SillyDog701

[Andrew T.]

I have largely been staying out of this conversation, as I consider both the Mac and PC platforms to have their advantages.

While PC hardware can offer faster or higher specifications than Apple Macintosh hardware at the same price, I do not consider this to necessarily indicate that a PC is inherently better than a Mac, since the user experience of each is substantially different. Several of the Mac models (such as the Mac Mini and 12" iBook) are very reasonably priced. Also, eleven years ago, a typical (not top-of-the-line) 486 PC system cost nearly $2000. Computer hardware--PC and Mac--is less expensive now to the degree that I don't consider performance/price comparisons to be as compelling as they once were.

That said, although I do own a Mac iBook, I use a desktop PC more often. Some of the Windows software I am productive with and use in specialized ways is old and does not have direct equivalents for the Mac. Granted, you can buy Virtual PC and emulate Windows or other PC operating systems on the Mac if you really need to, but this seems completely pointless if you already own a real PC. If, however, you are a new computer user starting out who does not rely on existing software, a Mac has nothing to hold against it in this regard.

I do have issues with some aspects of Apple Mac hardware: None of their current computer models except the Power Mac G5 offer any internal expansion capabilities, for example. I have determined that it is almost impossible to synchronize data on a Mac with a Windows 95 PC. Not too long ago a substantial advantage all Macintosh models had over most PCs was the fact that they had a built-in SCSI port. Now, none of them do. (And before you complain that SCSI is "old," keep in mind that the SCSI standard is fast, allows multiple devices to be daisy-chained together, is not difficult to set up, and a wide range and large number of peripherals have been made utilizing this interface. Old does not necessarily mean bad.)

Many of the issues I have with Mac hardware, though, are equally applicable to modern PCs. While I'm not fond of recent Macs' use of the USB interface even for simple peripherals like keyboards and mice, PCs are using USB just as much nowadays, sometimes doing away with (working) interfaces such as serial and parallel ports in the process. I don't like the fact that no new Apple computers (save perhaps the Mac Mini) are available in a conventional desktop case, but desktops are equally rare in the PC world now dominated almost exclusively by towers and laptops.
Also, I have never liked Windows 98, ME, 2000, or XP, due in part to the extraneous 'eye candy' of their user interfaces and "integration" with Microsoft Internet Explorer. Functionally, Mac OS X 10.3 is very good--it is quite stable, and has sophisticated UNIX underpinnings. However, as with recent Windows versions, I find the animation and 'eye candy' of Mac OS X's default theme distracting. Also, an OS is only as good as what you can do with it, which brings me back to the issue of software, some of which available for Windows and other PC operating systems may not have direct equivalents on the Mac platform.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050406 Firefox/1.0.3

[Mandrake]

(And before you complain that SCSI is "old," keep in mind that the SCSI standard is fast, allows multiple devices to be daisy-chained together, is not difficult to set up, and a wide range and large number of peripherals have been made utilizing this interface. Old does not necessarily mean bad.)

Yes, the newest standard of SCSI, U320, along with 15,000 RPM hard disks (compared with 7200 RPM hard disks usually found in computers) is incredibly fast. Good for those involved in heavy graphics work or video editing.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Antony]

None of their current computer models except the Power Mac G5 offer any internal expansion capabilities

Apple made it very clearly, regular consumers do not need to expand or look inside their hardware. Mac is designed to be simple to use, not open for hacking.
Expansions are available in the professional range, and designed for power users. And the clean design in Power Mac (since Blue and White G3) made it a lot easier to expand then any Windows PC.

for example. I have determined that it is almost impossible to synchronize data on a Mac with a Windows 95 PC.

If you had Windows 2000 or XP, just a cross-over network cable or regular network cable (CAT.5) would do.

I do have issues with some aspects of Apple Mac hardware: None of their current computer models except the Power Mac G5 offer any internal expansion capabilities, for example. I have determined that it is almost impossible to synchronize data on a Mac with a Windows 95 PC.

