generic PCs? (although often in a prettier, better looking casing)

Personally, I think the way I view this kind of question these days is probably related more to which operating system I want to use:

For example:

Mac OS or Windows or Linux?

And even my Macs have both OS X and Windows installed on them!

 

[seanheather]

IMO that is just an urban myth put about by certain Mac users who want to justify to themselves the extra money that have spent.

The beauty of the modular, open-architecture of the generic PC is that is is cheaper and easier to maintain than a Mac and therefore it can economically have it's life extended or put to different uses.

If you spend (say) £1500 today on a Mac and then spend the same on a PC , you will have a VERY powerful PC that will have far more processing power than is required for most business tasks. In 2 or (5 years) you will still have a very powerful machine.

Even if you don't want to continue to use it for your primary business task you will be able to cheaply replace / upgrade any components and maybe stick a different OS like Linux on it. You will certainly have more options than you would with 5 year old Mac.

Regards

Dotty

Not a myth at all really as there is no justification needed to spend that little bit extra on a Mac.

Why do you think music studios, sound stages and designers use Macs...They know they wont fail. They know the build quality is far superior to most alternatives and they know Windows is and always has been a sub par, under performing mess.

People buy Macs instead of PC's for the same reason why people buy B&W speakers and a receiver instead of a Sony mini hi fi system. I mean ultimately they do the same job but one of them is far superior.

As for being cheaper and easier to maintain.... Us Mac users don't have to maintain our machines. Well I don't anyway. My iMac has been on now for around 5 months without a restart, so it kinda just takes care of itself really...I don't even need to back it up, Time Machine just takes care of that one every couple of hours seamlessly in the background to an external....

 

[mit74]

Not a myth at all really as there is no justification needed to spend that little bit extra on a Mac.

Why do you think music studios, sound stages and designers use Macs...They know they wont fail. They know the build quality is far superior to most alternatives and they know Windows is and always has been a sub par, under performing mess.

People buy Macs instead of PC's for the same reason why people buy B&W speakers and a receiver instead of a Sony mini hi fi system. I mean ultimately they do the same job but one of them is far superior.

As for being cheaper and easier to maintain.... Us Mac users don't have to maintain our machines. Well I don't anyway. My iMac has been on now for around 5 months without a restart, so it kinda just takes care of itself really...I don't even need to back it up, Time Machine just takes care of that one every couple of hours seamlessly in the background to an external....

Come on guys the claims here from Mac users are just over the top. Most the people here who know what they're talking about and use both system regularily have already said there's very little difference and each system has there merits only for some clueless fanboy to make yet another post about how Windows is so bad and Mac 'just work'. According to all Mac users Windows machines crash everyday, are riddled with Viruses, need constant defragging and grind to a halt after a few months of using them. It's simply not true and the differences are marginal. If they're so poor why do they have such a massive share of the market?


A Windows PC is far more flexible, cheaper to maintain when things go wrong, has far more software available that is cheaper and with more open source projects, better development options, better gaming more choice of hardware and better hardware.Yes better hardware. I can choose to spend £500 on a motherboard and £1000 on the latest processor if I want to and not bound by what Apple tells you you can buy. And oh did I mention complete compatibility of all software on any Windows upgrades?

The 'they know they won't fail' comment is complete nonsense. I've recently posted before about the problems my mate who is a music teacher and developer has had getting all his software and hardware running on his Mac. He still loves them though even though he had far less problems when he had XP. For most producers it's about the feel of the software and ease of use.

 

[seanheather]

Come on guys the claims here from Mac users are just over the top. Most the people here who know what they're talking about and use both system regularily have already said there's very little difference and each system has there merits only for some clueless fanboy to make yet another post about how Windows is so bad and Mac 'just work'. According to all Mac users Windows machines crash everyday, are riddled with Viruses, need constant defragging and grind to a halt after a few months of using them. It's simply not true and the differences are marginal. If they're so poor why do they have such a massive share of the market?


