Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
That's an extreme opinion. Performance per watt or for clock speed is less than today but the overall performance of a multi core x58/5200 set up is still high. That's why a top 12 core cMP still performs the same as a top 12 core nMP. And I don't care what people say about single core benchmarks. Single core sucks. Even a modern dual core sucks. I'll never go below six cores again.

Sure, but that's a dual CPU machine running at a higher frequency v a single CPU setup at a lower frequency, shows the improvement. Had apple stuck to dual CPUs, a dual 24 core nMP would spank the old cMP.

If the applications you use take advantage of more than 2 or 4 cores, I agree 6 cores is the way to go. If you game etc, waste of money.
 
Sure, but that's a dual CPU machine running at a higher frequency v a single CPU setup at a lower frequency, shows the improvement. Had apple stuck to dual CPUs, a dual 24 core nMP would spank the old cMP.

If the applications you use take advantage of more than 2 or 4 cores, I agree 6 cores is the way to go. If you game etc, waste of money.

I got the new base model 13 rMBP and it couldn't handle basic stuff like Google Maps or the Photoshop stamp tool despite a each core being more efficient and close to X5690 performance. Dual core doesn't cut it at all. The machine went right back to Apple
 
I got the new base model 13 rMBP and it couldn't handle basic stuff like Google Maps or the Photoshop stamp tool despite a each core being more efficient and close to X5690 performance. Dual core doesn't cut it at all. The machine went right back to Apple

I myself would not buy a dual-core machine, that is why the 13rMBP is a failure in my opinion, should have been quad core smaller version of the 15.
 
I got the new base model 13 rMBP and it couldn't handle basic stuff like Google Maps or the Photoshop stamp tool despite a each core being more efficient and close to X5690 performance. Dual core doesn't cut it at all.

Must be a Google Maps on OS X problem? I'm on a 2009-era dual core generic PC right now, using Windows 7, and Google Maps is great even with a bunch of other applications open.

I agree with your sentiment though, dual core is not enough these days except for very light duty.
 
Must be a Google Maps on OS X problem? I'm on a 2009-era dual core generic PC right now, using Windows 7, and Google Maps is great even with a bunch of other applications open.

I agree with your sentiment though, dual core is not enough these days except for very light duty.

In Safari damn thing was jerky and freezing up. The same 2015 computer couldn't handle Photoshop's stamp tool in real time. The integrated Intel graphics can't be blamed for it. Even GT120 can do all that perfectly well and it's much slower. Conclusion is you need minimum four cores for basic modern computing and multitasking. Maybe Windows does better better of much better graphics acceleration taking load off the CPU.
 
I don't see "Windows ME" on your list of favorites ... ??? :eek:

I had Windows Me... it was awful. Windows Vista was pretty terrible as well. OS X has mostly been improving though, except for Lion and Mountain Lion, both lousy.
 
That's actually optional, you have the choice to turn it off if you like (choice is something Apple is actually very uncomfortable with).

Furthermore, it's not different than Launchpad. Both display giant icons of applications... but for some reason criticism of that went under the radar for Apple. Why? lol

Perhaps because Launchpad never defaulted as the startup interface? Launchpad could have been useful, but they didn't provide any tools to optimize it quickly and I once bothered to organize it by category in sub-folders (faster/quicker to use than clicking on a folder in the dock for some things) and then one day it just fell apart (all the icons came out of the sub-folders and reset) and so I just left it alone.
 
I don't see where H2SO4 said that you couldn't do these tasks on OS X. He/she just said that Windows was defacto used - at least in part - during the manufacturing process for the new Mac Pros a few years back. Perhaps they simply preferred the software available on Windows (XP it was) for these particular tasks at the time. It could be for a number of reasons. That particular software preference doesn't translate to it being the best or only option. It simply means using that particular software on Windows XP was their choice then. Who knows what they're using now? It could be a native solution.

The answers in this thread - and others like it - just demonstrate clearly that a truly persuasive argument for or against one operating system versus another can't be had due to its highly subjective nature.

Your best argument when confronting your boss' son is to not have an argument at all.
It’s not a good look is it. I remember at my company few years back us having customers in and some demos running with our competitors equipment. Epic Fail.
 
One thing I HATE about windows is that when you get the system update prompt, there is no way to ignore it to install at your own pace. It is either now, in 10 min, or 4 hrs and in my experience, selecting 4hrs will still have it pop up again after 10 min. I hate that
One thing I HATE about OSX is that when you get the iCloud Keychain prompt, there is no way to ignore it, and in my experience, selecting close will still have it pop up again at 10 random. I hate that
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirCheese
So you're sure you don't have any viruses even though you've never done a scan? That's right—because viruses always pop up and announce themselves so you know they're there.
Can I not say the same about OSX?
 
