Why a Mac Pro? Why not a PC?

[MainStreet]

pc vs mac

the classic battle, to buy a mac or pc. macs are built to last. when people say that they cant afford a mac i think, your going to spend a $1000 dollars in pcs by the time your macs toast, if that is even possible.

 

[Avro]

the classic battle, to buy a mac or pc. macs are built to last. when people say that they cant afford a mac i think, your going to spend a $1000 dollars in pcs by the time your macs toast, if that is even possible.

Not only that, but think of your time. Windows PCs have lots of down time and are high maintenance. Ars recently published an article pointing out that the lifetime running costs of Macs are significantly lower than that of Windows PCs.

 

[infidel69]

I've never had any "down time" on any of my W7 PC's. The old stereotypes don't apply to W7 it's a fantastic operating system that's every bit as stable as SL. The fact I can build an $800 PC that lays waste to $2500 Mac Pro's is reason enough for me to stick with PC's for now. Building your own PC is so incredibly easy that everyone should try it once, but If you don't BYO then I can understand buying an imac. With the imac you get a fast computer with a very good display at a decent price. The single CPU Mac Pro's on the other hand are just to expensive for what they are. The Dual CPU Mac Pro's are very nice, I'd love to own a dual hex core Mac Pro, but they're too expensive for me. I won't pay $3500 for any computer no matter how fast it is.

 

[Ape_Man]

I've never had any "down time" on any of my W7 PC's. The old stereotypes don't apply to W7 it's a fantastic operating system that's every bit as stable as SL. The fact I can build an $800 PC that lays waste to $2500 Mac Pro's is reason enough for me to stick with PC's for now. Building your own PC is so incredibly easy that everyone should try it once, but If you don't BYO then I can understand buying an imac. With the imac you get a fast computer with a very good display at a decent price. The single CPU Mac Pro's on the other hand are just to expensive for what they are. The Dual CPU Mac Pro's are very nice, I'd love to own a dual hex core Mac Pro, but they're too expensive for me. I won't pay $3500 for any computer no matter how fast it is.

I agree with Win 7 - it is my favourite Windows OS since 2000.

I also build my own PC's and whilst you can get great bang for your buck you can't build one for $800 that you can rely on like a Mac Pro. If building your own you that you want to run 24/7 under decent load you won't get much change from $800 for a decent motherboard, case, power supply and cooling set up.

But in a production environment it is all moot.

If you want a computer to work with and generate hundreds of thousands of dollars over 3 or 4 years then complaining about a $2500 or even $10,000 entry price is bizarre. You are going to spend more on software licences over the same period regardless of platform choice.

To the OP, pick the best tool for you, then make sure you have backup storage and support over the expected lifetime of the machine. It will mean that you will never get an $800 computer but you will have peace of mind going forward.

Anyway, and I have said it earlier, if you are worried about a few thousand dollars over 3 or 4 years in a production environment you are doing it wrong.

 

[nanofrog]

...[snip]...

But in a production environment it is all moot.

If you want a computer to work with and generate hundreds of thousands of dollars over 3 or 4 years then complaining about a $2500 or even $10,000 entry price is bizarre. You are going to spend more on software licences over the same period regardless of platform choice.

To the OP, pick the best tool for you, then make sure you have backup storage and support over the expected lifetime of the machine. It will mean that you will never get an $800 computer but you will have peace of mind going forward.

Anyway, and I have said it earlier, if you are worried about a few thousand dollars over 3 or 4 years in a production environment you are doing it wrong.

Generally speaking, I agree with your logic.

Unfortunately, there are exceptions, and those I've seen has to do with available cash and/or credit lines (i.e. tend to run exceedingly lean = close to bankrupt). Particularly for independents and SMB's where every dollar spent is critical (little cash on hand + low limits on credit lines). Thus the actual amounts they can afford may be lower than what they really need for a proper system (meaning computer + peripherals + software ... ; not just underestimating the budget required for the system that meets their needs).

Worth a mention IMO, as it seems there's a fair number of such professionals here in MR from what I can tell.

 

[CaoCao]

Not only that, but think of your time. Windows PCs have lots of down time and are high maintenance. Ars recently published an article pointing out that the lifetime running costs of Macs are significantly lower than that of Windows PCs.

Please, I want that link

 

[Ape_Man]

Please, I want that link

It wasn't an Ars investigation. It was a news piece on a survey of IT admins by the Enterprise Desktop Alliance, a company that works to make it easier to intergrate Macs in IT departments. So there may be some bias in the results, but they are interesting nonetheless.

The survey was conducted about a year ago, before Win7 came out and is really company IT department specific rather than for individuals.

