Apple Mac vs PC

[Don_HH2K]

I could've sworn I heard somewhere that this thing fully loaded a VGA BIOS within EFI, and then loaded an MBR to the disk itself.

Antony, I was talking about the partitioning table on the disk, not the actual filesystem used. If you're going to make that argument, though, I'll add that Mac OS X doesn't fully support NTFS either.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Donzilla/1.1 (WML/1.3)

[Antony]

I would be really delighted to know where the "VGA BIOS" thing being added to EFI (in Apple's new Intel-based Macs).

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/417.9.3

[redhawkpath]

Ok:

We all seem to like this topic and I just want to put my 2 pennies into this forum.

First, No company is going to use the Mac in place ofalready placed PC's. The software and custom apps are more plentiful on the PC and the developers are far more plentiful for the pc as opposed for the Mac.

Second. I recently purchased a new laptop. Some specs.

HP 5215US

AMD Turion 64 1.8G Processor. (Mac does not offer a 64 bit)
1600 MHX Bus (Mac offer this NOPE!)
1G Memory
80G Harddrive
CD/DVD Writer
All possible IO ports
3D Video
15.4" LCD

Well I could go on but...

$ 899.00 @ Circuit City

Ok.. 64 Bit.. Big deal. this is not software for 64 bit right. Think about the future. I paid 900.00 for a processor that will fully supprt the future Windows Operating Ssytem. Is OS X going to run 64bit? Not until they go with AMD insted of Intel.

Third. Power!!! Ok OS X is quite powerful, I dont deny this. I have a G4 next to me right now. I like the MAC it just does not seem to make sense. For instance, I have a wireless network in my home. When I needed to find a wireless card for my pc it was 49.00 @ Best Buy and i have many different Wireless network cards to choose from. What d you hve with the MAC? Well I think that you can draw you own 99.00 conclusion.

Finally... Which computer holds its valuse the most. WHO CARES!!! Im not buying a car and usually when I a done withmy computer I dipose of it or give it away. This is a moot point I dont buy a computer just to sell it. I buy a computer so tha I can use it.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2)

[DJGM]

redhawkpath,

Just to pick up on one point.

Is OS X going to run 64bit? Not until they go with AMD insted of Intel.

Mac OS X is already 64bit compatible. And Apple won't be approaching AMD at all, when they already did a huge
deal with Intel, well over 12 months ago. Intel's new Core 2 Duo processors will support 64bit technologies.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 SeaMonkey/1.0.2

[redhawkpath]

Although your point about the duo core Intel is true, the Intel is not a native 64 bit processor. In other words you are paying alot moe for an Intell processor and not recieveing the true 64 bit power.

Is OSX 64 bit? It has the capabilities but not a true 64 bit operating system. Apple has missed the mark with this. They really have to get wih their developers and develop the 64 bit technologies. This is the one point tht MS has over Apple.

As far as the oine point... Well I just joined this group and I needed to address a few points insted of posting many different mails. Hop this does not offend anyone.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2)

[Don_HH2K]

Although your point about the duo core Intel is true, the Intel is not a native 64 bit processor. In other words you are paying alot moe for an Intell processor and not recieveing the true 64 bit power.

Technically neither are AMD's 64-bit processors. Both are just x86 processors with 64-bit extensions thrown on.

The G5, on the other hand, was a native 64-bit processor with 32-bit extensions, kind of like AMD64 in reverse.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060519 Minefield/3.0a1

[redhawkpath]

You are correct about the G5. This processor was outstanding with the exception of speed.

The AMD architecture is in many way more advanced that hte Intel. OK I get this information from the varios PC magazines and have also compared the speeds of th iIntel to the AMD.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2)

[Pu7o]

AMD's Athlon64/Turion64 is just as 64-bit as Intel Core 2 will be. You're probably thinking about IA64 (aka Intel's Itanium) vs AMD64.
Mac OS X is 64-bit capable.

Think about the future. I paid 900.00 for a processor that will fully supprt the future Windows Operating Ssytem.

Intel-based Macs can run Vista just fine (from personal experience).

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060708 Minefield/3.0a1

[Mandrake]

You are correct about the G5. This processor was outstanding with the exception of speed.

The AMD architecture is in many way more advanced that hte Intel. OK I get this information from the varios PC magazines and have also compared the speeds of th iIntel to the AMD.

You do know Intel is releasing a whole new line of desktop processors this month? (4 days away if you can believe The Inquirer) They'll be significantly faster than anything AMD has. $316 USD E6600 Core 2 CPU vs a $1000 Athlon FX 62 for the same ammount of performance is not a hard choice.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4

[Antony]

Third. Power!!! Ok OS X is quite powerful, I dont deny this. I have a G4 next to me right now. I like the MAC it just does not seem to make sense. For instance, I have a wireless network in my home. When I needed to find a wireless card for my pc it was 49.00 @ Best Buy and i have many different Wireless network cards to choose from. What d you hve with the MAC? Well I think that you can draw you own 99.00 conclusion.

All new Macs* now come with built-in AirPort Extreme, it's industry standard except the rest of the world call it 802.11g.

If your Mac did not come with AirPort Extreme (card), it might cost you a bit to get one.

(*) Except servers such as Xserve G5.

