Apple Mac vs PC

Apple products and Mac operating systems. Including discussions on Virtual PC for Mac, Parallels Desktop for Mac, all Apple hardware and everything relating to Apple and Mac!
(MacCentre701)

Postby ahtak » Sun 12 Aug, 2007 9:35 pm

Let me share my story, a Windows based user from Windows 95 to Windows 2000, and why switched...

Started off with an Acer 133Mhz, 16MB Desktop as my first computer in my life, running with Windows 95 at that time, and upgraded to 98SE later ... Everything was fine bcoz at that time there wasn't alot of Virus, and USB devices to to deal with, I just use the computer to surf the new and some chatting with friends, ICQ and IRC was the coolest thing that time ....

untill 2001 I bought a brand new Mod PC ( I thought Mod PC was the best ! )...

.PIII Coppermine 1Ghz
.forgot the motherboard ...
.512 MB RAM
.CDRW

and other kickass spec, was all top of the range that time and it does really cost a big hole in my dad's wallet ... untill later I decide to get a used iBook from the net, which the production date is almost 1 year older than the PIII PC I had ....

When I start using the used iBook I have, I realize that I actually don't have to spend time waiting for the ScanDisk, Defragment, the AntiVirus ( which I will still be infected even after an hour I scaned, does that means I have to scan every hour ? ), and keep looking at what are the new "upgrades" I can get for my computer. When I have a PC, I just can't stop updating my self with RAM prices, what kind of keyboards will be nice to have, should I upgrade the Graphic Card and so on...

I too have the " I dunno how to use a Mac ... it's different" kind of thinking at first, but that's only for the first few days. The softwares in the Mac are so much easier to use and make more sense ... I can almost start using the machine.

Let's see what happen if any one get a new Mod PC.

1. Assemble the Machine. Maybe you can ask the shop to assemble for you, but I guess most of the people would think.. "How hard can that be ?" Try saying that to your girl friend .... 30 mins as average, 2 hours for those who reads the manual, and it just took me merely 15mins.

2. Install the Windows. Fastest I've tried is 30mins, havent tried on the new Intel.

3. Start downloading and installing softwares.... Varies of software demand. But the Mac use save alot of time buy using the simple Drag'n Drop installation. I really drop my jaw seeing that in my friend's Mac before I had mine. Now I drop my friend's jaw by showing them that ... Say, 15mins for the Windows based ?

4. Installing drivers for the Printers ... scanners .... webcam ... I hated doing these on my Windows ... I think I have a phobia of the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, come on, do have have other choices ??? I have to click "OK" right ?! ... Be far, both PC and Mac are quite plug and play if you just want to print documents, but not if you want to use the extra functions that comes with the All in One printers like the HPs ...

Not so hectic, not too messy but I've to repeat the above steps at least once a 2 months. Becoz of the Virus, becoz the Windows will become slower and slower as I use, and all those .DLL are driving me crazy. I actually spend more time dealing with the computer rather than my work ...

FYI. The used iBook is still running well. Running the latest Mac OSX 10.4 ( hope I still can use with 10.5), which my iBook have been thru 9.1, 10.0, 10.1,10.2,10.3,10.4 ... that's total of 6 generations of OS. While for the Windows based Mod PC, I really have no idea where it is now ... And another FYI, my iBook just has a pity little 500Mhz G3, which is always faster than the PIII 1GB coppermine that I have ....


is my story too long ? I still have alot more to share if you guys are interested ~
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/522.11.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0.3 Safari/522.12.1
ahtak
new member
new member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun 12 Aug, 2007 8:57 pm

Postby Antony » Sat 27 Oct, 2007 11:16 pm

Many people have been bashing on the cost of Mac OS X, let's take a comparison.

In Australia,
Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" is priced at AU$158.

Whereas Windows Vista Home Basic is priced at AU$385 (or AU$179 for upgrade). But is it fair to compare Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" with more than 300 new features (on top of nine major features) to a feature lacked Vista Home Basic? Clearly not.
It should be fair to compare Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard to Vista Home Premium at least, where were priced at AU$455 (or AU$299 for upgrade version).
Of course, extremists would go for Ultimate version which priced at AU$751 (or AU$451 for upgrade version).

The cost of operating system wise, there are two facts.
1. Apple does not release a major upgrade to Mac OS X every year.
2. Mac OS X costs much less than Microsoft Windows.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.8) Gecko/20071008 Firefox/2.0.0.8
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15261
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Antony » Thu 08 Nov, 2007 10:59 pm

Despite popular perceptions, Macs are cheaper to own than PCs, a new article from Salon.com argues.