Click her for Ars Link

Click here for Enterprise Desktop Alliance

You can download the results of the survey there, but you have to register.

Hope that helps.

 

[Avro]

I've never had any "down time" on any of my W7 PC's. The old stereotypes don't apply to W7 it's a fantastic operating system that's every bit as stable as SL. The fact I can build an $800 PC that lays waste to $2500 Mac Pro's is reason enough for me to stick with PC's for now.

You have been lucky with Windows 7 then. There is so much legacy code in Windows 7 that has no place in a modern OS and that leads to trouble. It needs a whole new rewrite. About 50% of the presentations I have seen done on Windows go wrong. It's embarrassing and it's unprofessional.

"lays waste" in what way? I can't see how a Windows system would have you write a better dissertation or better music, but I can see how a Mac can. If you are talking gaming power, fair enough. Let the boys have their toys.

The problem with Windows is that it has issues. From malware to hex errors to mysterious conduct. All of these are time wasters. Nor do I like the archaic install procedure for apps and peripherals. And why oh why does Windows have to pat itself on the back every time it does something like connect installing a peripheral or connecting to the internet? That is what an operating system is supposed to do.

How easy is it to install RAM on your home build?

How easy is it to swap hard drives or install a DVD drive?

And those plastic cases? My Mac Pro has been half way around the world. Wouldn't want to try that with Plastic Pete.

I agree with Win 7 - it is my favourite Windows OS since 2000.

.....

But in a production environment it is all moot.

If you want a computer to work with and generate hundreds of thousands of dollars over 3 or 4 years then complaining about a $2500 or even $10,000 entry price is bizarre. You are going to spend more on software licences over the same period regardless of platform choice.

To the OP, pick the best tool for you, then make sure you have backup storage and support over the expected lifetime of the machine. It will mean that you will never get an $800 computer but you will have peace of mind going forward.
s
Anyway, and I have said it earlier, if you are worried about a few thousand dollars over 3 or 4 years in a production environment you are doing it wrong.

Yes Windows 7 is the best version of Windows for years, but it's still high maintenance and eventually Windows rot will set in.

You are quite right about price point. Not everyone is obsessed with it and no sense in being penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[dimme]

I love this thread.
But after reading through it I think I going back to my Commodore 64.

 

[zephonic]

"lays waste" in what way? I can't see how a Windows system would have you write a better dissertation or better music, but I can see how a Mac can. If you are talking gaming power, fair enough. Let the boys have their toys.

I am afraid the claim has some substance. There is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that Windows actually performs better at many tasks. A lot of it is application-dependent, of course. But if you do a google search on OSX/Windows comparisons or head-to-head tests, you should find plenty of links that seem to substantiate the claims.

I could not find any direct comparos that indicated superior performance of OSX.

An $800 PC smokes a MacPro does not happen, but a $1500 PC that smokes a $2500 MacPro is entirely possible.

OSX' strengths are elegance, reliability, ease of use and security. Not uber-performance.

 

[Avro]

I am afraid the claim has some substance. There is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that Windows actually performs better at many tasks. A lot of it is application-dependent, of course. But if you do a google search on OSX/Windows comparisons or head-to-head tests, you should find plenty of links that seem to substantiate the claims.

The creative pros I know say the exact opposite. You can happily work away with OS X on a project without interference. On Windows you can almost guarantee that an issue will arise. When our Repro boys went over to OS X there was much rejoicing.

Lets look at the tests.

Best Laptop: MacBook
Best Premium Laptop: MacBook Pro
Best Desktop: iMac

Looks like Apple smokes the competition.

I could not find any direct comparos that indicated superior performance of OSX.

According to Which? magazine (British equivalent of Consumer Reports) Mac owners rate their machines at 94%, OEM Windows PCs struggle to hit 50%. Looks like pretty terrible performance to me.

Performance depends on how well the OS, Hardware and Software work together. Because OS X and Mac software are written for very specific machines they get the best performance possible. This can't be done with the thousands of PCs made with a Frankenstein assortment of parts and Windows which carries a ton of legacy baggage.

An $800 PC smokes a MacPro does not happen, but a $1500 PC that smokes a $2500 MacPro is entirely possible.

Smokes in what way? Helping to get your work done faster? Making you more productive?

OSX' strengths are elegance, reliability, ease of use and security. Not uber-performance.

I have never come across a Windows PC that performs as well as a Mac and probably never will.

 

[zephonic]

I have never come across a Windows PC that performs as well as a Mac and probably never will.

That is something I can agree on. But I am not blind to the facts.

