SillyDog701

[yo-yo]

You can also upgrade monitors for your Mac, except those all-in-one models.

Ok, but all-in-one models are all I've seen in the way of Macs recently. PCs don't require you to upgrade your monitor whenever you upgrade your computer. The most popular Macs do. Speaking of upgrading, why does Apple make you pay $129/year to keep your system up-to-date?

Once I did alot of work on my PC it became stable. However that's what turned me off about them. Out of the box the tools to make it stable weren't good enough.

As I said, I was only considering recent systems. The Mac may have been much more stable and faster in the past, but things change. For example: my windows XP hardly crashes. I have never got a blue screen, and cannot remember getting an error message. It was stable right out of the box.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)

[Antony]

You can also upgrade monitors for your Mac, except those all-in-one models.

Ok, but all-in-one models are all I've seen in the way of Macs recently.

Get a Power Mac, and you don't need to get a new Apple Cinema Display each time you get a new Mac.

Speaking of upgrading, why does Apple make you pay $129/year to keep your system up-to-date?

The support of 10.3 is still on.

As I said, I was only considering recent systems. The Mac may have been much more stable and faster in the past, but things change.

Yes, things have changed. Macs are now a lot cheaper than before.
However, Macs are still far more stable and faster.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412

[Mandrake]

The support of 10.3 is still on.

But Apple has no formal lifecycle policy, which is bad for corporate customers. Microsoft has given 5 1/2 years of mainstream support to Windows 2000, and there are still several years of security support. Can you say that Apple supports it's products for that length of time?

Yes, things have changed. Macs are now a lot cheaper than before.
However, Macs are still far more stable and faster.

While I would agree that Macs have become more afordable, I seriously doubt that Macs are any more stable or faster than a PC.

We all know that Apple's benchmarks should not be trusted. Why? Take a look at the game benchmarks for the new iMac. The Dell is using a meager X300 SE graphics card with 64mb of ram while the iMac has a full Radeon 9600 with 128mb of video ram. Now take a look at the PowerMac benchmarks. They're not even using the same programs across platforms! Apple uses Adobe Premier on the Windows PCs, but on the Macs they're using Final Cut Pro.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[yo-yo]

However, Macs are still far more stable and faster.

More stable, maybe, but not far more. As for speed, almost every test not conducted by Apple recently shows PCs to be faster. This includes Adobe's tests.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[EddiePaxil]

I thought we should all see this. It's not directed at any one in particular. I just though we should all use these as a guideline to our discussion. It was sent out in the "Circuits" section of the New York Times e-mails. To see the article you have to Become a New York Times member and then go to Technology/ Circuits or Pogue's Posts. David Pogue is the Tech writer and has addressed the Apple vs. Mac PC Debate before. However, he himself has always given both platforms credit when deserved.

Ground Rules for the Windows-Macintosh War



Last week, I wrote about some of the changes Microsoft has in store for the next version of Windows, which is slated for the end of 2006. Interestingly, very few of you responded to that column, probably because so much may change in the next 19 months.

But a few of you fired off diatribes about how I'm either a Microsoft "shill" or an Apple "apologist" (or maybe it was the other way around). It's not just me, either; it's a running sardonic joke among tech columnists that you can't even USE the word "Apple" or "Microsoft" without getting hate mail from somebody or other.

It's kind of amazing that various extremists could find the same column too pro-Microsoft AND too pro-Apple. But hey--that's the nature of ideological soldiers, whether they're in the conservative-liberal war, the evolutionist-creationist war or the Hummer-Prius war.

The Mac-Windows war, though, is especially pointless, protracted, and winnerless. There will always be people on each side who are every bit as rabid and un-convincible as those in any other religious war.

Still, I'd like to suggest, as a starting point of civility, a few pointers for participants in the O.S. war. Consider it one man's version of, "Can't we all just get along?"

