Mac vs PC

[Freeman]

The new macs are better, still work well together with hardware, and is compatible with windows. Does anyone think that Microsoft will buy Mac, merge into one massage company, and the age of Mac vs PC be over? Tell me what you think about it. JF

[jscheuer1]

Does anyone think that Microsoft will buy Mac, merge into one massage company . . .

I bet they would give good massages.

[djr33]

I love macs for graphics, but PCs are needed for other stuff.

This debate is futile to begin since it gets heated quickly. Also, you then need to distinguish between linux and windows PCs, and perhaps even versions therein. And OSX is great while OS9 has serious issues (though still superior in some ways to windows).

In short, and this is final and pretty much undisputed:

Each is best at:

PCs*:
The internet (compatiblity and such).
Programming (never even seen anything to program with on a mac, and they don't read .exe's)
Gaming (few games for macs, though they're just fine if they do make them)

MACs:
Graphics (generally, PCs aren't horrible either, but macs are usually smoother)
Video (same as above, basically)
(oh, and they're pretty)

Note that sound is distributed between both.


(*I'm assuming windows and leaving linux out as I don't have much experience/knowledge of it.)


Also, macs ARE expensive, but generally, for the price, are just as good or better than PCs. You can't get a cheap mac, but you can get a cheap PC. Doesn't mean that macs are 'more' expensive, though they do start higher.
(Arguably, you can make your own computer for less, and this assumes new computers, etc.)


I use both interchangably. That's RIGHT... INTERCHANGABLY. If you know what you're doing, they're the same.
Mac invented the mouse. Then PCs decided to have TWO buttons!.... etc. Recycle bin vs. Trash. Taskbar vs. Dock. Ctrl vs. Cmd keys (same combos). Etc.
(Blue screen of death vs. hmm... nope ...but that's outdated with XP... mostly)


And now that OSX 10.4 is compatible with windows....

I will say that ignoring the lack of compatibility of many things (though that includes viruses ), the mac OSX interface is a lot friendlier than XP. Vista is trying to copy it, but from what I've seen it's just silly. (OSX has gone towards silly lately too, though, but it's not annoying... yet.)

Last note:
Rant:
Why do macs still ship with single button mice? That's so illogical. OSX finally supports two buttons... but...... !?

[Twey]

PCs*:
The internet (compatiblity and such).

Uh? What's wrong with the Internet on Mac?

Programming (never even seen anything to program with on a mac, and they don't read .exe's)

There are some very good programming resources for OS X -- Apple's Cocoa is said to be lightweight, simple, and easy to work with. Interpreted languages seem to be a favourite with Mac users too -- things like Perl, Ruby, Python.

MACs:
Graphics (generally, PCs aren't horrible either, but macs are usually smoother)
Video (same as above, basically)

This is, I believe, due to the 64-bit architecture. I'd assume (I don't have a Mac to compare) that a PC with the same number of CPUs running a 64-bit OS would perform equally well. This benefit may no longer apply with the new Intel Macs.

(oh, and they're pretty)

Personally, I prefer both Beryl and the original Vista/Longhorn theme (the black one -- I think the new one is hideous).

(*I'm assuming windows and leaving linux out as I don't have much experience/knowledge of it.)

The appeal is mostly to developers and power-users, but normal users can usually get to grips with user-friendly distributions easily enough. It suffers from the same compatibility problems as Mac OS (since it's not Windows), but I believe security is generally better, although not necessarily as good as something like OpenBSD. A lot depends on the administrator, though, of course. Customisability is a large bonus, especially for power-users or even users who are just starting to fiddle with things.

the mac OSX interface is a lot friendlier than XP.

I think most of the Linux interfaces are too. KDE definitely is. e17 is too, although it's unfortunately not finished yet. For eye-candy, few things currently beat Beryl's capabilities.

Why do macs still ship with single button mice? That's so illogical. OSX finally supports two buttons... but...... !?

Because the Mac fanboys would explode if Apple decided to abandon such a long-lived Mac symbol

[djr33]

Again, can't comment on the Linux stuff.