Just to add that, Mac OS X has great Windows compatibility, although Mac has its own format, but PC formats are supported rather bad in old days.
OS X can connect to Windows XP (or 2000) easily.
As for "syncing". Apple's method is to use iSync to sync data from different devices, if you have different computers, you can use iSync in conjunction with .Mac subscription.
Note: Apple said that Tiger's iSync has improved, however, I don't know the detail yet.

Not too long ago a substantial advantage all Macintosh models had over most PCs was the fact that they had a built-in SCSI port. Now, none of them do. (And before you complain that SCSI is "old," keep in mind that the SCSI standard is fast, allows multiple devices to be daisy-chained together, is not difficult to set up, and a wide range and large number of peripherals have been made utilizing this interface. Old does not necessarily mean bad.)

The main problem about SCSI is the complicated configuration for most people. Not saying SCSI is bad, but many people don't like it. It's definitely not suitable for compact design.
USB, USB2, Firewire (400) and Firewire 800 are designed to replace the old SCSI interface (standard) by providing near zero configuration for chaining up devices.

However, as with recent Windows versions, I find the animation and 'eye candy' of Mac OS X's default theme distracting.

Andrew, you can turn most "beautiful elements off if you really want. You might need to use third party application or shell commands to turn certain features off.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Andrew T.]

Apple made it very clearly, regular consumers do not need to expand or look inside their hardware. Mac is designed to be simple to use, not open for hacking.

Why is it that 18 years ago Apple could fit an expansion slot into even compact computers such as the Macintosh SE that required a special screwdriver to open the case, yet it won't now? And who is to say what "regular" consumers' needs are?

If you had Windows 2000 or XP, just a cross-over network cable or regular network cable (CAT.5) would do.
[...]
OS X can connect to Windows XP (or 2000) easily.
[...]
As for "syncing". Apple's method is to use iSync to sync data from different devices, if you have different computers, you can use iSync in conjunction with .Mac subscription.

I don't use Windows 2000 or XP, so that is beside the point.

iSync is for synchronizing data between a Mac and a portable PDA or cell phone, not devices which I use.

The main problem about SCSI is the complicated configuration for most people. Not saying SCSI is bad, but many people don't like it. It's definitely not suitable for compact design.
USB, USB2, Firewire (400) and Firewire 800 are designed to replace the old SCSI interface (standard) by providing near zero configuration for chaining up devices.

SCSI interfaces are generally faster than USB interfaces and are compatible with many more operating systems.

And if SCSI is so bad, why did nearly every Macintosh ship with built-in SCSI support for over a decade? I have not found SCSI to be complicated to set up.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Mandrake]

The main problem about SCSI is the complicated configuration for most people. Not saying SCSI is bad, but many people don't like it. It's definitely not suitable for compact design.
USB, USB2, Firewire (400) and Firewire 800 are designed to replace the old SCSI interface (standard) by providing near zero configuration for chaining up devices.

And if SCSI is so bad, why did nearly every Macintosh ship with built-in SCSI support for over a decade? I have not found SCSI to be complicated to set up.

If Apple did include SCSI in systems, they'd only need it in PowerMacs. Then it could be included on the motherboard for connecting internal devices. I agree with Antony, that all external devices are better off using a USB2 or Firewire 400/800 connection (much easier to configure). All modern OSs, such as recent Linux distros, OS X, Windows 2000 and XP support USB 2 and Firewire 400/800. Macs back before 1999 came with SCSI for connecting external devices for one simple reason: There was no Firewire or USB. IIRC, the Blue and White "Smurf" PowerMac was the first to incorporate both USB and Firewire, and not to include SCSI.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

[Antony]

Apple made it very clearly, regular consumers do not need to expand or look inside their hardware. Mac is designed to be simple to use, not open for hacking.

Why is it that 18 years ago Apple could fit an expansion slot into even compact computers such as the Macintosh SE that required a special screwdriver to open the case, yet it won't now? And who is to say what "regular" consumers' needs are?

Back then, there was no PowerMac or Power Macintosh, right?

The main problem about SCSI is the complicated configuration for most people. Not saying SCSI is bad, but many people don't like it. It's definitely not suitable for compact design.
USB, USB2, Firewire (400) and Firewire 800 are designed to replace the old SCSI interface (standard) by providing near zero configuration for chaining up devices.