I have read a few comparison tests, and it seems that Windows7 is actually better at a number of things, most noticeably scaling and hyperthreading. Again, do a quick google search on Windows/OSX comparisons and you'll see what I mean.

At first I dismissed this as MS-biased/sponsored propaganda, but the absence of proof to the contrary is curious, to say the least, especially given how vocal Mac-proponents usually are about OSX' superiority.

That Mac customers are way more satisfied than PC-owners is not a big surprise, I am a Mac user for precisely that reason. But that does not necessarily mean that Windows can not offer better raw performance.

 

[gpzjock]

Comparisons are subjective.

When Win 7 and Snow Leopard first went head to head this is what Cnet found: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-31012_7-10319612-10355804.html
A Linux geek tested 3 main OS here: http://lunduke.com/?p=840 funnily enough Ubuntu won in his review....
Laptopmag said, Win 7 is nice but you can easily have both it and OS X on a Mac anyways: http://www.laptopmag.com/mobile-life/snow-leopard-vs-windows-7.aspx?page=1
Computerworld said.... use both: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137182/OS_deathmatch_Snow_Leopard_vs._Windows_7

I have both on my Mac Pro but I only use Win 7 to flash GFX cards for my OS X build...
Guess I'm a fanboy too then.

 

[nanofrog]

...Mac owners rate their machines at 94%, OEM Windows PCs struggle to hit 50%. Looks like pretty terrible performance to me.

How was this information generated?

I ask, as there's a lot of factors that can come to play. For example, the PC owners may have been using consumer, or worse, the lowest cost "budget box" systems. So poor hardware (cheaply made = breaks more often), software (i.e. drivers), and support are common for owners of those systems, and will be reflected in their responses, and if there's enough of these in the sample data, they could make a significant shift in the statistics. And there's multiple vendors, AMD processors, ... issues to contend with as well.

So a level playing field isn't doesn't really possible IMO.

Because OS X and Mac software are written for very specific machines they get the best performance possible. This can't be done with the thousands of PCs made with a Frankenstein assortment of parts and Windows which carries a ton of legacy baggage.

Apple has control over the hardware and the OS. But the software developers may take shortcuts on the Mac side (think of applications that are ported versions of something else they make). The end result is software that's not optimized for the system. Backwards compatibility is another issue as well (though it does affect PC's more), as the software developer may try to go too far back to be able to sell to more users. Ultimately, software may not be all that optimized on either platform.

I have never come across a Windows PC that performs as well as a Mac and probably never will.

This is highly subjective though. What works for you may not work as well for others.

This is why this argument has never been solved; specific usage can change matters greatly.

But that does not necessarily mean that Windows can not offer better raw performance.

Particularly when it's been customized (specifically hardware) that's not readily available, possibly not at all, for the Mac platform. This comes down to specific usage, but that's critical for professional users in order to get the best solution for their needs.

 

[dknightd]

I've been using a Mac for a long time. I'm used to it. I've got lots of money invested in software. I think I'll stick to Macs for now.

 

[scottsjack]

I love this thread.
But after reading through it I think I going back to my Commodore 64.

After reading this thread I'm going back to my late 2009 mini 2.66. Wait, its only OS is Windows 7 Pro!

 

[Avro]

surprise, I am a Mac user for precisely that reason. But that does not necessarily mean that Windows can not offer better raw performance.

You are missing the point entirely. A Mac Pro is a computer that is favoured by Creative Professionals and Academics. People who have to work unsociable hours with little in the way of technical support and who have to meet tight deadlines. They are not some prepubescent teenager with a games machine. They cannot tolerate the 'sometimes I will work, sometimes I won't' nature of Windows. Try explaining to your boss/client that the project wasn't done on time due to Windows having a brain fart. Its happened to me before and it's happened to millions.

I am not disagreeing with you about raw power, but measuring performance as in getting the job done. As they say in Formula One racing 'To finish first, you must first finish.'

How was this information generated?

Members of the Consumers Association reported on their computers by brand. Amongst the OEM Windows machines Lenovo and Sony scored highest, but still 20-30% behind Apple. Dell and HP were about 50% with the rest on a slide down to 18%.

I ask, as there's a lot of factors that can come to play. For example, the PC owners may have been using consumer, or worse, the lowest cost "budget box" systems. So poor hardware (cheaply made = breaks more often), software (i.e. drivers), and support are common for owners of those systems, and will be reflected in their responses, and if there's enough of these in the sample data, they could make a significant shift in the statistics. And there's multiple vendors, AMD processors, ... issues to contend with as well.

This wasn't the case. The Consumers Association members have a certain profile and we are talking about computers in the mid-range as opposed to budget boxes.

So a level playing field isn't doesn't really possible IMO.

A lot more than you think.

