Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

snberk103

macrumors 603
Oct 22, 2007
5,503
91
An Island in the Salish Sea
Their cases are better than most pc cases (most, not all) but that is it. The rest is of exactly the same quality. If you were told different you were lied to.

That's not the whole story though. While the parts may be coming from the same factories, the way the parts are combined make a big impact to the final product.

For better or worse, Apple only uses a small selection of all parts that are available. Which, arguably, restricts a user's choices. However it means the whole package (OS and HW) can be optimally tuned (in theory at least, and in my experience is usually true). Non-Apple PCs are often assembled without a lot of thought about how all the parts are going to work together, and then they often leave it up to the OS provider to figure out the optimal settings within the OS.

Usually it works out. But how often do our Windows colleagues need to find, download, and install some software to resolve a driver incompatibility. How often do we hear about our Windows friends having to resolve a DLL conflict. At least they got past the IRQ conflicts a couple of versions ago.

Windows has an immense challenge - it needs to know about just about every kind of HW it might encounter, and to know how to resolve issues when two pieces of HW don't get along well, or if the SW that drives the HW is conflicting with other things. It is actually a tribute the MS programmers that they can make Windows work as well as it does!

Apple doesn't have that problem. They just need to make the OS work with a very small sub-set of HW parts. And it they can't make a part work well, Apple won't use that part. Problem solved.

Also keep in mind that just because the specs on the outside of the box list better numbers, doesn't mean that the user sees better performance. There's no point putting a kick-tush fast HDD into a laptop if the memory controller throttles the transfer speeds because the computer maker picked an incompatible (but $cheap) north-bridge (or south-bridge, I don't know).

And one final thought. Many many non-Apple PC companies change the versions of the parts going into a single model of system over time. Makes it even more difficult to tune the system since you need to know which parts, and which versions of each part, go into each system.

I like the boring-ness of my Macs. Boring. Predictable. Reliable. Get the job done.

And people wonder why old Macs hold their value so well.
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,269
339
norcal
That's not the whole story though. While the parts may be coming from the same factories, the way the parts are combined make a big impact to the final product.

(snip)

but I thought all parts inside were made in Cupertino, and that the Macs are fully American made...heck, only the PC side uses offshore parts and labor! ;)
 

smali

macrumors regular
Jul 19, 2010
222
0
AGAIN- price, money, depreciation.... they keep popping up. If you want the best products available to mankind, you'd buy a Mac. It's that simple. People kept confusing the issue when I asked which was better before I started to learn CS5 (because I had to buy the CS5 Master Suite for PC or Mac) and if they would have elimintated the price from the argument, I'd have gotten my answer.

NOT CARING ABOUT MONEY, only THE PRODUCT, Apple products are (far) superior.

Hmm I don't think you're making any sense.

I'll explain.

The Apple "product" you are talking about it just a computer. The thing that makes it different to computers from other vendors is that only Apple branded is allowed to run Mac OS X.

If people must have mac os x (legally) for whatever reason then they have to go with Apple. Apple has no competition in this situation.

If people don't care about the OS but what the computer can actually do for them, then Apple most definitely does have competition. From other vendors, self build, specialists who can build using your parts...the list goes on.

A computer can be a number of things, a gaming machine for one person or just an fuss free internet box for another. Therefore someone after a gaming machine would rather choose a windows gaming pc (for obvious reasons) and therefore that machine would be superior for him.

The guy who wants a fuss free internet machine might say hey Macs are are pretty easy to use, great battery life etc etc, so for him a Mac might be superior.

By coming out with all guns blazing saying MACS ARE FAR SUPERIOR makes no sense. Yes a mac might be superior for you but from some of us it isn't.

Note I didn't even say anything about price yet...

Try to think outside the box a little.
 
Last edited:

wonderspark

macrumors 68040
Feb 4, 2010
3,054
105
Oregon
My Mac does almost everything I need, except run Adobe Audition. If I want that on Mac, I have to upgrade CS5 to 5.5. No thanks.

If I were building an edit suite today, it would be PC. Especially an Adobe edit suite. There is no question that PCs run Adobe better than Macs at ANY price. I hope to become a beta-tester for a Mac version of Adobe's benchmark program, and see how far down the list the fastest Mac resides on that list.

There's too much focus on PCs with overclocking and what-not for a Mac to compete with a PC in terms of performance. So no, barring price, no Mac is better than the best PC.

