Mac and PC comparisons.

[blunderboy]

Have any of you noticed the way a lot of Windows/Linux fans promote PCs over Macs? I notice that they seem to make comparisons based on price and specs, rather than the total experience, which I think misses the point of why a lot of people buy Macs. Yes, there are plenty of Dells and Lenovos that I could've gotten for the same price or less than my MBP, but they wouldn't have given me the same experience that I have right now. Specs and numbers are meaningless if I know that I'm going to hate dealing with the computer, no matter HOW fast it is or how many extra features it has. You could offer me an Alienware loaded with top-of-the-line specs for free, and I'd probably end up selling it and buying an iMac, simply because the Alienware wouldn't be an enjoyable experience for me.

I actually think that a lot of this is related to 'left- and right-brained' ways of viewing computing—for example, someone interested in more analytical and numerical uses of a computer might be more interested in a PC with high specs, but someone who prefers to see their computing experience as holistic might enjoy a Mac more. There's also the matter of aesthetics, which seems to be more of a concern for Apple than other computer vendors. (For example, look at ThinkPads, or practically anything made by Toshiba.)

What I'm trying to say is that this whole matter is subjective, and I wish that some people would just lay their objections to people buying Macs/PCs to rest. I'm not 'less' than a typical PC user because I use a Mac, and they're not less than me because they use a PC with a different OS.

I've done a longer write-up about it here: Left- and Right-Brained Computing.

 

[aethelbert]

Specs and numbers are meaningless if I know that I'm going to hate dealing with the computer, no matter HOW fast it is or how many extra features it has.

And for others, specs are quite important. We recently had the choice in our divison of staying with Apple or finding another provider. On top of the fact that Apple's corporate support has gone way south in recent years, options from other manufacturers allow us to compile our databases about 2.3x faster than our options from Apple. When you're looking at differences of hours on a daily basis, those mere "numbers" start to trump user experience at the same cost.

What I'm trying to say is that this whole matter is subjective, and I wish that some people would just lay their objections to people buying Macs/PCs to rest.

It's subjective indeed and people will always voice their opinions; you certainly took a fairly lengthy approach to justify your own thoughts. Welcome to earth, and the internet.

 

[tunerX]

As a user of any, and all, operating systems that are available, I have noticed that SOME MacRumors users like to think that any comparison of an operating system to the mighty OS X and apple hardware architecture combination means that those posters are trolls or haters.

To talk about your first sentence... I can also state that I have noticed many OS X users promote their chosen operating system over PC, Linux, Google, or yadda, yadda, yadda... Only on experience and not based on cost or other factors. Trolls exist on all sides.

I like to frequent Apple, MS, Linux, Solaris, and other OS vendors forums and see the same thing... All OS's have an experience and if an unknown does not meet a flamers preferred expectation of an OS then we get stuck reading about it.

 

[tactician1016]

To be honest, I was sorely tempted by a vaio during the months between saving up the money and waiting for the MBP to update (dear god, that was an agonizing 3 months). The primary reason I got the mac in my sig? Familiarity. I had been using an iBook g4 running 10.4 for 4 years, and running an OS that i'm used to is easier than having to adjust to a PC or Linux OS. I admit that there are PCs that can probably do more for less. But for me, familiarity is always a key. Why get something that I have to learn how to use over something I know and love already?

 

[blunderboy]

I wrote my post/entry because I was kind of tired of seeing people say 'WHY NOT GET A WINDOWS PC' on threads where someone CLEARLY wanted to talk about Mac options, and had the ability to pick. I was NOT talking about situations in which someone absolutely needed Windows/Linux for mission-critical apps.

Yeah, it's not 'trolling' to compare them, depending on what you need. I don't think it's necessarily trolling if someone shows up and makes comparisons based on what someone wants, but I DO think it's annoying when someone pops up and tries to guilt someone who wanted a Mac into getting a PC with Windows or Linux. THAT'S the kind of crap I'm talking about. (The same applies to the Mac evangelists who do the same thing, when OS X won't fit the person's needs.)

I also never said that specs weren't important. For some people, they ARE. I was mostly referring to situations in which someone had a choice, and didn't need those numbers for mission-critical work. Enterprise customers are often forced to get non-Apple computers because of the way other manufacturers handle the corporate/enterprise sector, as opposed to Apple. I do think that Apple needs to step up there, but that's another subject altogether. What I was trying to say was that it was a matter of 'whatever works', not YOU MUST USE MAC, or YOU MUST USE A PC, or anything else remotely like that. For my own PERSONAL computer use, total experience tops having the fastest processor and things like Blu-Ray. For someone else, that might look different, which is what I was saying the entire time.