SCSI interfaces are generally faster than USB interfaces and are compatible with many more operating systems.

And if SCSI is so bad, why did nearly every Macintosh ship with built-in SCSI support for over a decade? I have not found SCSI to be complicated to set up.

I did not say SCSI is bad, but for the fact, SCSI is complicated to connect, in other words, not convenient in terms for frequent plugging and unplugging.

SCSI was considered state of art technology back then, so it included.

Mac always has new technology included, although Apple might not invent those, Apple utilities those technology into personal computers. That's pushing the technology forward. For example, the popularity of USB can be thanked to the first iMac. Wireless networking? Macs are the first computers to have AirPort included. (Rest of the world call it 802.11b)

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Andrew T.]

Why is it that 18 years ago Apple could fit an expansion slot into even compact computers such as the Macintosh SE that required a special screwdriver to open the case, yet it won't now? And who is to say what "regular" consumers' needs are?

Back then, there was no PowerMac or Power Macintosh, right?

Does the presence of the Power Macintosh line with internal expansion capabilities excuse Apple from needing to include even one internal expansion slot in any of its other computers?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050406 Firefox/1.0.3

[Antony]

Why is it that 18 years ago Apple could fit an expansion slot into even compact computers such as the Macintosh SE that required a special screwdriver to open the case, yet it won't now? And who is to say what "regular" consumers' needs are?

Back then, there was no PowerMac or Power Macintosh, right?

Does the presence of the Power Macintosh line with internal expansion capabilities excuse Apple from needing to include even one internal expansion slot in any of its other computers?

Taking the consideration of overall design (appearance), cost of production, and cost of support... plus the fact that most (average) users don't add any PCI cards to their machines (Mac or PC)... Such expansion space wasting left for power user is logical.

Plus, RAMs are always user upgradeable. HDD can be upgraded at time of ordering.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[EddiePaxil]

I am a very late arriver to the world of Home Computing. Needless to say I am no computer expert though I have grown more knowledgable over the past 2 years particularly when it comes to hardware and all things relating to audio.

I got my first computer as a gift caus someone wasn't using it about 3 years ago it was an older Dell laptop running Windows '98. What a nightmare. And the nightmare wasn't Dial-up or the old processor. I hadn't used a computer at home so dial-up was plenty fast at the time. It was Spyware, Adware, and all sorts of other things appearing on this computer that I had no understanding of what they were or how to make them go away. My computer would crash constantly and freeze. This had made my life more difficult. I lost my cool and threw the thing on the ground breaking the screen though the computer still worked, credit dell there. End of first PC.

Then a year later I began school for Audio engineering. All they used and taught were Macs. However at first they were older macs running primarily OS9, and we never went on the internet we just used Pro Tools Free, Reason, Digital Performer 3.1, and some other random programs along the way. I liked it, it was easier to use. However I now wanted to start to put together a Digital Audio Workstation of my own together at home, and in looking at Apple I was put off by the price. It is true that your initial cost is higher when buying a Mac flat out. so I began looking into PC's and definetly saw I could get more bang for my buck.
Here I get very lucky. My soon to be brother in law saw that I was going to school but had no computer at home. He had a PC in his basement that was a custom built IBM running XP Pro that he wasn't using because it was a gift and the one he already had was much better. He let me use it. So I went and got a cable modem too. I thought the Firewall provided by Internet Explorer was plenty of protection, along with Norton and Spy Sweeper and Window Washer (provided by my brother in law) for this nice little PC running an Athalon XP 3200 w/ 512 Ram, a 30 GB HD, and the highly superior XP Pro w/ SP2. This is far better than that silly Dell I had. Silly Me.

The Pop ups were the first to get out of hand. Then the Spyware and Adware (What is Spy Sweeper doing, or the Firewall?) so I start deleting the files that Norton and Spy Sweeper are telling me they can't. So now wierd messages start popping up. By the way if anyone on this planet can tell me what Rundll.32 is please inform me because I have two friends still trying to solve that riddle. So then it just starts crashing about three minutes after startup and freezing. So I have no choice but to re-install the OS clean. Now I have to save things to discs, and bother my brother in law for discs of some of the programs which would now be lost and had to be rebooted. I did this along with getting a REAL Firewall. I must admit the spyware and adware problems literally disappeared. However, the popups were still a problem. I kid you not I loaded like seven different toolbars w/ pop up blockers onto Internet Explorer and still got pop ups. Finally I switched to the Netscape browser and that problem disappeared. Still alot of work though. So nothing Microsoft packaged worked for me just against me.