I love my Mac Pro, and thankfully, figured out how to upgrade it like it should be... no thanks to Apple!
 

Suno

macrumors 6502
Dec 12, 2011
252
1
Why do you people keep insisting on leaving the price out of the debate? Price is a pretty crucial part of the equation and leaving it out for the sake of simplicity leaves a whole lot unaccounted for.

I keep seeing the word "superior" pop up everywhere. If you are talking about the overall build quality, than yes, Apple computers are levels ahead of their competitors. That's about where the line ends for what Apple computers are superior for.

Let's talk specs. Spec for spec, I could get a cheaper (or better) PC laptop than the MBP. I can probably build one for cheaper as well. In terms of performance and usage, I can basically do anything for cheaper on a PC than on a Mac. And if you include Hackintosh as well, iOS isn't even exclusive anymore.

With that in mind, let's delve into the realm of need. To put it short and simple, if you don't need the computer for a whole lot, than Apple computers are perfect for you. They have incredible build quality and will last you for a very long time. If you need the computer for some heavy duty work that requires some beefy specs, than the PC is obviously superior performance wise.
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
582
Finland
Non-Apple PCs are often assembled without a lot of thought about how all the parts are going to work together, and then they often leave it up to the OS provider to figure out the optimal settings within the OS.

Not true. All this "how parts work together" is bullcrap. You can't install a CPU into PCIe slot, every freaking PC OEM knows that and they are not trying to do that. If your part is physically compatible with your motherboard, then it will work with all the other parts. Sure, you still need software to use that hardware in OS but that is rarely a problem.
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,269
339
norcal
Why do you people keep insisting on leaving the price out of the debate? Price is a pretty crucial part of the equation and leaving it out for the sake of simplicity leaves a whole lot unaccounted for.

He he, based on some of the signatures of the regulars here, I don't think price is a consideration at all.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
7,005
3,343
See how the people want to introduce PRICE into the argument...? People comparing Ferrari's and Fords dont hate on the Ferrari because of the price- they are more likely to point out how the Ford is a lesser product.

I use Apple hardware too. Your analogy is unrealistic as the gap really isn't that wide. Apple chooses their price points, which is fine. On some of them they could do better on their offerings (especially the single socket mac pro).

That's not the whole story though. While the parts may be coming from the same factories, the way the parts are combined make a big impact to the final product.

I'm not going to quote that whole trash post. You're assigning meaning where none exists and making blatant incorrect assumptions that no one else knows how to build a functioning computer. All oems do rounds of testing. In laptops they don't use that much broader of a range than Apple these days. Apple uses quite a few different skus these days, even if they have fewer lines than a company like HP (although I haven't counted recently). The parts are made by the same manufacturers. Foxconn builds for both Apple and other oems. Apple has never catered to the budget end. With Windows, a wide range of hardware is supported no matter what parts an individual OEM decides to use. This does not mean they put all of the work on Microsoft.

Anyway Apple does have to charge enough to recoup the costs of development for the newest versions of OSX, but the way you're reading into it simply isn't how it works.
 

Steve121178

macrumors 603
Apr 13, 2010
6,463
7,170
Bedfordshire, UK
It's a stupid argument.

Some people prefer Macs, most people choose PC's. As long as you are happy with what you have, who cares what everyone else is using?

The beauty of PC's is that they can be customised to whatever specification you choose and that they are as cheap or as expensive as you want. Whatever budget you have, their is a PC for you, even if you build it yourself. It's easy to see why most of the world opts for the Windows PC.

----------

2. PC / windows frustration tax. Seriously, why does it take so long to install a driver?

It doesn't. Unless the driver has been badly complied, but that's not a Windows problem, that's the fault with the third party for doing such a poor job.
 

august.eighty

macrumors newbie
Dec 19, 2011
1
0
It is a flawed argument.

The reason that the MAC vs. PC argument is flawed is because it is comparing a company that bundles hardware / software together in a very consistent manner (making it extremely stable) and a company that doesn't manufacture hardware (or bundle it in any way) but allows third parties to make those choices for it (making it potentially very unstable).

To argue MAC vs. PC should actually be framed as MAC vs. Windows - arguing from the software element alone. Saying MAC vs. PC means you are comparing a very consistent hardware / software system against any of the 100 companies that create desktop computer builds that happen to be running Windows. A better argument would be comparing a particular Mac Pro with a particular DELL Desktop for example.