 

[tunerX]

I wrote my post/entry because I was kind of tired of seeing people say 'WHY NOT GET A WINDOWS PC' on threads where someone CLEARLY wanted to talk about Mac options, and had the ability to pick. I was NOT talking about situations in which someone absolutely needed Windows/Linux for mission-critical apps.

Yeah, it's not 'trolling' to compare them, depending on what you need. I don't think it's necessarily trolling if someone shows up and makes comparisons based on what someone wants, but I DO think it's annoying when someone pops up and tries to guilt someone who wanted a Mac into getting a PC with Windows or Linux. THAT'S the kind of crap I'm talking about. (The same applies to the Mac evangelists who do the same thing, when OS X won't fit the person's needs.)

I also never said that specs weren't important. For some people, they ARE. I was mostly referring to situations in which someone had a choice, and didn't need those numbers for mission-critical work. Enterprise customers are often forced to get non-Apple computers because of the way other manufacturers handle the corporate/enterprise sector, as opposed to Apple. I do think that Apple needs to step up there, but that's another subject altogether. What I was trying to say was that it was a matter of 'whatever works', not YOU MUST USE MAC, or YOU MUST USE A PC, or anything else remotely like that. For my own PERSONAL computer use, total experience tops having the fastest processor and things like Blu-Ray. For someone else, that might look different, which is what I was saying the entire time.

I wasn't referring to you as the troller or flamer, as the subject of my response. I was just pointing out the fact that there are thousands of posts that flame in either direction. In the end you choose a platform based on need or desire and you enjoy it because it meets your expectations...

 

[blunderboy]

Oh, no, I didn't think so; I was just clarifying my intent.

Yeah, I can't stand that kind of platform evangelism. I know that I like Mac OS X, think Linux is good in theory, and hate Windows, but that's just me; someone else might see things differently. I know that I can get a bit testy when I see Windows evangelists, but...really, it's subjective.

 

[ValSalva]

It's not always a straight comparison though. OS X compared to Windows 7 is a good comparison but Apple vertically integrates their offerings by making the hardware too. Windows is at the mercy of system builders.

I have build Windows 7 computers and they are generally acceptable and pleasurable to use. Only a blue screen or two every several months. I love my MBP because it was designed to run OS X and Apple didn't have to add a bunch of junkware and useless customware just to shave $20 off the price.

My preference is for OS X. But Windows 7 is very good too. It's just that the Dells, Lenovos, HPs, and Acers of the world kill the Windows experience. The first thing I suggest to friends and colleagues when they get a Windows computer is to wipe the HDD clean and do a fresh install of Windows. One shouldn't have to do that. It can take an hour to three or more if the restore/driver discs don't have the correct or proper drivers (Dell!!!!).

I've always thought Apple could triple their sales of MacBooks if they sold it with Windows preinstalled and optimized to their hardware. They don't need to of course but they'd severely hurt the crappy PC makers if they chose to.

 

[R94N]

To be honest, I was sorely tempted by a vaio during the months between saving up the money and waiting for the MBP to update (dear god, that was an agonizing 3 months).

Same for me with my MB. The Vaio had everything I wanted and for less money. Luckily I was patient enough, but I don't think my brother will be the same

I admit that there are PCs that can probably do more for less. But for me, familiarity is always a key. Why get something that I have to learn how to use over something I know and love already?

Definitely agree. I mean, take a look at how people buy cars. They buy a Focus, for example, and have such a good experience with it they'll buy the next generation of it when it's time to replace it.

 

[djellison]

And for others, specs are quite important. We recently had the choice in our divison of staying with Apple or finding another provider. On top of the fact that Apple's corporate support has gone way south in recent years, options from other manufacturers allow us to compile our databases about 2.3x faster than our options from Apple. When you're looking at differences of hours on a daily basis, those mere "numbers" start to trump user experience at the same cost..

Same story here for 3D rendering.

$3300 for dual 2.26 Quad Xeon's with 6gb of ram and a crap grpahics card from Apple

$2250 for similar spec from Dell. Spend the spare $1k on an i7 render node for a huge boost in productivity.