Apple has control over the hardware and the OS. But the software developers may take shortcuts on the Mac side (think of applications that are ported versions of something else they make). The end result is software that's not optimized for the system. Backwards compatibility is another issue as well (though it does affect PC's more), as the software developer may try to go too far back to be able to sell to more users. Ultimately, software may not be all that optimized on either platform.

That is why I always use Mac only Apps not ports. OS X doesn't carry the heavy legacy burden of Windows.

 

[nanofrog]

Members of the Consumers Association reported on their computers by brand. Amongst the OEM Windows machines Lenovo and Sony scored highest, but still 20-30% behind Apple. Dell and HP were about 50% with the rest on a slide down to 18%.

I went to Which?, and it appears to be similar to Consumer Reports here in the US. Unfortunately, I'd have to pay a subscription to view the article, and I'm not that inclined to do so for a one-off instance (interested, but not that interested ).

My main reason for wondering in the first place, has to do with the recent perpensity these days to manipulate statistics to reach a predetermined conclusion. So I like looking at the methodologies they used to get their data.

BTW, I noticed that they do seem to have unusual number of articles on Apple products given (lends me to think there's a bias there, as not all were comparisons between other products, according to the title).

That is why I always use Mac only Apps not ports. OS X doesn't carry the heavy legacy burden of Windows.

You've been lucky then, as not everyone would have that ability.

 

[Avro]

I went to Which?, and it appears to be similar to Consumer Reports here in the US. Unfortunately, I'd have to pay a subscription to view the article, and I'm not that inclined to do so for a one-off instance (interested, but not that interested ).

My main reason for wondering in the first place, has to do with the recent perpensity these days to manipulate statistics to reach a predetermined conclusion. So I like looking at the methodologies they used to get their data.

BTW, I noticed that they do seem to have unusual number of articles on Apple products given (lends me to think there's a bias there, as not all were comparisons between other products, according to the title).

Which? actually has a reputation here for being anti-Apple, but given the lack of the competition in the Tablet space their conclusion has been that the iPad is the one to get. They are fair in their evaluation of Apple products, but no fanboy nonsense. I've been a subscriber for almost 30 years and I can tell you that they almost always compare like with like MP3 Players, All in One computers, laptops. The only time you will usually see a stand-alone article is if a significant new product is being introduced and later it will be tested and compared with the competition.

You've been lucky then, as not everyone would have that ability.

Here are my main Apps, but I have over 250 on the Mac Pro.

• Scrivener 2
• Nisus Writer Pro
• OmniWeb
• OmniFocus
• Yojimbo
• iTunes
• DragThing
• PCalc
• Bento
• NovaMind Pro
• PathFinder
• LaunchBar
• NetNewsWire
• BusyCal
• Adium
• TextExpander
• Papers 2
• Paperless
• BBedit
• FirstClass
• Numbers
• Pixelmator
• PDF Pen
• Toast Titanium
• Steam

 

[nanofrog]

Which? actually has a reputation here for being anti-Apple, but given the lack of the competition in the Tablet space their conclusion has been that the iPad is the one to get. They are fair in their evaluation of Apple products, but no fanboy nonsense. I've been a subscriber for almost 30 years and I can tell you that they almost always compare like with like MP3 Players, All in One computers, laptops. The only time you will usually see a stand-alone article is if a significant new product is being introduced and later it will be tested and compared with the competition.

I was only able to go by the titles though (article preview would have been nice, and offered further information). If it had a title of "Tablet Comparison" or "iPad vs. Samsung, ...." (any other specific brand/model), then I would have had a different impression.

Misleading titles vs. the article's actual content ... Grrr.... Seems to be a lot of this going around recently (seems a modern variation of Yellow Journalism which occured in the late 1800's, and peaked ~1900 in NYC to promote newspaper circulation). But I degress.

 

[jljue]

As a controls engineer in a manufacturing facility that is Microsoft-based, I deal with Windows, Microsoft, and virus issues so much I find relief getting home to my MacBook Pro and knowing I don't have to deal with an unstable OS that has an update that seems to come at least 2-3 times per week every single time that I boot up. Even with a clean install of Windows and not really installing anything after the initial install, my Windows PC's slow down at a much faster rate than my OS X machines. I wish that software that runs plants and equipment could be linux, unix, or OS X-based so that I will have to quit explaining hours of downtime caused by Microsoft issues.

 

[Avro]

I was only able to go by the titles though (article preview would have been nice, and offered further information). If it had a title of "Tablet Comparison" or "iPad vs. Samsung, ...." (any other specific brand/model), then I would have had a different impression.