You can buy a PC from DELL, HP, Toshiba, ASUS, ACER, Compaq, etc., all with different hardware specs, different compatibilities, different motherboards, different processors, different cases - all with their own benefits, problems, advantages, and levels of stability, etc.

When it comes to pre-built hardware / software builds, MAC will always win - because it is the most consistent. When it comes to custom hardware / software builds, Windows (PC) will always win - because it is the most customizable and most easily upgradable. (more on this later).

The value placed on MACs is almost entirely due to the fact that, *out of the box* a MAC will outperform a PC - but only in the short term. It is less bloated, has less compatibility problems, much easier to troubleshoot - it is built as a beautifully efficient workhorse. You don't get this from a PC, 'cause you are at the whim of whatever your particular manufacturer has decided to put together - which often is highly untested hardware configurations, and hardware that will often become unsupported in a few months after purchase (the nature of PC based computing is that products become obsolete on a daily basis.) PC manufacturers are in a race to stay competetive and will often throw things in the machine to increase their specs, at the cost of very unstable builds. (Notice that DELL has new desktop builds on an almost monthly basis - and will constantly throw new hardware into their customization checkout on a DAILY basis.)

All of this is ignoring the 'custom build' side of PC computing. Personally, I custom build my own PC desktop every 12 - 15 months. Every part, from the fans to the CPU cooler, to the case, castors, to the GPU, etc. is bought seperately and put together on my kitchen table. The OS (currently Win 7 Ultimate) is installed from the disc with nothing else installed, and then I quickly over about 1 hour customize the OS to be extremely light - removing every single thing that I don't use; in additional to modifying every customizable option, modifying the registry, editing the BIOS, experimenting with overclock settings, etc. Then one by one install the software / drivers that I need - testing beta versions, diffrerent driver setups, etc. Takes about one day to set up, but in the end, the computer sitting on my kitchen table will be more stable, and outperform (by a large margin) any Mac Pro on the market. (Of course this also depends on how stable some of the hardware drivers are - these days it's rare to run into problems)

So in the end - I would say - a general argument about Mac vs. PC comes down to how familiar a person is with the actual inner workings of a computer. If you just want stability and something that works out of the box - buy a MAC. Hugely stable, very efficient, very well made. If you're up to the task of understanding a great deal about your OS, and researching everything there is to know about hardware and how all the hardware works together (from the fans, to BIOS to the registry) buy a PC.

For me, Mac's are hugely overpriced - only because I know what's going on inside and know that the price is a reflection of stability and not actual performance. But the price is justified for the lack of problems inherent in pre-built PC systems. A good analogy would be - Mac is like a Ferrari. An amazing car that works great right out off the lot. PCs are like hotrods - if you build them from scratch it'll be the best car on road - but if you get it from Ford, it'll be an unreliable, cheaply made mess.
 

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
As someone who's spent the last 10 years using PC based computers, and only now in my search/need for professional equipment & software (film editing and Adobe products) have started to investigate Apple products, and since I consider myself TOTALLY unbiased (or favoring PC's, if anything...), and am honestly searching for the best product, it seems to me that the (all too old) argument of "Mac vs PC" hasn't been a fair fight...

This isn't the Ford vs. Chevy type argument that people make it seem- we are not comparing Towncars and Sedan De Villes... two products that do about the same thing and cost about the same and just represent 2 different companies... it seems to me that often at least half of every argument that I've found tends to factor in price. People who complain in reviews or in forums about Apple products nearly always include phrases like "for what I paid" or "for even less I could...." and that a lot of the frustration that exists almost always (it seems to me) factors in the price they paid, since it was more than the other item they were considering... they never say (that I've found) "on a PC it's easier to..." or "Apple complicates it by..."

So if you COMPLETELY eliminate the money factor from the argument, and I do mean COMPLETELY, would it be fair to say that it's almost without argument that Apple products are completely (by far) superior to everyone else's? That the best Apple phone is far superior to ****'s (anybody's) best phone, that Apple's best desktop is far superior to HP/Dell/whoever 's best desktop, and so on? That once you learn to use it, you will be happier and more productive with something from Apple?

For the amount of time (all day every day) I spend on my computer, especially now that it will be increasing to even more time, I've been searching for an HONEST opinion as to what's the best product, and after reading review after review, and after reading complaint after complaint, and comparison after comparison, it seems to me that if you factor out any price-related influence, that there's not even an argument. The more I read/watch online about Bill Gates and or Steve Jobs (and how each very much represents their own company's philosophies) it seems to me that Bill Gates is the licensing/business genius, forcing his product into a zillion sections of the market and that Steve Jobs was the product/user experience genius making the best product possible with the available technologies and it being a runaway success based on the products simply being "insanely great"...