Yeah, agree with others here in that Windows is better for gaming. So compliment him on his abilities as a gamer and let him know that the Mac is better for the work environment that you live in. Then let him know that there is room in this wonderful world for choice and using the os and computer style that suits your lifestyle. There is no right or wrong, just use what works best for your needs. Hopefully that will shut him up. Lol
I wouldn’t even say that a Mac is better for work. I’d certainly say it’s nicer, but better? No.
A windows box will very likely be compatible with virtually everything that everybody else is using in the real world.
Yes you can boot into Windows on your Mac but it’s not the same. There is still some software that won’t quite work and I’ve also come across times where only a built in serial port will work, (admittedly it’s very difficult to get hold of a current DosBox that has one now). Trying firmware updates for some things that actually work on the Mac for some reason only have Windows discs.

Me, I use all available options. OSX day to day, (with Parallels 10 installed for certain Windows tasks). The same hardware boots Windows natively if I want the extra oomph too.
A real Windows box running Vista that I start up maybe twice a year.
 
Gosh, what a banality. Windows-run machines aren't better than Macs. Linux-run machines aren't better than Macs. Macs aren't better than either Windows- or Linux-run machines. It comes down to personal preference and your use of a computer. Games run best on Windows. A gamer will rightfully prefer Windows. I don't even understand why anyone would want to argue such trivialities over entirely subjective matters. It's not about what is better. It's about what works better for you.

MacOSX is way more efficient and runs programs more nicely. If devs just all switched from Windows, we'd probably see our games running better. It's not a matter of Windows being "better" at running games; Windows runs more games simply because games were made to run on Windows.
 
Well, there is a difference between Macs vs. Windows PCs and MacOSX vs. Windows. Personally, I like my computer hardware to be nice, advanced, and stable. I find it hilarious how Windows PCs are constantly stuck in the past and are seemingly built to break. A desktop tower by any other company has been built the same way for over 20 years. All it is is a metal chassis with a plastic bezel on the front. The components are simply shoved inside with very little management (unless one somehow gets creative with a custom build), and the desktop will be a barebones piece of trash, lacking certain features that Macs have. Some features are extremely subtle; for instance, this 2010 Dell tower I have (which was gifted to me) has an audio jack on the front that only supports headphones... no mic. Yet, Macs have real audio jacks that support both. Of course, this Dell is constructed in the cheapest manner, so several corners are cut. The entire machine seems to vibrate from the fans and HDD (and that sound is carried by the shoddy, metal enclosure), and the machine lacks basic fan control (like any Windows PC), meaning that all the fans run at full blast... perpetually. My 1999 PowerMac G3 is built better than this piece of sh*t.

Another important thing, when concerning build quality, is the way laptops are built. I still recognize many aspects of my 2003 iBook G4 that prove it better-built and (in ways) still more structurally/architecturally advanced than a brand-new 'Windows' laptop. For starters, it's actually symmetrical in design... ever noticed how 'Windows' laptops have all sorts of odds and ends (unless you purchase the overpriced ones that end up costing more than a MacBook)? They never seem to be built within a streamlined casing. Most (if not, all) of them are constructed with cheap materials, which includes a crappy keyboard, a track-pad that doesn't allow for comfort or precise tracking, and various other features that you'd see on an Apple laptop that's 16+ years old. Also, why did most 'Windows' laptops not come with WiFi cards until, like, 2008? It humors me to see that my 10 year-old Apple laptop still beats the crud out of a new 'Windows' laptop, and also in terms of reliability. Heck, people are always having issues with their non-Apple laptops overheating or acting blisteringly slow for whatever reason. You can't beat the advanced build quality of an Apple laptop. The differences are as obvious as comparing a Toyota Tercel to a BMW M3.

Now, what about software? Okay, I seriously haven't found an OS dumber than Windows. First of all, fanboys will tell you that MacOSX is for idiots who don't know how to use a computer... Really? Because that's what they said in 1984 when Mac OS was released, and then Windows suddenly happened and was accepted. If the general idea of a GUI was thought of as being for idiots, then those who say Mac OS is for idiots (and use Windows) are being a bit hypocritical. Let's start with utilities. Does anyone notice how bad Windows' system utilities are? Or... the few that it has. Mac OSX comes with the smartest and more advanced system utilities. I can't tell you how many times I've easily been able to perform an operation under Disk Utility, but have been left stupefied by how incompetent Windows' 'Disk Manager' is. It's really just a convoluted mess - a horrible interface that can go whack if you do something incorrect. Next up, we have a real control panel... not a folder full of more folders. Everything is smarter and more advanced, from Mac OSX's networking services, to its printing service, etc. On a side note, I have realized how bad Windows is at networking! Now, the other thing about MacOSX is its file management - it's far superior to the convoluted mess that is Windows' management system. Windows is the kind of OS that has zero notion of user security, and will let anyone's files become mixed in with each other...

