I hate all the crap that comes pre-installed on a Windows PC. All I had to do with my Mac was click no to the MobileMe subscription and that was it! Good to go! And I enjoy not hearing the fans going when I multitask!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is operating system a good reason not buy these PCS and go with iMac
- Thread starter chameleon81
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hate all the crap that comes pre-installed on a Windows PC. All I had to do with my Mac was click no to the MobileMe subscription and that was it! Good to go! And I enjoy not hearing the fans going when I multitask!
I have to disagree there. I find both the quality and selection of software available for mac overwhelming. sure there are more for windows, but a large number of those are not worth getting over the main contenders.
Yes, but there some specific areas where you can not find software for Mac. Anyway we have the bootcamp and lovely XP for these type of problems.
That's one of the best analogies I have heard in a long time.
What you gain PC-wise in raw specs you lose that and then some when you load up Vista and other bulky PC software.
On the Mac, not only is Mac OS X more efficient than Vista, but also you do not need to run anti-virus and anti-spyware software, which on PCs must run in the background (and take up resources) 24/7. Also, drivers on Mac OS X just work, and do not require bulky, unnecessary, and ugly control panels that run in your system tray.
You don't need Quad Core or better graphics if all you are going to do is...
- Surf the net
- Check e-mail
- Chat & Facebook
- Write papers/documents
- Download music
- Watch videos
- Do basic video editing
- Do basic or advanced photo editing.
Those kinds of tasks, which is what most people do with their computers, do not require those kinds of resources.
The only time you will see a difference is in gaming and doing really high end encoding or editing, but that is just a small percentage of users. For a mac, you'd get a Mac Pro for that stuff anyway. And for gaming, well if you are a major gamer then you would get a higher end iMac or you wouldn't even be a mac user to begin with.
Think about it, a processor that is theoretically 15% to 20% faster can load a program in 4.6 seconds instead of 4.0 seconds, or 4.8 seconds instead of 4.0 seconds.
How likely is it that you will be able to feel a 0.6 to 0.8 second difference in everyday tasks? I would bet that it is not very likely at all.
In fact, do what I did. Go down to an Apple store and play with the MacBook, the iMac, and the Mac Pro. You will see that even the fastest processors available such as those found in the Mac Pros have little impact on loading software and doing everyday tasks.
I loaded up Photoshop on the MacPro on display and surprisingly it took a few seconds to load up, just as it does on my Macbook (which uses an SSD drive). In fact, I think my MacBook loads it faster. Now I am sure that if I were to encode a 2 hour HD video on each computer, the Mac Pro would blow my laptop out of the water, but for tasks like the ones I mentioned above, it is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
Speed differences and spec differences are purely academic and have no impact on reality for MOST users, so don't get a boner over a PC All In One having slightly better specs on paper. It doesn't mean its a better machine and it doesn't mean it will provide a better experience for you.
You've had jump into your own conclusion already
Please take into your consideration, some professional software for accounting, engineering, gaming and many others. Can you find these softwares in Mac version?
I have seem too many people using these softwares in Windows via Bootcamp in their MacBooks
I have to agree with this post, think of the processor speed war the same way most pro photographers think about the pixel race in the digital camera world.
You could buy the most expensive digital camera in the world with highest amount of megapixel and still take terrible photos. When a $150 6 megapixel camera will take photos that give the same results. My point is people are getting all caught up in this processor speed war when a 400Mhz computer will still check email and surf the web just fine so ask your self why do I need a Quad Core machine when a standard Core 2 Duo or less with suit my needs just fine.
You don't need to run antivirus or antispyware stuff on Vista or Win7 either. I haven't had either in several years and have no spyware or viruses. Of course, there are the dumbass users who will click absolutely anything and those are the ones that DO need antiviruses - they need protection from themselves. Win7 and Vista are secure, but OSX is still more idiot proof.
In my experience while Vista boots slower than OSX, but in real use it's just as fast. Win7 boots faster than OSX and is slightly faster in use too. It does fall under those "will I notice if it takes 1 second instead of 2" things though.
I agree that specs don't tell everything. I'm still on a several year old dual core (albeit overclocked to 3.2 GHz) because I see no real benefit for getting a quad core.
If you're happy with a fairly basic spec ...... why not buy a refurbished iMac or even an older used model off ebay ??Today I saw them at PCworld.
I like Mac Osx ( I have a Macbook ) and I was considering to buy an iMac in the coming 3-4 months.
But after seeing these PCs I decided to get suggestions from you guys
Do you see any reason other than Mac Os X for yourself to buy an iMac? ( cheapest iMac is 949 pounds )
If you're happy with a fairly basic spec ...... why not buy a refurbished iMac or even an older used model off ebay ??
Using student discount + 30 pound apple care is better option than ebay in my opinion.
The price is not sth very important. I can buy it and sell it 1, 1,5 years later for the same price back in my country. ( I did 100 pounds profit after using my iMac for a year )
Dang !! How much discount did you get dude ??
And it might be worth checking for discounts on the computers you saw in PC World ...... Philips AIO for £649 !!
For the tasks you described, you can get away with the lowest spec Mac that apple produces. The Mini would be fine. If it was not for OS X you would also save yourself alot of money and get a really cheap PC for 1/2 - 1/3 of a price of a mini to do the same tasks.
The efficiency of OS X compared to Vista is offset by the higher grunt you get from the PC specs for the same $$. The winner is OS X cause it just work for people who who want to do basic stuff on your computer, a PC you buy these days will not struggle with any of the tasks above. I just got a Mini BTO delivered 2.26, 1GB Ram, 120GB HD, it runs like a dog.....about to open it up tonight and put in 4BG and 320 7200HD and it will run like a dream, I know that if i spent $700 on a PC it would destroy the mini performance wise (the 1GB ram shared video ram just does not cut it).
In relation to a faster processor 15%-20%, this matter when you do a task that last for hours, especially video encoding. Its the only reason you get a Mac Pro, to cut through video/music tasks.
Also a great point about gaming, If you are into games, you would just not get a Mac, for those that are really into gaming a 4850 just does not cut their needs. If your a casual gamer a Imac can meet ur needs.
As everyone here has said, without OS X we would not buy macs, in the end they are just PCs with hardware limitations. Blueray and HDMI would be nice, also would love to be able to use my 24" LED with something other then a Mac.... but that is part and parcel of being an Apple owner....
Mate,
Apple hardware = PC Hardware.
Pystar even runs a business using non Apple hardware.
http://www.psystar.com/
Once Apple went to Intel, Hackintosh was so easy. As long as your comfortable building your own PC, turning into a Hackintosh is quiet simple.