So a year later, after slowly switching to Safari browser (on my PC) and buying an iPhone and iPad, and now getting an iMac.... it seems to me that aside from price-related influence, the the argument for best product (and simply that- comparing PRODUCT-TO-PRODUCT to find out THE BEST PRODUCT) it's fair to say that there is no comparison, that Apple is the best made, best designed, and most convenient and productive products out Ferrari to a Ford, but if you're simply going PRODUCT-TO-PRODUCT, there is a clear winner, and that there is only an argument at all because the ARGUMENT itself is flawed. :apple:

Nice to see someone accepting reality rather than fighting it.

These obviously don't happen by accident, and especially not over consecutive years:

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/2...isfaction-survey-for-eighth-consecutive-time/

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/0...rankings-of-smartphone-consumer-satisfaction/

http://www.macprices.net/2011/07/12...creasing-university-of-missouri-survey-finds/

Apropos . . .

http://www.cultofmac.com/135844/why-the-ipad-is-the-most-hated-gadget-ever/

Bloodbath: Why Apple’s iPad is the most hated gadget ever

“As the Apple iPad succeeds beyond expectations, it leaves in its wake an enormous body count of dead and dying products,” Mike Elgan reports for Cult of Mac. “While consumers love it, several major industries have grown to hate it. And for very good reason.”

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. The iPad was supposed to usher in a new era of tablet computing, creating a thriving new market that looked a lot like the world of smart phones,” Elgan reports. “After gaining an early lead, the iPad was supposed to settle in as a big seller, dominating the high end of the market. Android tablets were supposed to grab most of the unit sales, offering a variety of successful sizes, options and price points. And tablets running proprietary platforms like HP’s WebOS and RIM’s BlackBerry Tablet OS were supposed to bring healthy new sources of revenue to those companies.”

Elgan reports, “But that’s not what happened. What happened is that Apple has asserted an unshakable lead, and no other company has taken significant share.”

Elgan continues, “What’s worse, the vast distance between expectations for non-iPad touch tablets and the ugly reality is causing havoc and possibly even wrecking companies and even transforming entire industries.”

“The first major casualty was the HP TouchPad, which shipped July 1. Although HP had enormously high hopes for the tablet, its reception in the market was so bad that seven weeks later HP announced the termination of all WebOS hardware products,” Elgan reports. “The bloodbath was just beginning. Next up: RIM.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explanation? It's brutally simple. Apple is very simply a far different tech company from the rest - unusual in nearly every respect. So what happens? They get unusual results, in nearly every respect.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
To argue MAC vs. PC should actually be framed as MAC vs. Windows - arguing from the software element alone. Saying MAC vs. PC means you are comparing a very consistent hardware / software system against any of the 100 companies that create desktop computer builds that happen to be running Windows. A better argument would be comparing a particular Mac Pro with a particular DELL Desktop for example.

Mac vs PC is right. In the end, you're buying these machines not for the OS it runs, but for the tasks you want to accomplish. OS wars are just religious crap some geeks on the Internet like to fight. In the end, what matters is the tasks you want accomplished and if they can be done.

And frankly, between OS X and Windows, about every tasks you'd want done can be done (and for a bit more limited tasks, Linux can fit the bill quite nicely too).

So it really is about hardware features/specs/price. When I bought my MacBook Air, I wanted light, I wanted portable, I wanted full desktop CPU and good GPU. The MBA fit the bill perfectly while nothing on the PC side came close.

Unless you have some tasks that is tied to some platform exclusive application, you shouldn't worry about the OS.
 

linux2mac

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2009
1,330
0
"City of Lakes", MN
With a Mac you can run any software out there.
And with a Mac you can develop for iOS and Mac OS X.
The End.

One thing I really like about OSX is Disk Utility. I can make backup images and clone partitions without the need for buying third party software like Norton Ghost during my Windows days.
 

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,784
215
UK
I'll happily pay a little extra if it means I don't have to see any of those stupid specification & product stickers littering my otherwise beautiful Mac laptop chassis right out the box. :D

An extra £200 for the sake of a few peelable stickers? :rolleyes:
 

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Oct 17, 2011
1,943
364
So, you believe that with all things being equal, if one was to start out today for the very first time learning how to use both Windows and OSX that the learning curve would be more or less equal for someone figuring out how to manage each system efficiently?