Internet on a mac?
It's not compatible. Now that FF is available, it does most everything that can be done on a PC, but other resources, like shareware (something I consider part of the net, since it's a download and search to find it) and AVI/WMV files are less easy to use/play. Also, much of the time, sites just work in weird ways on macs, especially with safari or IE5.
It's possible to do it if you know what you're doing, but it's weird.
Also, things like IM programs are all designed for PCs, and SOME have mac VERSIONS with SOME of the same features, but it's all PC based.
In this sense, it's all about popularity, and the macs get left behind.

Programming:
Yeah, but it's so easy on a PC. On a mac, it's just a lot more work. I didn't say it wasn't possible... but... yeah.

Graphics/Video:
this has always been the case, even before anything to do with 64bit. They're just designed like that. For example, quicktime is integrated into the system in OSX (similar things existed in 9), so that video is just a normal part of the system, not something additional. Basically, it's just smoother. For the same parts and such, I'm almost positive a mac would be smoother. The same used to be the case with sound, but it's evened out, though I'm no expert with sound stuff. One big thing is the availability of programs for PCs, such as music generation apps (esp. freeware).

Design/'Pretty':
Well, I was kinda kidding, but I actually meant the physical look (as well as interface) that macs have.

Mice:
ha. Yeah.

[Twey]

Yeah, but it's so easy on a PC. On a mac, it's just a lot more work. I didn't say it wasn't possible... but... yeah.

I disagree entirely. Windows development is a nightmare (comparatively speaking). If you want any sort of support at all, MSVS is pretty much obligatory. Third-party compilers tend to be fiddly to set up, and of course don't come bundled with development files for proprietary libraries like MFC. COM and COM+ (and so most of the basic Windows API, which is based on them) are hideous. Interpreters are available, of course, but very little support is provided by the operating system (the main cause of which is Windows' lack of dependency handling for applications) meaning that if one wants to install an application written in an interpreted language other than those supported by WSH, one must distribute both the interpreter and a separate native program to set up file associations properly or to start the program. Likewise, all interpreted files must have appropriate extensions (since Windows doesn't support the shebang-interpreter line found so commonly on UNIX-based operating systems).

other resources, like shareware (something I consider part of the net, since it's a download and search to find it)

I downloaded my whole operating system from the Internet -- does that mean I'm using the Internet by using it?

AVI/WMV files are less easy to use/play.

Still not a part of the Internet...

Also, much of the time, sites just work in weird ways on macs, especially with safari or IE5.

That's because Safari is unusual (although I'm using Konqueror quite happily at the moment, which is based on the same rendering engine as Safari, and most of the Web seems to be fine -- excepting the usual IE-only pages, of course) and IE5 is just broken. Again, this software isn't a necessary part of the operating system as IE is on Windows.

Also, things like IM programs are all designed for PCs, and SOME have mac VERSIONS with SOME of the same features, but it's all PC based.

For Linux, I find that there are several available free clients; not all with all the features, perhaps, but Internet Backgammon has never been my thing anyway. Important things (like actually sending/receiving messages) and things that can be important (file transfer, webcam, &c.) all work acceptably.

Design/'Pretty':
Well, I was kinda kidding, but I actually meant the physical look (as well as interface) that macs have.

Ah, in that area I'll agree. I always think that it's what appears on the screen that counts, though -- my PC is a beige box

Oh, and Linux also runs on Macs, of course.

[jscheuer1]

. . . but Internet Backgammon has never been my thing anyway . . .

Oh no! Internet Backgammon is an essential phase of a coder's development! It must be mastered. No wonder you're so weird.

[BLiZZaRD]

Uh? What's wrong with the Internet on Mac?

Two words: CSS in IE 5.5

'nuff said.

ROTF

[Twey]

Oh no! Internet Backgammon is an essential phase of a coder's development! It must be mastered. No wonder you're so weird.

Huh. I always preferred chess (especially shogi) anyway

Two words: CSS in IE 5.5

'nuff said.

Yeah, we've established that IE5 is worthless There are other browsers available for Mac OS, though, if I remember correctly.

[BLiZZaRD]

Yeah, we've established that IE5 is worthless There are other browsers available for Mac OS, though, if I remember correctly.

Yes that is true... I was just trying to use the same methods of contempt that I see in a lot of blogs and news articles bashing [insert OS here] where the writer will pick one flaw from years past or an older version and use that as the methodology in which to base their arguments