A Windows PC is far more flexible, cheaper to maintain when things go wrong, has far more software available that is cheaper and with more open source projects, better development options, better gaming more choice of hardware and better hardware.Yes better hardware. I can choose to spend £500 on a motherboard and £1000 on the latest processor if I want to and not bound by what Apple tells you you can buy. And oh did I mention complete compatibility of all software on any Windows upgrades?

The 'they know they won't fail' comment is complete nonsense. I've recently posted before about the problems my mate who is a music teacher and developer has had getting all his software and hardware running on his Mac. He still loves them though even though he had far less problems when he had XP. For most producers it's about the feel of the software and ease of use.

Well hey thats great. All I know is that I use a windows pc all day at work and it freezes atleast 2 or 3 times a day. For about a minute each time.

None of my Mac's have frozen / crashed in 2 years since i bought them. Oh I tell a lie actually, I had boot camp on my iMac with Windows 7 on it, that crashed a few times.

^ Thats not a lie actually... Anyways, this could go on forever and none of us is going to ''win''.

 

[andygambles]

it kinda just takes care of itself really...I don't even need to back it up, Time Machine just takes care of that one every couple of hours seamlessly in the background to an external....

That is called taking a back-up which you can do with Windows

 

[RevaxMedia]

While there is a lot to be said for a one vendor solution such as Apple when it comes to support, this kind of situation can have a negative effect on pricing and you can end up paying a premium for equipment that has internals that are sometimes a little behind the times (such as the Macbook models 12-18 months ago, which had less than premium CPUs), and I do like the way that the PC market still has a bit of competition in it to keep the costs down...

These days I think most Macs have pretty much the same internals as generic PCs? (although often in a prettier, better looking casing)

Personally, I think the way I view this kind of question these days is probably related more to which operating system I want to use:

For example:

Mac OS or Windows or Linux?

And even my Macs have both OS X and Windows installed on them!

Personally I found Windows to run better on a Mac than a normal PC .

 

[DotNetWebs]

...Us Mac users....

...none of us is going to win...

These quotes sum it up really. Recent Mac converts often seem to feel the need to constantly reinforce their position that they belong to some sort of exclusive club that you are either "In" or "Out"

I don't see it as an "us vs them" situation and I don't label myself as a "PC User".

I see myself as a pragmatic computer user who has used many different computers including Macs (and many years before you 'discovered' them incidentally.

For my current needs a Windows based PC is the best [primary] tool for the job.

Regards

Dotty

 

[DotNetWebs]

...People buy Macs instead of PC's for the same reason why people buy B&W speakers and a receiver instead of a Sony mini hi fi system. I mean ultimately they do the same job but one of them is far superior..

Poor analogy - as you say the OUTPUT of the B&Ws is superior to the Sony.

But [assuming you are doing it right] the OUTPUT from your work in Photoshop will be identical on both the PC and the Mac.

Regards

Dotty

 

[DotNetWebs]

..All I know is that I use a windows pc all day at work...

But again the is likely to be because of the way your work PCs have been set up and it not a fault of the 'Windows PC' platform itself.

Regards

Dotty

 

[DotNetWebs]

...Why do you think music studios, sound stages and designers use Macs.....

Historically Macs WERE generally considered better for music and graphic tasks.

Nowadays [generally] the same software runs on the same [core] hardware whether it's on a Mac or a PC.

But the [for largely historic reasons] Mac has a better 'image' in these areas and using a Mac will give you more 'credibility'.

I admit that if I was setting up a new music studio or graphics studio I would choose Macs - not because I didn't think that I couldn't do the same job on a PC, but because your are likely to have a bit more 'creditability' with some clients.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Sue De Nimes]

Mac.

I just can't imagine using Photoshop & Illustrator on a windows machine. Uggh.

They are pretty much identical in use on either platform.

 

[Sue De Nimes]

True enough, my PC's were all below £600. I wasn't really making a spec / price comparrison though.

The fact is, the majority of people buy a PC because they're cheap and probably for the most part, many of them couldn't care less about the alternative. People like saving money in the short term, and it's a shame really.