If this is what you're saying then I simply don't agree. Apple has a much better OS GUI system overall to navigate through, especially with regard to first time computer users. Even with changing system settings to grasping the user directory file organization is waaaaay more intuitive to understand on OSX than compared to Windows.

So what you're really saying is OS X is better then Windows 7 for kids learning their first OS. Why not just stick Kubuntu in front of them?
 

blue22

macrumors 6502a
Oct 15, 2010
505
18
whatevs...

So what you're really saying is OS X is better then Windows 7 for kids learning their first OS. Why not just stick Kubuntu in front of them?

Whether they're 5 or 55 years old, it's my opinion that OSX is the easier OS to figure out in a shorter timeframe then when compared to doing the same in Windows. But if you want to throw Kubuntu in the mix, sure, go for it, but Windows still ranks last in that new list.
 

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Oct 17, 2011
1,943
364
Whether they're 5 or 55 years old, it's my opinion that OSX is the easier OS to figure out in a shorter timeframe then when compared to doing the same in Windows. But if you want to throw Kubuntu in the mix, sure, go for it, but Windows still ranks last in that new list.

I fail to see how a child will intuitively figure out Spotlight faster then using Start-->Search box. No matter what you need an initial run through by somebody who knows the OS. Hell, back in 1995 I read a gigantic "How to use Windows 95" book and it really helped me.
 

blue22

macrumors 6502a
Oct 15, 2010
505
18
don't hide behind the kids ;)

I fail to see how a child will intuitively figure out Spotlight faster then using Start-->Search box. No matter what you need an initial run through by somebody who knows the OS. Hell, back in 1995 I read a gigantic "How to use Windows 95" book and it really helped me.

1st: children are lot smarter & intuitive than you're apparently giving them credit for.

2nd: just because you found a gigantic book holding your hand helpful on a particular topic for furthering your understanding on how to use/do something doesn't mean others will be as comfortable learning in the same manner (or even able to) and ultimately you have to "just do it" in order to finally "get it" and some GUI systems are easier to navigate than others, which was my point earlier regarding OSX over Windows.
 

Bernard SG

macrumors 65816
Jul 3, 2010
1,354
7
I fail to see how a child will intuitively figure out Spotlight faster then using Start-->Search box. No matter what you need an initial run through by somebody who knows the OS. Hell, back in 1995 I read a gigantic "How to use Windows 95" book and it really helped me.

What is there to figure out about Spotlight?
Anyway it's not for those basic OS tasks that Mac OS makes the difference. It's really when you start to optimize your system setup to your way of working and your specific usage and when, inevitably, you need to troubleshoot. First of all, it will happen much less often on a Mac and when it happens it's usually easy to figure where to look at.
With Windows, you always get the impression that Microsoft engineers are taking a sadistic pleasure at dissimulating the solutions to everyday usage problems.
 

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,784
215
UK
I'm sorry but this 'OS X is easier to learn' argument is stupid. No desktop operating system is 'easier to learn' than the other. Both Windows and OS X took me time to learn. Both have features that are more simple than the other OS. The preferability comes after you have learnt them. Which OS works with you the best? And that is down to opinion.
 

dgree03

macrumors 65816
Jan 8, 2009
1,177
0
I'm sorry but this 'OS X is easier to learn' argument is stupid. No desktop operating system is 'easier to learn' than the other. Both Windows and OS X took me time to learn. Both have features that are more simple than the other OS. The preferability comes after you have learnt them. Which OS works with you the best? And that is down to opinion.

I would argue that for MOST people who have used computers for years, windows is much easier to navigate than OSX!

I have never walked into a Bestbuy, Sony Store, Fry's etc and had people there teaching Joe Somebody how to use Windows??
 

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
I would argue that for MOST people who have used computers for years, windows is much easier to navigate than OSX!

I have never walked into a Bestbuy, Sony Store, Fry's etc and had people there teaching Joe Somebody how to use Windows??

The Windows Explorer has always been a mess. The one in Windows 8 is just godawful. It's the Kitchen-sink mentality.

If consumers *already* know how to use Windows, it's because it has been inflicted on them at work and at some point they've had to use a PC. It isn't because of ease, but because of unfortunate necessity.

exphe.png


Good god . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.