That's another thing: security. Why is Windows so insecure? Well, that was a rhetorical question. You can become infected ridiculously easily in Windows; the OS has no idea what security is. It's the kind of OS that will tell you that something you are about to click on needs to be run with administrator permissions... and then simply doesn't make you type in the admin password--it just lets you through. WTH?

Lastly, I always find that I am on a wild goose chase with Windows, as everything it does is just a complete mess. The whole OS is just a convoluted mess of cryptic NT code, spitting serial-number-long errors at you for every little thing. If you hit a wall in Windows, you've HIT A WALL. It's difficult to narrow down specific errors, but when people say that things in Mac OSX simply WORK, they simply do! I haven't had any issues with Mac OSX, especially given its advanced operations and system utilities. Windows fanboys think it's for dumb people, but it's actually a more advanced OS than they think; it's lightyears ahead of Winblows. (Oh, BTW, the Windows updater is the worst thing ever. It also impedes upon your computer's boot-up and shutdown process for whatever reason.)

Oh, and I am typing this from my 2006 Mac Pro. Can someone find me a non-Apple machine from 2006 that's better than this? In fact, this thing kicks the @sses of Windows PCs years newer. I've had a Windows fanboy doubt that this Mac even existed, after I described the characteristics of a Mac pro to him xD. There is no other tower like this. It's made with sound hardware, it's built well on the inside (with temp sensors absolutely everywhere, and cool, silent operation throughout), and has the best darn cable management system... where there are absolutely no cables in sight. I've got 4 HDDs bays (just slide 'em in), and space for 32GB (64 has been achieved) of RAM. Even my 2003 PowerMac G5 can take up to 8GB, with the 2005 models taking up to 16GB.

It's late to be writing this, so it may not sound too hot, but I have made a clear point here. It seems as though most Windows fans don't actually know anything about Macs, judging by all the morons I have argued with in the past. They simply repeat what they hear from other fanboys or just simply assume things about the computers. None of them know that my 10 year-old Mac is worth more than a 5 year-old Windows PC, and is also more advanced in many ways than new ones. None of them realize what good hardware entails, and most are blind to how badly-programmed Windows is. They simply like Windows because they can turn it on and play their games. It works for their needs, so they can't complain. Most people who tell me that Windows is fine are those who have simply navigated around the OS in a general manner; they haven't dug deep into its shoddy code to reveal an OS where simple tasks are suddenly turned into a total nightmare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F1Mac
TL;DR past the first paragraph but it looks like another washed up rant that has happened millions of times for ~30 years.

If only it weren't so late at night...

While I write much better than I speak, I'd have to leave this to a speech debate. I could also spend more time on this, but I cannot afford to right now.
 
I don't see where H2SO4 said that you couldn't do these tasks on OS X. He/she just said that Windows was defacto used - at least in part - during the manufacturing process for the new Mac Pros a few years back. Perhaps they simply preferred the software available on Windows (XP it was) for these particular tasks at the time. It could be for a number of reasons. That particular software preference doesn't translate to it being the best or only option. It simply means using that particular software on Windows XP was their choice then. Who knows what they're using now? It could be a native solution.

The answers in this thread - and others like it - just demonstrate clearly that a truly persuasive argument for or against one operating system versus another can't be had due to its highly subjective nature.

Your best argument when confronting your boss' son is to not have an argument at all.

Such an argument is rather subjective, but I still feel as though I have a few good points that I could share. You know, how Windows lacks the advanced utilities that Mac OSX has, is a jumble of cryptic, error-spewing NT code, and has zero notion of security. I'd also point out that using a Windows PC is like driving a Toyota Tercel, and using a Mac is like driving a BMW M3. I seriously don't understand how one could prefer the awful build quality of a pre-built 'Windows' machine. Most of these people don't know anything about Macs. The gamers simply use Windows because it satisfies their gaming needs. If all games were made for Macs, they'd be using Mac OSX. (Consequently, we'd see games running much better, as Mac OSX is all the more efficient. More games are made for Windows simply because of MS's large partaking in the gaming industry. It doesn't mean that Windows is suddenly better at running games, just because more games run on Windows.)
 
If only it weren't so late at night...

While I write much better than I speak, I'd have to leave this to a speech debate. I could also spend more time on this, but I cannot afford to right now.

I'll leave at this; If you compare products in the same price category you get the same level of quality but those qualities can be different. Windows is what it is some like it and some don't and that's OK one isn't "better" than the other it's just different.
 