Misleading titles vs. the article's actual content ... Grrr.... Seems to be a lot of this going around recently (seems a modern variation of Yellow Journalism)

Which? except for the annual car issue is subscriber only, so they are not trying to pick up extra customers at the newstand. Most of the articles would be of a comparison nature, but as I said if a new major system comes out from Apple, it does get a first look. Heck, even Windows Phone 7 got a first look.

They currently have a review of 10 Tablets, so I think they are pretty inclusive.

Here is the Computing Section.

 

[nanofrog]

Which? except for the annual car issue is subscriber only, so they are not trying to pick up extra customers at the newstand. Most of the articles would be of a comparison nature, but as I said if a new major system comes out from Apple, it does get a first look. Heck, even Windows Phone 7 got a first look.

This is what I get when I try to look at an article...

 

[zephonic]

You are missing the point entirely. A Mac Pro is a computer that is favoured by Creative Professionals and Academics.

LOL, that would be me. Did I tell you I work on a Mac?

They cannot tolerate the 'sometimes I will work, sometimes I won't' nature of Windows. Try explaining to your boss/client that the project wasn't done on time due to Windows having a brain fart. Its happened to me before and it's happened to millions.

Although just about every Windows machine I know has conked out at some point, I think this perception is mainly a leftover from the 95/98 days.

It is nowhere near as bad as it used to be, and back then it was mostly the enormous variety of hardware that would cause conflicts. These days the biggest risk is malware, but if you use your machine sensibly this need not be much of a problem.

Fact is, more and more industry-standard software is designed for Windows (think Autodesk etc.) and ported to OSX as an afterthought, if we are lucky. I keep hearing that Adobe software runs better on Windows, too. I would not have believed that ten years ago, but now I’m not so sure.

I am not disagreeing with you about raw power, but measuring performance as in getting the job done. As they say in Formula One racing 'To finish first, you must first finish.'

That was not my point. I did say previously that reliability/dependability remains one of OSX’ fortes. But measuring performance is just about that, not assessing a platform’s dependability. As such the evidence certainly seems to indicate that Windows has the edge here.

That is why I always use Mac only Apps not ports. OS X doesn't carry the heavy legacy burden of Windows.

Not since SnowLeopard, no.

 

[Avro]

Although just about every Windows machine I know has conked out at some point, I think this perception is mainly a leftover from the 95/98 days.

I see about a 50% failure rate on presentations done on Windows XP and Windows 7. This doesn't impress.

Windows XP was always difficult with internet connections, especially wireless and don't talk to me about home networks.

I was having a better experience with Windows 7 until one day I went to print out a document for a meeting and it couldn't find the HP drivers I had so carefully installed months ago.

Windows 7 has now been consigned to games. Anything that lets you down like that has no place for serious work.

It is nowhere near as bad as it used to be, and back then it was mostly the enormous variety of hardware that would cause conflicts. These days the biggest risk is malware, but if you use your machine sensibly this need not be much of a problem.

There still is an enormous variety of hardware, so much so that it is never tested properly if at all. Alex Lindsay dropped Windows support as it amounted to 15% of sales and 85% of support calls.

Fact is, more and more industry-standard software is designed for Windows (think Autodesk etc.) and ported to OSX as an afterthought, if we are lucky. I keep hearing that Adobe software runs better on Windows, too. I would not have believed that ten years ago, but now I’m not so sure.

Sources for these so-called facts? The fat lager drinking bloke at the pub? OS X has grown enormously more popular over the years. I tend only to use software written for OS X. I don't need ports.

Adobe is almost as bad with software as Microsoft, so I'm not going to be too concerned about them.

That was not my point. I did say previously that reliability/dependability remains one of OSX’ fortes. But measuring performance is just about that, not assessing a platform’s dependability. As such the evidence certainly seems to indicate that Windows has the edge here.

So if it is, in theory, fast, but so unreliable that you can never get your work done on time it is 'high performance'? Shades of Jaguar cars in the 1970s. Have a gander at the Gumball Rally.

As a controls engineer in a manufacturing facility that is Microsoft-based, I deal with Windows, Microsoft, and virus issues so much I find relief getting home to my MacBook Pro and knowing I don't have to deal with an unstable OS that has an update that seems to come at least 2-3 times per week every single time that I boot up. Even with a clean install of Windows and not really installing anything after the initial install, my Windows PC's slow down at a much faster rate than my OS X machines. I wish that software that runs plants and equipment could be linux, unix, or OS X-based so that I will have to quit explaining hours of downtime caused by Microsoft issues.

That has been my experience too. A lot of IT managers love Windows. It gives them an excuse for a bigger staff, bigger budget to keep the wretched thing running.