OR - alternatively, for the same $3300, you could up the CPU's to the 2.4GHZ with 3x the L3 cache, and a cracking Fire Pro workstation Graphics Card and also boost productivity.

Sorry - it's no contest for content creation, none whatsoever.

 

[*LTD*]

Same story here for 3D rendering.

$3300 for dual 2.26 Quad Xeon's with 6gb of ram and a crap grpahics card from Apple

$2250 for similar spec from Dell. Spend the spare $1k on an i7 render node for a huge boost in productivity.

OR - alternatively, for the same $3300, you could up the CPU's to the 2.4GHZ with 3x the L3 cache, and a cracking Fire Pro workstation Graphics Card and also boost productivity.

Sorry - it's no contest for content creation, none whatsoever.

Sure. If you like slumming it with Winblows.

 

[blunderboy]

Sure. If you like slumming it with Winblows.

...this is what I was talking about. I agree that Windows sucks ass, but it's a question of needs, and for the person who was talking about using those PCs for rendering, the Dells did the job. (They might not even have Windows on them, either; Linux is often used for render farms.)

 

[FX120]

Sure. If you like slumming it with Winblows.

Like parts of Pixar are?

 

[blunderboy]

It's not always a straight comparison though. OS X compared to Windows 7 is a good comparison but Apple vertically integrates their offerings by making the hardware too. Windows is at the mercy of system builders.

I have build Windows 7 computers and they are generally acceptable and pleasurable to use. Only a blue screen or two every several months. I love my MBP because it was designed to run OS X and Apple didn't have to add a bunch of junkware and useless customware just to shave $20 off the price.

My preference is for OS X. But Windows 7 is very good too. It's just that the Dells, Lenovos, HPs, and Acers of the world kill the Windows experience. The first thing I suggest to friends and colleagues when they get a Windows computer is to wipe the HDD clean and do a fresh install of Windows. One shouldn't have to do that. It can take an hour to three or more if the restore/driver discs don't have the correct or proper drivers (Dell!!!!).

I've always thought Apple could triple their sales of MacBooks if they sold it with Windows preinstalled and optimized to their hardware. They don't need to of course but they'd severely hurt the crappy PC makers if they chose to.

Right. Microsoft has to include drivers for every single configuration out there, because the whole 'point' of Windows is to be ubiquitous, which Microsoft has been pretty successful at.

Yeah. I had a Windows 7 PC for about a month earlier this year, and I have to say that for Windows, Win7 wasn't that bad. It was still Windows, and I still found it annoying, but it is an improvement over previous versions of Windows. XP is still more stable, in my opinion, but once Win7 becomes more mature, it might be better in that regard.

And yes, the OEMs do love stuffing a bunch of crap on to their PCs. My Acer came with a load of useless software installed, and I ended up having to delete all of it. Ad-supported MS Works? MS Office trial? Dozens of other applications that I would never use? The same applies to the Compaq I had several years back. Apparently PC OEMs haven't learned a thing. As compared to my MacBook Pro, which didn't come with any ad-supported, bloated software, just the OS X default apps and iLife.

 

[blunderboy]

Like Pixar is?

Everything I've read suggests to me that Pixar uses Linux on their render farms, not Windows. PCs, yes, but not Windows ones. I'm fairly sure that Macs are used in the production process, as well. I think that with big companies like that, there's a lot of diversity in what operating systems are being used, simply because they have a wide variety of computing needs, and one platform can't be all things to all people.

 

[djellison]

Sure. If you like slumming it with Winblows.

Two gold stars for the GENIUS of calling it 'Winblows'. That's like, so funny - you're so awesome.

Personally, I don't find using windows to be 'slumming' it. I use XP, Win7 and OSX daily. I don't find any one of them to be better than the others. I don't find one to be more stable. I don't find one to be snappier, easier, more intuitive. And I find Windows based machines to be catastrophically faster given the same budget. Given that I spend your tax dollars at work, it's important to me to get the most performance and productivity out of every dollar I spend. I can't do that with a Mac - not even slightly.

I've said it before, I'll said it again - your attitude does yourself, and Apple, no favours.

 

[blunderboy]

I've said it before, I'll said it again - your attitude does yourself, and Apple, no favours.

I agree. I mean, I like Apple's products, but it's really counterproductive to point at other people who are comfortable using Windows or some other OS and make them look as though they're the devil or something. *rolleyes*

 

[maflynn]

I believe the cost structure needs to be included in the analysis and should not be completely dismissed just because OSX is a better OS that sits on an expensive hardware.