It's late to be writing this, so it may not sound too hot, but I have made a clear point here. It seems as though most Windows fans don't actually know anything about Macs, judging by all the morons I have argued with in the past. They simply repeat what they hear from other fanboys or just simply assume things about the computers. None of them know that my 10 year-old Mac is worth more than a 5 year-old Windows PC, and is also more advanced in many ways than new ones. None of them realize what good hardware entails, and most are blind to how badly-programmed Windows is. They simply like Windows because they can turn it on and play their games. It works for their needs, so they can't complain. Most people who tell me that Windows is fine are those who have simply navigated around the OS in a general manner; they haven't dug deep into its shoddy code to reveal an OS where simple tasks are suddenly turned into a total nightmare.

I'm going to ikea get a frame, brb ;)
 
Such an argument is rather subjective, but I still feel as though I have a few good points that I could share. You know, how Windows lacks the advanced utilities that Mac OSX has, is a jumble of cryptic, error-spewing NT code, and has zero notion of security. I'd also point out that using a Windows PC is like driving a Toyota Tercel, and using a Mac is like driving a BMW M3. I seriously don't understand how one could prefer the awful build quality of a pre-built 'Windows' machine. Most of these people don't know anything about Macs. The gamers simply use Windows because it satisfies their gaming needs. If all games were made for Macs, they'd be using Mac OSX. (Consequently, we'd see games running much better, as Mac OSX is all the more efficient. More games are made for Windows simply because of MS's large partaking in the gaming industry. It doesn't mean that Windows is suddenly better at running games, just because more games run on Windows.)

That’s a load of rubbish. Windows has all those utilties, maybe more. They just aren’t readily apparent. Also has the command line stuff just like a Mac. I never said iot was better due to design, I never said other wise either. It can also be secure. You sound like you’ve been out of the loop for a while.
Your analogy with cars is flawed.

I’d use this one. Your Mac you might think of as a Tesla or advanced electric only vehicle and PC as a regular car. Trouble is there are nowhere near as many places to recharge as there are gas stations. In addition I can take my PC anywhere to get tuned up or fixed and choose between top of the line or budget components. Apple actively prevent you from doing what you want which is their prerogative I suppose, whereas Windows will run on any hardware that will support it.

I have many macs. In my house alone, two Minis, two Mac Pros, two airport base stations, ATV, numerous iDevices and so on. I’m a died in the wool Macintosh fan. That said I don’t think Macs are better than PCs but I do think they are nicer and that has value to me. That doesn’t count the numerous devices I have bought for family members or those I have encourage them to buy.
 
I seriously don't understand how one could prefer the awful build quality of a pre-built 'Windows' machine. Most of these people don't know anything about Macs. The gamers simply use Windows because it satisfies their gaming needs. If all games were made for Macs, they'd be using Mac OSX. (Consequently, we'd see games running much better, as Mac OSX is all the more efficient. More games are made for Windows simply because of MS's large partaking in the gaming industry. It doesn't mean that Windows is suddenly better at running games, just because more games run on Windows.)

That's a very daring assumption... I'm not sure about that. There are people who simply prefer Windows and consciously make the decision to use that OS instead of OS X or a Linux distro. I don't doubt that OS X could have had a considerably larger fan base if Microsoft hadn't been the de facto standard OS shipped with pre-built computers. But all of that is mere guesswork.

As for the quality of pre-builds... Well, I don't quite see it as drastically as you do. I've had quite a few mid-range pre-built computers way back in the Pentium days. I didn't care what the computer looked like from the inside. I think that holds true for most people. That's changed over the years as I've grown a considerable interest in technology. But, to get back to my point, most of these computers were quite decent in terms of performance at the time. And, if anything, with the components we now have at our disposal and the advancement of the Windows OS, things can only have improved.

Also... as some members have already shown in this thread, there are some very nicely assembled Windows-run machines out there, including pre-built machines. The latter are mostly higher-end computers/workstations with a considerable price tag, even if not comparable to the premium you have to pay for a similar high-end 2013 Mac Pro.

I don't want to completely derail this thread, so to get back to the topic at hand; whether or not people in general know enough about Macs, for a gamer today, a Windows build is the best possible solution. I think we agree on that. And as long as Apple continues to solder the most significant of components to the logic board and sells its computers with the high premium for its design and branding, they'll not break out of that "luxury" niche. They probably don't want to either, which is fine.
 
The latter are mostly higher-end computers/workstations with a considerable price tag, even if not comparable to the premium you have to pay for a similar high-end 2013 Mac Pro.

Just wanted to point out that this isn't the case at all if you are referring to the HP and Lenovo workstations that were posted here earlier. Once you configure them to match the spec, it's either about the same or in the Lenovo case a considerably higher price than the MacPro.
 
Just wanted to point out that this isn't the case at all if you are referring to the HP and Lenovo workstations that were posted here earlier. Once you configure them to match the spec, it's either about the same or in the Lenovo case a considerably higher price than the MacPro.

Oh, right. I wasn't aware. I thought they were below the Mac Pros in terms of cost. Thanks for the correction. :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.