1. Hate something for its failings, not for its success.

It's totally fine to criticize something because of its flaws--to hate Windows because it's bloated and cryptic, for example, or the iPod because it's too easily scratched. But condemning something just because it's the dominant product is just sour grapes. Arguments along the lines of "I hate Bill Gates because he's rich" or "I hate the iPod because everyone has one" add nothing to the dialogue.

2. No condemning something until you've tried it.

If everyone abided by this idea, about 95 percent of all the Windows-Macintosh diatribes would evaporate overnight. But here it is: If you haven't tried something, then you really have no basis to comment.

3. Execution matters.

I'm so tired of reading discussions like this: Person A: "I love Mac OS X Tiger! That Spotlight thing is so cool: press a keystroke, type a few letters, and get an instantaneous listing every file, folder and program containing that text."

Person B: "You pathetic loser! It's called hard-drive indexing, and Windows XP has had it from Day One." Of course, the truth is that Windows Indexing Service is to Spotlight as Thomas the Tank Engine is to a bullet train. In Indexing Service, you can't search with a single keystroke, the speed is nothing like Spotlight's, you can't search for metadata (115 kinds of secondary information, like music genre, Photoshop layer names, camera settings in digital photos, etc.), the index isn't updated in real time as you create or delete documents, and so on.

It goes the other way, too. "I love how Windows XP lets me delete or rename files right in the Open or Save dialog boxes."

"What's the big deal? On the Mac, we just switch to the desktop and delete or rename things there."

Sorry, but that's just not as good as being able to do it within the dialog boxes.

The bottom line: How well something works and how elegantly it's been built is also relevant to the "which is better" discussion.

4. Don't make grandiose purchasing plans by guessing on technology's future.

This pointer is directed exclusively at Mac-bashers, particularly the ones on the nation's boards of education.

If you decide to standardize on Windows across all schools, fine. But make sure you have legitimate reasons like economics or the need to run some Windows-only software suite.

"We want the kids to learn what they'll one day use in the business world," however, is NOT a good reason. If you think you know what anyone will be using in 2020 (when today's first graders will graduate from college), you must have a heck of a magical crystal ball.

Truth is, by 2020, no operating system will look anything like it does today. By 2020, we may well be using holography or tablets or glorified cellphones instead of computers. Claiming to know what company's operating system today's kids will be using when they graduate college, or how that software will work, is nonsense.

5. Consider that they may have a point.

Neither side's members should be allowed to cover their ears and sing "Blah blah blah!" at the top of their lungs when they hear an argument that could rock their worldview. As long as the points are factual, fair and substantive, you should consider them.

Remember: Apple and Microsoft routinely play O.S. leapfrog and regularly adopt each other's feature ideas; eventually, aficionados in both camps will enjoy similar enhancements to the computing experience. As we carry on the never-ending debate, try to generate more light and less heat. Only then can we discover what aspects of system software are truly valuable, and thereby usher them into existence for everyone to enjoy.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.6 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Gridmaster]

I've been going through this forum and have the impression that you all either use Mac or Windows, and comparing technical specifications. I work on both platforms. all I know is that I get things done twice as fast on Mac as on Windows. What do you all do on your computers? I never read anything about that.

I don't mean a specific task, just general work, checking and answering mail, answering phone (Skype), having Word/Exel/InDesign/Illustrator open simultaniously and working in them almost simultaniously. Getting in corrections by email-attachments in Excel, changing a graph based on it in llustrator and then straight back to InDesign. Keeping files organised the way I want it, setting up several folders c.q. Windows on a small second screen, or in the background when I work on a single screen. That's life on a Mac. Organising your work the way it's needs to be organised. Not adapting to an imposed way as Windows does.

It's not about cpu-speeds and how to eject cd's (apart from 3 different standard ways to do that on Mac, you can assign any key to that function on both Mac and Windows). It's about getting work done. And yes, it seems that pc's are better for games. But why use your Mac or any (expensive) computer for games, when there is PlayStation and other gameboxes out there for 3D.

As you've noticed I prefer Mac for its operating system/graphic interface. But Windows got much better with XP, and indeed much more stable - and I don't mind working on Windows when I'm not in my office.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/312.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/312

[EddiePaxil]

What do you all do on your computers? I never read anything about that.