According to the article, it is true that the initial price of obtaining a new Mac may cost a little bit more than the comparatively-powered branded PCs at same time. Mac are said to maintain better resale value, this can offset any initial costs. Also, Macs last longer than PCs, Macs are useful for as much as five years (according to the article), whereas PC owners may have to upgrade every one or two years.

Article: Once and for all, proof that Macs are cheaper than PCs (by Farhad Manjoo, 7 Nov 2007)

Let's put to rest the myth that an Apple computer will set you back more than a Windows PC. In fact, it'll cost you less.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.9
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15261
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby iJohnE » Wed 21 Nov, 2007 3:13 pm

I own a PC, and don't get me wrong I love it. But Antony has a point. Mac's are easier to own and easier to upgrade and cheaper. They may not always be as expandable, but their performance over the years has been well, great. Not to mention if you really need to use Windows, just get a virtual PC or boot camp for your mac. Clearly Mac's do win this battle.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0
"Those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter." - Dr. Seuss.
User of Windows 8.1 Pro, and LMDE.
User avatar
iJohnE
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1622
Joined: Wed 21 Nov, 2007 2:48 pm
Location: Pulaski, NY, USA

Postby Fulvio » Tue 08 Apr, 2008 1:46 pm

I may have participated to this thread, but have no time to go through all the messages.
I used to work at a place where I was the exception in using a PC. I could have requested a Mac, but I was looking at the real life, where, at home, I would never be able to afford a new Mac, but I could buy three pcs for the same price. So, I stuck with pcs, and, I have not been bothered a bit.
I have had the same computer with WinXP for the past five yrs. and I can access any program. If I would get a new pc, I was "upgrade" Vista to XP. I like what I have.
As for who did what first, and who "stole" the ideas, I could care less. I think that this is law territory, which is alien to me. But, I hear these arguments all the time, at another website. That Netscape initiated everything, and Mozilla, and its successors stole the ideas. So what?
As for the prices of the operating system, it may be easier to get a pc OS in a box, and a bit cheaper. I would not consider it to be a problem.
I know that I can use the same machine which I, originally, bought with Win98 some nine-ten years ago. Even after putting in Win98SE, some programs may not be compatible, but I can use that machine with a number of programs which don't work with a Mac of the same era. This contradicts the extreme statement from Antony:
Macs last longer than PCs, Macs are useful for as much as five years (according to the article), whereas PC owners may have to upgrade every one or two years.
. Why?
That is why I don't go for a Mac. As the OS is upgraded, if you don't want, for whatever reason, to upgrade, you will fall behind.
As for the miracles that a new Mac can perform, I can't comment. Great that the monitor and tower have been combined. But one USB cable? I need two ports for my external drive alone.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080313 SeaMonkey/1.1.9
A minority may be right, and a majority is always wrong.
~ Henrik Ibsen
WinXP, SP3, 512 MB, SM2.30, FF33, TB31.2, IE8.0 Ghostwall , Avast2014 Pro, also Toshiba Satellite laptop, 4GB, Win 8.1, IE11, Google Chrome 38
User avatar
Fulvio
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12098
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 10:08 am

Postby stoperror » Tue 13 Jan, 2009 3:22 pm

Oh no, STOP Error has found his way into the forums. Let me say this: I am not a Mac fan. I am not a post 1986 Apple fan. I am, however a post 1987 IBM PC fan, Commodore 64 fan, and a fan of many other forgotten computer relics. I'd take CP/M with a Z-80 any day of the week compared to a PowerPC with OSX 10.3. Now that I got that out of the way, lets continue.

The Macintosh ruined one of my favorite computers. The Apple II (more specifically the GS). Though Apple did support it until 1993-ish, it died after the Mac was successful. Me (and a LOT of other geeks are bitter about that).

Apple charges $129 for upgrades, which for the most part are akin to "Service packs" in the Windows world. Plus, most apps these days for the Mac require at least OSX v10.4 which was released in 2003. Firefox runs on Windows 2000 from 2000 in the windows world, AND OS/2 Warp 4(which was released in 1996). And there's a possibility of it working on OS/2 Warp 3 which was released in 1994. I'm sorry guys, but having to pay $129 for a fricking "service pack" is out of the question.