Linux and windows makes a lot of sense for some, especially for the budget conscience or those who want to run linux. Let me say that getting fedroa up and running on a non-mac computer is much easier then on a Mac. So if you're going to run fedora or ubuntu, which doesn't cost any money. Why chose a computer that is significantly more expensive and much more difficult to install/configure. When posed that way, linux users typically prefer a pc.

Beside, many linux users I know do not care for apple's totalitarianism attitude towards iPhone and its platform.

 

[blunderboy]

I believe the cost structure needs to be included in the analysis and should not be completely dismissed just because OSX is a better OS that sits on an expensive hardware.

Linux and windows makes a lot of sense for some, especially for the budget conscience or those who want to run linux. Let me say that getting fedroa up and running on a non-mac computer is much easier then on a Mac. So if you're going to run fedora or ubuntu, which doesn't cost any money. Why chose a computer that is significantly more expensive and much more difficult to install/configure. When posed that way, linux users typically prefer a pc.

Beside, many linux users I know do not care for apple's totalitarianism attitude towards iPhone and its platform.

I don't think that it should be dismissed, either. If you DO want to run Linux as your sole operating system, then there's less of a point in buying a Mac. The same applies if you solely want to run Windows. It would be a waste of money to buy Mac hardware when you could, in fact, buy computers with better specs and you didn't want to run Mac OS X. If you DID want to run OS X, though, then it wouldn't be a waste of money, because you would be taking advantage of Apple's vertical integration. If I wanted a Linux-only box, I would end up buying a Lenovo or Sony and wiping the default Windows installation from it, because I have no use for Windows currently.

 

[maflynn]

I don't think that it should be dismissed, either. If you DO want to run Linux as your sole operating system, then there's less of a point in buying a Mac. The same applies if you solely want to run Windows. It would be a waste of money to buy Mac hardware when you could, in fact, buy computers with better specs and you didn't want to run Mac OS X.

Agreed 100%

 

[0098386]

I must use both sides of my brain because I like both. I like buying a Mac, connecting it to my older machine and have it copy everything over. Within a few hours I'm good to go. With a PC not so much - but I prefer that for gaming, working (photoshop, dreamweaver etc).

I am done with parts of Apple though. I really don't like their desktop range right now... I plan on sticking with them for laptops (even though they're also expensive, but they have some great laptop tech).

The only OS I couldn't run is Linux. I need Photoshop for work and Steam for play. Without them I'd be stuck on a browser all day doing bugger all .

 

[Eraserhead]

And for others, specs are quite important. We recently had the choice in our divison of staying with Apple or finding another provider. On top of the fact that Apple's corporate support has gone way south in recent years, options from other manufacturers allow us to compile our databases about 2.3x faster than our options from Apple. When you're looking at differences of hours on a daily basis, those mere "numbers" start to trump user experience at the same cost.

For normal use this isn't really relevant.

I don't think anyone would say with a straight face that specs don't matter for servers.

 

[blunderboy]

I must use both sides of my brain because I like both. I like buying a Mac, connecting it to my older machine and have it copy everything over. Within a few hours I'm good to go. With a PC not so much - but I prefer that for gaming, working (photoshop, dreamweaver etc).

I am done with parts of Apple though. I really don't like their desktop range right now... I plan on sticking with them for laptops (even though they're also expensive, but they have some great laptop tech).

The only OS I couldn't run is Linux. I need Photoshop for work and Steam for play. Without them I'd be stuck on a browser all day doing bugger all .

I don't use Linux either because of the lack of applications for it. I'm not saying there aren't apps, but I HATE OpenOffice, AbiWord, the GIMP and every other clone of industry-standard software that's made for it. No Photoshop? No good word processors? No iTunes? No DVDs? No thanks.

I haven't been interested in the Apple desktops as much as the laptops—I prefer the mobility of laptops, especially when a lot of them have enough juice to run 'production' apps.

 

[aethelbert]

For normal use this isn't really relevant.

I don't think anyone would say with a straight face that specs don't matter for servers.

These are our desktops, not servers; the servers have always run solaris. I'm sorry that my productivity isn't normal enough for you.

 

[blunderboy]

These are our desktops, not servers; the servers have always run solaris. I'm sorry that my productivity isn't normal enough for you.

I don't think they were talking about enterprise solutions, where you may necessarily HAVE to make a clear choice in order to increase productivity.