Finally... Which computer holds its valuse the most. WHO CARES!!! Im not buying a car and usually when I a done withmy computer I dipose of it or give it away. This is a moot point I dont buy a computer just to sell it. I buy a computer so tha I can use it.

So you would pay for the "look" of a car but you won't pay for the "look" of a computer?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4

[Pu7o]

If your Mac did not come with AirPort Extreme (card), it might cost you a bit to get one.

Or in the case of the original Mac Mini, it's probably not even possible to get Airport.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux ppc; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060608 Ubuntu/dapper-security Firefox/1.5.0.4

[Felix0426]

i hear the debate of hardware being better or worse being thrown about but the reality is that hardware is not as important in the debate because the Mac OSX simpally is more software reliant. i can do photoediting with Adobe photoshop on my mac (1.25gz g4 256ram) better then my hp (1.8gz Athlon 1024ram) with the same software because the os runs things better and more efficiently uses the hardware it has along with not being cloged with the junk that MS puts on a computer like the out of box 52 process, and is solitair really that fun, and the trials of everything ever made that no one wants i work at best but and 80% of our computers we remove all of this junk from for a fee. but why pay for something that you need to fix out of the box when a mac for not that much more comes ready to use without the junk. its like buying a new car that has advertizements all over it and an expresso maker that will only work 60 times that you dont need anyway

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4

[Pu7o]

You can actually use Mac OS X right with only 256MB of RAM? The last time I tried that, I felt like I was running PearPC or something!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/521.25 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/521.24

[Don_HH2K]

Agreed, XP out-of-the-box is a mess of unneeded junk, that the majority of people don't need, i.e. domain services, smart card services, etc. If I'm not mistaken, a full-featured straight-from-the-CD install of XP eats around 150MB of memory by itself, and OEMs usually butcher it further by adding all sorts of intensive resident apps that you don't even need, and on top of that you add resident apps when you install apps like Adobe Reader, QuickTime, RealPlayer, etc. Then factor in the spyware and malware that people unknowingly have, because they forget to renew the 90-day trial of Norton that came with their new PC, and you're easily running your environment up to 512MB.

Thankfully you can disable all that junk, and run XP on just about anything with even less than a decent amount of memory. The problem is, as mentioned before, if you don't know what you're doing, you usually need to pay extra for a program to disable all of those services, or pay somebody to do it for you.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060729 Donzilla/1.0.1 (wml/1.3)

[Leopard_BETA]

Ok:

We all seem to like this topic and I just want to put my 2 pennies into this forum.

First, No company is going to use the Mac in place ofalready placed PC's. The software and custom apps are more plentiful on the PC and the developers are far more plentiful for the pc as opposed for the Mac.

Second. I recently purchased a new laptop. Some specs.

HP 5215US

AMD Turion 64 1.8G Processor. (Mac does not offer a 64 bit)
1600 MHX Bus (Mac offer this NOPE!)
1G Memory
80G Harddrive
CD/DVD Writer
All possible IO ports
3D Video
15.4" LCD

Well I could go on but...

$ 899.00 @ Circuit City

Ok.. 64 Bit.. Big deal. this is not software for 64 bit right. Think about the future. I paid 900.00 for a processor that will fully supprt the future Windows Operating Ssytem. Is OS X going to run 64bit? Not until they go with AMD insted of Intel.

Third. Power!!! Ok OS X is quite powerful, I dont deny this. I have a G4 next to me right now. I like the MAC it just does not seem to make sense. For instance, I have a wireless network in my home. When I needed to find a wireless card for my pc it was 49.00 @ Best Buy and i have many different Wireless network cards to choose from. What d you hve with the MAC? Well I think that you can draw you own 99.00 conclusion.

Finally... Which computer holds its valuse the most. WHO CARES!!! Im not buying a car and usually when I a done withmy computer I dipose of it or give it away. This is a moot point I dont buy a computer just to sell it. I buy a computer so tha I can use it.

Mac's have been 64-bit since the Mac Pro was released and a week ago Apple released the new iMacs with Core Duo 2's and Mini's with Core Duo 2's.

Second, OSX is a far more powerful system. I see if your into CAD or something like a buissness some programs, mostly custom programs for companys, but the myth 'PC's have more programs' is false. All the programs I bought for my PC they run on my new 24" iMac. As I said it's far more powerful, you run into far less errors than a PC, and to add on to PC's they catch viruses easy. Mac's are far more complicated for viruses thats why theres only a handful, most recently the iChat virus which was patched in 24 hours and released on an update.

Third, who cares? I care, and plenty of people do! Heres a scenario, you can buy a brand new gaming PC with fabulous specs but within 6 months the price drops amazinly. But Macs hold their value, lets say a Core Duo iMac 20" you can still get around 1k. But the PC you could only get several hundred. Would you rather of 1 grand, or several hundred?

And about customization, there are programs for Mac just like Windowsblinds for macs with different skins etc, but by default; OSX is a beautiful system and isn't as much as a hog as the new Vista.

Vista copied a lot of the ideas from Mac yet it's so much of a hog. OSX can run seamlessly with 512mb ram rather than a gig or 2. Vista even TRIED to attempt to copy BSD/Linux XGL and OSX's Carbon and Cocoa.

Or in the case of the original Mac Mini, it's probably not even possible to get Airport.

Mini's come with Airport by default.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7