So your argument is really that a £1000 computer is going to be better than a £600 computer?

Yes a BMW (Apple Mac) is going to be better than a Ford (Cheap Windows PC) but why not compare it to a Mercedes (Similar Pricepoint Windows PC)

 

[Sue De Nimes]

You're still mising my point. I whole heartidly agree that if you spend £1000 on a PC and a Mac, the PC's specs would be higher than the Macs. Thats without question. The hardware isn't in question here at all. It's the way the software works with the hardware and over time, Windows just gets bloated and becomes ineficient.

My work PC is a 2006 build. I have MS office 2003 on it and when I perform certain tasks with it, it lags, freezes, un freezes, etc. Not all the time, but certainly atleast once a day. That shouldn't happen. My PC is 3 years newer than the software. It takes 2 minutes from start up to desktop and bet when it was new it didnt take that long. Ive used 12GB of the 120GB hard drive. It has Windows XP on it, so no where near as GUI intensive as vista, 7 etc. It should run like a dream, given what I actually do on it, but no, its rubbish. This PC should run just as quick as the day it was bought.

I have run Windows and OSX on the same hardware. Any benchmarks show Windows to outperform OSX.

 

[Sue De Nimes]

Well hey thats great. All I know is that I use a windows pc all day at work and it freezes atleast 2 or 3 times a day. For about a minute each time.

None of my Mac's have frozen / crashed in 2 years since i bought them. Oh I tell a lie actually, I had boot camp on my iMac with Windows 7 on it, that crashed a few times.

^ Thats not a lie actually... Anyways, this could go on forever and none of us is going to ''win''.

Hey, my home PC has not crashed in three years. It runs Windows7. I have never had a virus. I have never had any sort of Malware on my PC.

My PC also runs anything I throw at it. (Core i7 920 at 4Ghz) and still outperforms a brand new iMac costing £1900. The only thing I have upgraded is the graphics card which I did a year ago.

Anecdotal evidence is wonderful isn't it?

 

[Sue De Nimes]

Historically Macs WERE generally considered better for music and graphic tasks.

Nowadays [generally] the same software runs on the same [core] hardware whether it's on a Mac or a PC.

But the [for largely historic reasons] Mac has a better 'image' in these areas and using a Mac will give you more 'credibility'.

I admit that if I was setting up a new music studio or graphics studio I would choose Macs - not because I didn't think that I couldn't do the same job on a PC, but because your are likely to have a bit more 'creditability' with some clients.

Regards

Dotty

You would also struggle to hire certain creative types who will refuse to work with anything other than Macs.

 

[QuickHomeBuyers]

If you switched to Mac over the concerns of malware and viruses I would suggest to reduce your exposure to porn. HAHA

On the other hand I one TRIED to use Mac once day and I felt like a girl who needs to be spoon fed.

Windows = Business. Period.

 

[Nuno]

Oddly only yesterday I was reading that PCs and Macs were equally liable to be hacked, (because it's via social media now), but that Mac users lose a lot more money.
They don't know why.
December 2010 study.

 

[Sue De Nimes]

Oddly only yesterday I was reading that PCs and Macs were equally liable to be hacked, (because it's via social media now), but that Mac users lose a lot more money.
They don't know why.
December 2010 study.

Possibly because they are often under the erroneous assumption that Macs are safe and don't get hacked?

 

[seanheather]

Possibly because they are often under the erroneous assumption that Macs are safe and don't get hacked?

^ Now that is a myth. Haha.

I might point out actually, that my argument was never for replacing PC's in the work place with Macs because I agree, silly idea.

 

[mickeym]

I vote PC everytime.

I have run the dreaded Windows Vista on my desktop for 3 years without any problems.

I do admire the design of most Apple products but I'm not interested in stumping up the extra cash anytime soon. Plus I know a lot of people that I would describe as "fanboys", they also add to me never buying an Apple computer.

 

[Techpaste]

Oh yes, the never ending battle between Mac and Windows users.