Audio. Recording, mixing, and mastering music. Tranfers of other recording to a digital format. Sound for post-production. As well as checking e-mail, creating various documents, burning disks, backing up data, and of course the internet.

All on my AGP Mac for the last 6 months or so running OSX Panther. For 1 year prior I ran a custom PC with Windows XP Pro doing all the afore mentioned tasks.

I've tried to approach every entry into the topic from the perspective of just comparing my everyday use of the two platforms. But that's difficult because my Mac has been so much more productive.

Everybody sound off let the man know what you use your PCs and Macs for, he's got a point where's our perspective coming from.

Next.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.6 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Mandrake]

What do you all do on your computers? I never read anything about that.

Gaming, Microsoft Office (for letters, databases etc), Programming (VB.NET), light graphics and web page design and surfing the web.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[Purple Lizard]

Windows XP:Web browsing\office tasks\LAN\WAN administration(sometimes Fedora C3 or Win 2003)\gaming\mobile synching\VB\C++ programming\HTML (NOT FRONT PAGE)

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050402 Firefox/1.0.3

[DJGM]

Informal warning - This thread is in danger of going a bit too off-topic here . . .

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[EddiePaxil]

Informal warning - This thread is in danger of going a bit too off-topic here . . .

I thought it was a fair question. Where are our opinions coming from. Besides all the things we read and all the research one does while shopping for a home computer, in what way have our personal experiences with the two platforms shaped our opinions on the two.

It's easy to read benchmark articles, but unless you use both, what you've used them for, and if you've done the same things on both is a factor your just repeating someone else's experience.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.6 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[yo-yo]

I use my PC for web browsing, games, and work (online, office, etc.).
I know someone who uses a Mac, and I've used it, but I don't quite like how it feels. I disagree that it feels faster. Each to his own...

If you think you know what anyone will be using in 2020 (when today's first graders will graduate from college), you must have a heck of a magical crystal ball.

True, but the companies that make processors for Microsoft are under more pressure to perform better, and Microsoft doesn't really need to worry about that, so they can concentrate on their OS. This means that they are a better bet for the future, but it doesn't gaurentee anything.
As for the present, people may want a computer that is cheap, even if it isn't very fast or powerful. Even Apple has admited that Dell's machines are "cheaper at the low end."
Finally, I looked at Apple's top ten reasons to switch. I noticed that speed is not mentioned. Also, it says, "it doesn't crash." My XP hasn't crashed once, as far as I can remember. "Most of our customers are up-and-surfing within 15 minutes": how about windows? Start it up, log in, set passwords, and double click Internet Explorer. How long does that take? Even if it does take longer, you need to install virus protection. Windows is, after all, a huge target. Last but not least, "It Works Effortlessly With PCs." Well, I've sent many e-mails to someone with a Mac, and I've noticed some things: pictures invariably disappear after a few replies, and the Mac user can't recieve my hyperlinks. I don't know... Maybe Apple should think about not judging something until they've tried it.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)

[EddiePaxil]

but the companies that make processors for Microsoft are under more pressure to perform better, and Microsoft doesn't really need to worry about that, so they can concentrate on their OS.

Yeah, but it's a great advantage to Mac users that the folks who make their hardware also make their OS. Things flow very seemlessly in no small part because of that.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.6 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[yo-yo]

Not adapting to an imposed way as Windows does.

What? How does Windows impose on you? I can do everything I want to that a computer can do.

But why use your Mac or any (expensive) computer for games, when there is PlayStation and other gameboxes out there for 3D.

Well, it would be cheaper to buy a PC and games than a Mac, PS2, and games.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[Mandrake]

Well, it would be cheaper to buy a PC and games than a Mac, PS2, and games.

Certainly true. Many Mac fans say "Just buy a games console" - but why buy both a games console and a Mac when you can just have a PC that does everything? This is even more true with the Windows XP Media Center PCs.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4