I still had to get a computer of my own he would want his back eventually so I continued shopping. Keep in mind , Thankfully, I have not spent a nickle except on the Cable modem (My cable provider offered an excellent Firewall so I spent 0 on that). I compared and still felt like more bang for the buck came from PC's. Then a friend made a suggestion. He said why not invest a small amount in an older used Mac then upgrade. He showed me how upgradeable they were using the Sonnett Encore Processors. I saw that I'd be running as fast as most modern computers and since I wasn't going to be running a major studio I wouldn't have a need for a G5 or Dell XPS or Alien Ware Mega Bomb Super Etc. I looked into it.

I got a G4 AGP 350 MHz for $340 w/ 512 Ram, 35 GB of Hard Drive, DVD Rom, and an External CD Burner. I spent $85 on OSX, $40 on Desktop Speakers (I'm not including any of my Audio Gear Prices, that would be a wash the expenses would have been the same if I had bought a new Apple, or new or used PC). $115 on an LCD Flat Panel screen. $85 on an extra card of 512 Ram and $20 on Mouse/ Keyboard. Total $685. By the way they all match and make my Digital Audio Workstaion Look fantastic. I'll post a picture sometime in the future. But here is where things got really interesting. Keep in mind I have not purchased the upgrade processor yet.

I loaded OSX, all my programs, after doing some research I got Virex online for a small donation of $5.00 (would've had to spent that regard less).Didn't get syware protection and still haven't. Turned on the firewall.
Then went online with Safari. Got a popup right away and said "oops better turn on the pop up blocker." Have not seen a single pop up since (No Kidding). Initial basic impressions. Eaaaaaaasssyyyyy. Anytime I had any problem I was easily able to find the resolution within seconds. That never happened with Windows. (As you can tell since I still don't know what Rundll.32 is) Some websites took lonnger on this Mac to load as well as some pictures. But the pictures were much crisper and much clearer very noticeably so. The programs that come with Windows don't even compare to what comes standard with OSX. Text Edit to Word Pad or ITunes to Media Player. How about IMail to Outlook oh wait you have to buy Office to Get Outlook. Nevermind. Have I mentioned that to this day i have not run into Spyware, Adware, Viruses, or Popups (since that first one.)

My friend had recently tried to run Pro Tools on a Pentium 3 (which re-sell for at least $150 less than a Mac like mine) and it was like trying to fix a VW bug from the hood in the front. I began planning a budget in my head to buy the processor upgrade. I knew Pro Tools would not run well enogh on this 6 year old processor to do anything useful with. Right. Wrong. Not only did it run Pro Tools fairly well I was able to take some freelance jobs with the original processor in place. Some processor heavy plug-ins and certain processing chores were noticeably slower than the newer G4 workstations at school and certainly in comparison to the G5 in the main studio at school. But really only to me. The musicians I worked with most of whom used PC's never noticed and some of the jobs the client wasn't even there to notice. I managed to use quite a number of tracks without having trouble. Why I was suprised I don't know many great albums were recorded on G4 350's, 400's, 450's, and Digital Audio 466's.

I made enough to more than cover the $405 for the upgrade processor a 1.7 GHz Sonnett Encore G4. It runs a little hot. But, not detrimentally so. the Athalon ran hot too it was just it's nature. (I think I'm going to get one of those PCI slot fans to be on the safe side but no problems yet. My friend with the Pentium 3. It took him forever to figure out which Upgrade suited him best would give him the best results and ultimately he sold his P3 for a small amount and bought a new PC from HP basic $1350 with all periperals (Monitor and such, a CRT by the way).

