Mac vs. PC
- Thread starter ketchupnmustard
- Start date
I still use lynx. It is handy when writing monitoring scripts. You can do a lynx Google --dump filename.txt and dump the html of a page to a txt file. Then you can parse that file for errors/keywords etc.
To get mildly back on track (mostly because I have no idea what gophers are, besides the animals) I love the Macbook Pro I got this year. I use Parallels (visualization software) to run some pretty intense Autodesk applications, while simultaneously using iChat, Firefox, Photoshop, iTunes and Illustrator. (This is very conducive to efficient working) I've never had it crash, don't have to hard restart it anytime I try and open more than one program at once, don't have 30 spyware processes running in the background. Yes, I know how to work around the inherent idiosyncracies of PC's, but just because I can doesn't mean I want to. Time is money (and blood pressure)
If you need to run ridiculously intense PC games or are super stuck in your ways about PC, then I'm sure you will be fine. But you aren't on here asking for buying advice in that case. For a regular consumer, who just wants something that works, and doesn't stop working, go get a Mac. You'll be happier.
If you need to run ridiculously intense PC games or are super stuck in your ways about PC, then I'm sure you will be fine. But you aren't on here asking for buying advice in that case. For a regular consumer, who just wants something that works, and doesn't stop working, go get a Mac. You'll be happier.
From what I've been hearing, if you upgrade an existing machine from XP to Vista it's a piece of crap. However, if you buy a new machine that already has Vista installed on it then it works pretty well. So, from my understanding, don't upgrade your existing machine, but don't worry if a new machine has Vista on it.
Vista is a steaming pile of crap. XP, however, is still quite serviceable, and, outside of eye candy, works just fine. There really isn't much need to upgrade for PC folks. Most everything supports it, and it supports most everything. I'm not saying there shouldn't' be something better down the road, but I don't know that Leopard is that "better" thing.
OSX is great. I won't say it isn't. It doesn't, however, offer anything that XP doesn't have, outside of some really pretty eye candy. Some people argue that the workflow is better, but I tend to think that PC is just as easy. There are a lot of things that aren't supported natively on Leopard, and that can be a pain. Plus to legally run most of the windows applications, you'll need a windows license of some sort.
I know quite a few people that have gone to Ubuntu Linux and have been quite happy. I have it on a server at home, and it's getting darn close to "very usable for most things". Plus the price is very right.
You mean the type of consumer that just uses email and internet? XP, Firefox, and Thunderbird. Good night.
I use PCs primarily, but I just got my wife a new 24" iMAC.
If price isn't an option, I would say that the form factor and the simplicity of the iMAC is enough to make up for the difference in price. Plug your mouse into your keyboard and your keyboard into the iMAC and you are done.
OSX > XP > Vista in my opinion. However, I wish that the MAC had a two button mouse. Apple needs to convert. Again, with price not being an option, I would reccommend running XP on an iMAC for the form factor. The iMAC has a built in microphone, webcam, (hidden) speakers, firewire, wireless networking, bluetooth, and a large bank of USB ports.
With OSX you have great video editing, image editing, image organization, and music software built in. Also without any of the annoying and bloated security software trials and whatever else your cheap PC comes preloaded with.
BTW, the only software you might need to buy for the mac is Office, unless you are willing to try to go with OpenOffice. I would wait until the new version of Office for MAC comes out.
If it wasn't for gaming, I would switch to OSX in a heartbeat.
If price isn't an option, I would say that the form factor and the simplicity of the iMAC is enough to make up for the difference in price. Plug your mouse into your keyboard and your keyboard into the iMAC and you are done.
OSX > XP > Vista in my opinion. However, I wish that the MAC had a two button mouse. Apple needs to convert. Again, with price not being an option, I would reccommend running XP on an iMAC for the form factor. The iMAC has a built in microphone, webcam, (hidden) speakers, firewire, wireless networking, bluetooth, and a large bank of USB ports.
With OSX you have great video editing, image editing, image organization, and music software built in. Also without any of the annoying and bloated security software trials and whatever else your cheap PC comes preloaded with.
BTW, the only software you might need to buy for the mac is Office, unless you are willing to try to go with OpenOffice. I would wait until the new version of Office for MAC comes out.
If it wasn't for gaming, I would switch to OSX in a heartbeat.
I have some cheap logitech two-button mouse that I plug into my mac. right click problem solved! If you don't have that, and want the right click option, hold ctrl use the uni/mono click.
Oh my god no!!!! The miserable days of "apple+click'ing" trying to play Diablo 2 on a Mac. Ugh, just horrific. Apples have scarred me for life.
You mean 1337 5P34|<?
All I know is, in the entertainment industry, Mac is the only way to go. All the editing software is being made just for Macs and the ones that can work on Microsoft Platforms are really pricey. I'm a PC guy, just because of my familiarity with it, but I'm one of a few that still use pc's.
That is slowly changing. There are some pretty decent packages now for Linux that are slowly making inroads for the "creative types". Mac still dominates, but there's a chink or two in the armor here and there.
Adobe stuff all runs on PC or Mac.
I'm not saying it's not still the dominant platform for the creative types, but that doesn't preclude people from using other platforms for that kind of stuff. At any rate, making movies is a lot different use case for a computer than general home computing. It's like saying that people are all buying Corvette Z06s because they are incredible track cars (they really, really are), but you sure don't want to drive one every day (you really, really don't).
No, I meant the person who wants to be able to plug in their camera and organize, crop and email photos without opening 3 programs that don't speak to each other. The person who might actually do something with all those home movies if they didn't have to read a 50 page user manual to understand how to cut and paste film clips and burn them to a DVD. The person who would love to actually show a creative side, make something memorable, or maybe even impress their children (gasp!) but can't because almost all media peripherals for windows spend more time trying to figure out to run them than the work itself. Most people don't like wasting time trying to figure out how something works, they'd rather spend it doing what they want. Mac's get out of your way - PC's do the opposite.
Yes I would dammit. Yes I would!!!
Pretty much everyone in Hollywood is either using Avid, or Final Cut Pro HD editing systems (I believe Final Cut is only available to Mac Users). The difference in price is a few thousand dollars. Avid used to be the only game in town until Final Cut came around and gave people a system that they can afford, and before you know it filmmakers were editing their films at home.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFtOKvRDsIg]YouTube - Top Gear Corvette Z06 Review[/ame]
Oh I don't disagree. That's just video editing though. There's still graphic design, audio production work, web design etc.
Wow....you guys are pretty in depth here. Is there anyone else out there like me that is still wondering what Mac vs. PC is supposed to mean? PC=Personal Computer. Mac is also a Personal Computer, right? Why don't we refer to "PC" by company name like "Mac". That is really all I want to know, sorry for interrupting with such a boring question....if somebody could answer this for me and then you guys can go back to your in depth analysis. :wink:
Mac refers to what was formerly known as the Apple Macintosh. PC refers to the IBM Personal Computer and compatible families of computers. So PC is technically a company brand as well. Had Apple allowed other companies to build clones (well they did, sort of, but that was short-lived), the entire family of Apple computers and clones would be referred to by "Macs", and Apple Macs would probably be distinguished by the company name, just as IBM PCs were for some time.