The configuration of Mac OS is limited at best, and non-existant at worst. Ever since Windows 1.0(1), I could tweak the color scheme of my computer. Can I do so in OSX 10.5? Not that I know of.

Sorry guys but I'm an PC fan. Not necessarily Windows, though.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5
stoperror
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat 20 Dec, 2008 11:58 am
Location: United States

Postby Antony » Wed 14 Jan, 2009 9:51 am

And in Windows world, from 98 to 2000, or from 2000 to XP, or from XP to Vista is free?

For the record, the interface of Mac OS X 10.5 can be easily changed, and not just the colour.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120121 Firefox/3.0.5
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15261
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby iJohnE » Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:25 pm

Okay, how about this...


Apple OSes can only be run on Apple hardware?
Windows and Linux can be run on any computer.
Can apple boast that?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081204 SeaMonkey/1.1.14
"Those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter." - Dr. Seuss.
User of Windows 8.1 Pro, and LMDE.
User avatar
iJohnE
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1622
Joined: Wed 21 Nov, 2007 2:48 pm
Location: Pulaski, NY, USA

Postby Mandrake » Wed 14 Jan, 2009 1:02 pm

iJohnE wrote:Okay, how about this...


Apple OSes can only be run on Apple hardware?
Windows and Linux can be run on any computer.
Can apple boast that?


It's only because of artificial restrictions that OS X won't run on any x86 system aside from Macs. You can run Windows or Linux on a Mac just fine - EFI support is the key since the Intel Macs have no BIOS.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5
Core i7 920 | ASUS P6T Deluxe v2 | 3TB+ HDD | 12GB Corsair DDR3 | Radeon 4890 Xfire | X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty | Logitech Z-5500 Speakers | Dell 3008WFP | Seven RC1
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby stoperror » Wed 14 Jan, 2009 4:11 pm

But, the upgrades are viable, due to adherent improvements. 98 to XP (for consumers) was like getting a DVD player to replace your VCR. XP was stable. XP ran most of 98's apps. You wanna run your classic apps in OSX (should you have a PPC), can't do that in 10.5.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.2; Win64; x64)
Last edited by stoperror on Wed 14 Jan, 2009 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
stoperror
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat 20 Dec, 2008 11:58 am
Location: United States

Postby Antony » Wed 14 Jan, 2009 6:42 pm

stoperror wrote:But, the upgrades are viable, due to adherent improvements.
Oh? Only Windows updates are "viable", not Mac OS X. How interesting.


And all you bashing are still based on the old $129 fee for new Mac OS X?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120121 Firefox/3.0.5
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15261
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby stoperror » Wed 14 Jan, 2009 6:58 pm

I just dislike the Mac. I feel claustrophobic when ever I'm near it or using it. The Mac also isn't viable for people like me: guys with no money. I don't have the money to plug down $129 bucks every other year for an upgrade. On the PC side, I just don't have to do this.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5
stoperror
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat 20 Dec, 2008 11:58 am
Location: United States

Postby Antony » Wed 14 Jan, 2009 7:07 pm

We all know that you hate Mac, and it seems to me that your main bashing point is the price.

stoperror wrote:You wanna run your classic apps in OSX (should you have a PPC), can't do that in 10.5.


stoperror wrote:I don't have the money to plug down $129 bucks every other year for an upgrade. On the PC side, I just don't have to do this.


It also seems like that you must use the latest operating system, now that's really very interesting. You must use the latest operating system, but you also insisted on using classic applications that has been phased off for years. You can't really upgrade the classic application or use an alternative one?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120121 Firefox/3.0.5
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15261
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby stoperror » Wed 14 Jan, 2009 7:19 pm

Games. Say I want to run.. System Shock, as I've played System Shock 2 and BioShock. And since the guys that made SS/SS2, Looking Glass Studios, has been defunct for a pretty long time. Couple that with lack of source code to make a source port, and well, your STUCK with using lowly DOS (or an emulator for it).

I like having somewhat modern technology, but also like having the ability to play games/use apps from way back when/
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5
stoperror
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat 20 Dec, 2008 11:58 am
Location: United States

Postby Antony » Thu 15 Jan, 2009 3:14 am

stoperror wrote:I like having somewhat modern technology, but also like having the ability to play games/use apps from way back when/
Easy, acquiring new modern or cutting edge technology and keep your older machines for the tasks such playing ancient games.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120121 Firefox/3.0.5
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15261
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Mac OS and Apple

Who is online

Registered users: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]