Having used both, mine with the upgade, runs faster. It could be partially due to the fact that even though he also has 1GB of ram a fourth of that is being used for all the security applications and other such applications that the PC automatically runs at startup. he has to go Manually close those. (And had to learn what was what that he could close because some of the names are so vague) My Mac is running faster than the 867 G4's at school. It feels a bit faster than the new Mini Mac, EMac, and IBook (1.33 to 1.55 Ghz I believe). Can't tell the difference with the new Powerbooks though I'm sure if tests were done it would be slightly slower. Feels real close to the G5 IMac 1.5's, but again I'm sure in depth bench marking would put me behind. As far as PC's I haven't run into a PC that feels faster, not one. And no one I know owns an upgraded Pentium 3 though I have run into folks with upgraded Mac all of whom say that the only Maintenance expense they've ever had was their upgrade. That can't be said about Windows. Remember my brother in law bought Norton w/ the computer, he bought Spy Sweeper, Window Washer ( Which by the way OSX comes standard w/ an equivalent of this), and thank goodness for my cable provider who as part of my package gave me Netscape and a very good Firewall. He also had to pay extra for Microsoft Office. OSX comes with a competive equivalent for most everything in office standard.

After finally purchasing a printer for $95 and extra Hard Drive for $140 (all paid for by work done on my Mac). The final cost of my Mac $1325 that includes all shipping charges. Features 1.7 Ghz Sonnet Encore 1GB of Ram, 155GB of Hard drive Space, an LCD screen, Desktop Speaker w/ Subwoofers, OSX, Keyboard/ Mouse, Printer,DVD Rom, and External CD Burner. That is as much as I would have paid for a new PC with similar features. None of which in that price range I've seen run the applications I would use, as well. And a bit less than I would have paid for a new Mac with similar features, though the Mac I can afford would have offered no PCI slots. Not that I would mind knowing what I know now. Keep in mind though that I didn't run out and buy some of these things right away. The wonderful design of this 6 year old Mac allowed me to do what I had to do and allowed me to make the money to complete my system. So for half the price I was up and running. Without credit checks or financing. Then I made the money to modernize myself. Honestly there is only one thing I lack right now. A DVD burner but I haven't come across a need for one yet. Besides i'm sure I can sell the CD burner I have to cover a small portion of a DVD burner.

I know there's not much further I can take this system. But, right now, there's not much further I have to go. I do mostly Hip Hop artists and R & B artists who use electronic drums primarily. For Rock I only have the space for overdubbing, Vocals, and primarily I do Mixing for Rock Bands. Unless I end up moving into a full fledged studio I don't need anything faster. Maybe one day I'll be able to afford a state of the art system at home like the one in the studio I intern at, but I gotta be honest I "feel" as though I have one when I go to other people's homes and see what they run which is supposedly more state of the art and feels no faster.

It all amounts to this. I've seen what all the benchmark tests say, but how many of those PC's used in those tests were loaded with all the security applications needed to survive on Windows. And if so were they connected to a modem at the time so that they were up and running. How many of those PC's had ever run into adware, spyware or viruses trying to run on their PC. Even if the Firewall wasn't allowing it to, it's still using Ram to try. These are things the "average" computer user is dealing with.

Every Mac I've ever used "feels" faster than it's PC equivalent. To me that's the only real benchmark. Also, when using Windows, I don't feel as if I'm in control of my system particularly online. I feel like I'm sitting in the passenger's seat saying, "Can we go here?" or "Can we do this?" Who is this "we". It's the people writing viruses, adware, spyware, & any other ware I can't think of. On OSX I feel as though I have most of the control for once. I've since added an excellent Third party Firewall and I just feel that much more in control. All of this amounts to one thing. Getting things done.

I spent enough time in school learning all this stuff about Digital Audio. Why should I now have to go again just to get the computer I'm going to do the Digital Audio on, to work THE WAY IT"S SUPPOSED TO. Basicall to learn what "Can't find Rundll,32" means and fix it. In OSX if there's a problem it tells you it's coming from here and what the name of the problem is. In windows it does the same EXCEPT IT'S NOT REALLY THERE & IT"S NOT REALLY CALLED THAT and your wondering if you just deleted something that's going to cause your computer to never open again.