At the end of the day, it's all down to you. If you prefer the Mac OS over Windows, then get a Mac. They are both capable of doing the same thing IMO. I had the same debate with my twitter followers and not one person could tell me why a Mac is "Better" than a Windows machine and vice versa.

If you're on a budget, get a Windows machine. If you have the coin, get a Mac. Both are great machines/OS and I'm sure you'll be pleased with either of the two.

 

[cjd]

 

[FreelanceSoftwareDeveloper]

It's funny when Mac fanboys come out with all kinds of factually incorrect myths to try and justify why they own a Mac.

I can't remember my XP machine crashing in the past 2 years.
I don't get viruses because I don't use it for porn, illegal downloads or open email attachments telling me I won £10m in a foreign lottery.
I do run 2x 22" monitors which I think is more practical than 1 larger (29" on Mac?) monitor.

I do accept Windows PC's slow down over time but that is just the user attitude and software availability to install all sorts of bits and bobs, some useful, some less so. The idea of improving performance by pre-loading has been cancelled out by over pre-loading stuff that isn't used on a regular basis. So not a design flaw, just lazy users (me included!). Do Macs still use the principle of every application being a single executable file? Easy to manage but not an efficient design.

Hardware wise, new Macs run on Intel x86 or 64-bit processors the same architecture as a PC, so any benefit for multimedia applications years ago when using PowerPC processors vs Intel processors has been neutralised.

 

[tech365]

I love it, haha.

 

[liongroup]

Both. I run two of the older generation Black MacBook's. They are heavier and less pretty than newer laptops and netbooks but they run fine.

I can also run Windows on these, which I do via Bootcamp to allow me to use the Windows OS for certain software programs.

I've been a Windows user since '95, but purchased a MacBook for college a few years ago and love using them. In terms of hardware, Apple are best but comparing Windows and OSX is difficult today because personally I use very little desktop software. The Internet is the future OS in this regard.

 

[Deleted member 127702]

I don't get viruses because I don't use it for porn, illegal downloads or open email attachments telling me I won £10m in a foreign lottery.

I bet you still run anti-virus software though? - go on, tell me it ain't so!

Yes and I know that there was probably some test somewhere that showed OSX to be vulnerable, but I have run a Mac-based office for 15 years and never had any virus protection. And we download a lot of porn too.

 

[Deleted member 127702]

Windows = Business. Period.

Yes - lots of business for IT consultants.

 

[mit74]

I bet you still run anti-virus software though? - go on, tell me it ain't so!

Yes and I know that there was probably some test somewhere that showed OSX to be vulnerable, but I have run a Mac-based office for 15 years and never had any virus protection. And we download a lot of porn too.

And you've probably had some sort of malware and not known about it. How could you know? This is exactly why a very high percentage of macs are being used as email bots and are a ticking time bomb now the market is growing.

 

[Deleted member 127702]

Possibly because they are often under the erroneous assumption that Macs are safe and don't get hacked?

Prior to Vista, changes could be made to the system on Windows without requiring the user to enter a password, which made it so much easier for Trojans, Viruses etc.

Mac OSX has always required a User Password whenever files are written into the system Users migrating from the old System 9 found this very corporate-style method somewhat intrusive, but it's what underpins the security of the system. This has led to the legacy of Macs being perceived as "safer".

Windows 7 now seems to have gone to the other extreme and requires you to input your password even when doing something as innocuous as making an Alias.

 

[mit74]

Prior to Vista, changes could be made to the system on Windows without requiring the user to enter a password, which made it so much easier for Trojans, Viruses etc.

MacOSX has always required a User Password whenever files are written into the system. This has led to the legacy of Macs being perceived as "safer".

Windows 7 now seems to have gone to the other extreme and requires you to input your password even when doing something as innocuous as making an Alias.

Are you just making this up? I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

 

[Deleted member 127702]

And you've probably had some sort of malware and not known about it. How could you know?

We did try Norton Anti-Virus on a couple of our Macs a few years ago - it seemed to have more of a negative effect on the machines than I imagine most viruses would, so off it went again!