Look I know That there are a few of you guys out there so knowledgable about computer programming & software you probably have never had a single issue with your PC's and they have always run like super computers. The fact is you either had training or the time to put in to learn Microsoftese and Hacker/Programmerese. The average person does not. There off in THEIR field learning other things and other eses. I will never go back to PC. And I count my lucky stars because I never spent a nickel going through the "Windows Experience". I'm sure I had things on the PC running very well at the time I gave it back, but it was a hardship getting there. Not to mention when Longhorn comes out I would have had to go through alot of it again. I don't need to switch to Tiger if I don't want to as someone pointed out earlier in the thread. I don't think I will at least not for a while. Or maybe not till I buy a new system because this one is running so well.

I'm going to save my pennies (Of which I'll make quite a few running this system right now.) I'm going to make sure my credits good. And someday soon, I'm going to buy a new State of the art Mac, whatever that may be at the time. Because while the initial cost is higher. Factoring in the maintenance expense. Then factoring how well they hold there value. The price eventually evens out. PC's are like Fords if your on a budget, your credits only OK, and you can't wait. it'll get you from A to B. But, it's got a shelf life and you'll have some problems along the way. Macs are like BMW or Mercedes long life, fewer problems, and high re-sale value. Not to mention, I can get right to doing what I got the computer for in the first place. Doing my work.

"If you have the means I highly recommend picking one up. It's so choice."

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

[Antony]

Very nice story, Eriel.

Macs are getting cheaper now. And we all know it lasts a lot longer than PC.

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

[Mandrake]

And we all know it lasts a lot longer than PC.

That's not true, since Apple still sell G4s (32bit processor), and Mac OS X will eventually be a 64bit only OS - meaning that the OS will not run on those.

I can make any PC made in the last five years work fine with the latest Linux distrobutions or with Windows XP - just add a higher capacity hard disk drive, increase the total ram to 512mb, add a decent graphics card. Cheap, simple, and effective.

What else does Apple have that will help it's new computers last longer than anyone else? Is it the lack of support for dual core processors? The lack of PCI Express and DDR2, or perhaps the lack of support for SLI?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3

[Antony]

Jarrad,

Just go to a small school (primary or high school), you might see more old Macs then old PCs. Why? Macs are still very useful, even with OS 9.
translate: last longer.

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

[EddiePaxil]

And we all know it lasts a lot longer than PC.

That's not true, since Apple still sell G4s (32bit processor), and Mac OS X will eventually be a 64bit only OS - meaning that the OS will not run on those.

I can make any PC made in the last five years work fine with the latest Linux distrobutions or with Windows XP - just add a higher capacity hard disk drive, increase the total ram to 512mb, add a decent graphics card. Cheap, simple, and effective.

I don't disagree completely Jarrad. But, that was one of the main points of my story. I got quite a bit of work done on my Mac, before upgrading.

Again, I speak only from experience in the Digital Audio realm. I upgraded primarliy to stretch the limits further away and to open up the use of newer software. I still haven't even plugged in the exterior Hard Drive I bought.

As for the issue of a full conversion to 64 bit. A Mac user won't have to feel compelled to switch to that OS, until he choses to.. (Which will more likely be OS 11 or the final installment of OSX prior to that.) My school still ran OS9 in all but 2 classrooms with excellent results. Many recording studios I interviewed at, still ran OS9 because a switch to OSX would've diminished the capabilities somewhat of their older hardware. They all said "We'll switch everything at once when we feel like OS9 can't do the job anymore."

I should note. Not one single Professional Music Recording Studio I have ever been in, runs a PC. I've read about a few, but it's like Bigfoot. You read about him and see pictures , but he never seems to stroll into Los Angeles. Also, not one had an IT department. I didn't even meet anyone that was there for computer maintenance. How much do you think they save on that alone?

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

[yo-yo]

Anytime I had any problem I was easily able to find the resolution within seconds. That never happened with Windows... Some websites took lonnger on this Mac to load as well as some pictures... Every Mac I've ever used "feels" faster than it's PC equivalent. To me that's the only real benchmark... In windows it does the same EXCEPT IT'S NOT REALLY THERE & IT"S NOT REALLY CALLED THAT and your wondering if you just deleted something that's going to cause your computer to never open again... Look I know That there are a few of you guys out there so knowledgable about computer programming & software you probably have never had a single issue with your PC's

How recently have you tried Windows? I have no problems, and I know almost nothing about how my computer runs. Recently, Windows has gotten much better in those areas. As for feel, I prefer the feel of my PC, and I imagine that if I were given a Mac and if I used it for a while, I would accept its feel.
Finally, it seems that Apple and Microsoft both made their sites to work better on their OS. I found that interesting.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3

[EddiePaxil]

How recently have you tried Windows?

I had the PC I mentioned in the posting for a year and I've had my Mac now for about 6 months which is when I stopped using the PC. That PC ran Windows XP Pro w/ SP2.

I have no problems, and I know almost nothing about how my computer runs.

I had no problems for the first couple of months. The problem came after some use. It really froze me out of being able to work. Because I found myself trying to fix issues on the computer rather than working. And as I say in the posting. Once I did quite a few things it ran fine, but I had to basically stumble then fix and repeat to get it to that point. I have been working with the Mac since Day 1. The only problems I ever had were early with the older processor. Sometimes the processor would get overloaded and quit an application. But not very often. Other than that & one pop up zero problems.

My wife uses this computer as well. This is my work and home PC all in one. Clients use it to check E-mail pull files in and such. Who knows what's on an e-mail someone else opened. I'm sure this accounted for some of the problems I encountered. But, I've gone through the same routine on my Mac and again zero problems.

And yo-yo. I hope you never do have problems. If your setup works for you. Great. Clearly a PC didn't for me. I was sharing for those who may have the same problems I did. And to take up for Apple/Mac which has worked out so well for me.

Recently, Windows has gotten much better in those areas.

I don't totally disagree, but there are still some things I quarrel with. For instance, why sell Windows claiming it has a Firewall for Internet Explorer when that Firewall is useless. The pop up blocker has the same issue. I had to get the Netscape browser to deal with that issue. (Which I do recommend to PC users)

As for spyware. There's no denying that the amount of people who use a version of Windows outweighs the number of people using an OS from Apple. This is a factor. I'm conceding that. However, another factor is the GUI and general layout differences between the two.

Here's a hypothetical for everyone to chew on. Take two average people. One using his PC, One using his Mac. Which have both been through one year of regular use. Send them both to look through their hard drives, look at every file, identify what they are, and what application/ program they are attached to. Forget it the Mac user wins this hands down. There are files in Windows' own OS folder so vaguely named, how can you tell it apart from a spyware file? (Caus' let's not even pretend those Spyware removers got them all) Those folders are where the programmers love to stash the spyware files. In OSX there's no mystery when I see a file, as to where it came from. If ever I were to get Spyware. There'd be no confusing it for a file I installed. So if I didn't put it there it wouldn't belong there. That was never as cut and dry for me on XP.

I understand some folks have AOL, MSN, Netzero, Etc. These deal with alot of issues on there own. I get my e-mail and surf the net without a dedicated browser. For PC things went terribly wrong using Internet Explorer but fine using a combination of Spysweeper, The Spyware remover that comes in SP2 (Who's name escapes me), Netscape Browser, and most importantly an installed firewall. (This was the key.) That's a lot of time and energy spent trying to basically solve the puzzle of "How to get my PC to run well." I'd rather you just sell me the OS without the stuff that doesn't work and say "Get this, this, and this if you want it to work right." Then I could get those things and get to work.

As for feel, I prefer the feel of my PC, and I imagine that if I were given a Mac and if I used it for a while, I would accept its feel.

This is a matter of preference. I was simply making the point that there are all these benchmark tests to tell you how much faster a PC is than a Mac, but I'm fairly sure they don't use a PC or Mac that have both been in regular use for 6 months to a year. They probably use a Mac or PC right off the line. This could factor into those numbers.

[/quote]Finally, it seems that Apple and Microsoft both made their sites to work better on their OS. I found that interesting.[/quote]

I agree. I noticed that myself throughout all this. Apple's website I think actually might give Windows users a little more trouble than Microsoft's gives Mac users. Shame on both of them there.

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