Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › PC to Mac: My Not-So-Genius Switch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PC to Mac: My Not-So-Genius Switch - Page 37  

post #541 of 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by sphinxvc View Post

I thought your example had something to do with the "some people are just made for mac" that came right after it.  So that's why I didn't get the whole copy-paste example. 

 

That was my point. People who don't understand computers are better off with Macs. Not people who don't know how to copy-paste, just people who don't get stuff like that.

 

And if you have to pay a little extra for hardware that works seamlessly with a superior OS in most respects, then so be it. 

 

You think that's what you're paying for? All the hardware in a Mac is made by the same companies, to the same standards. Sometimes special ordered to fit smaller cases or whatever, but I believe the all-in-one Macs use laptop parts (don't quote me on that). You're paying for nothing but the shiny case and OS. But hey, if an OS is worth a 50% or more markup to you, so be it.

 

As far as 8gb not being useful, I'm in the camp that believes that in 4-5 years it will be, and 4-5 years down the line, you can still be in your first OS X install running perfectly smooth.  Not one maintenance measure in between.  At least, that's the experience I had, so I'm sold on the OS.

 

In 4-5 years you might have all the RAM you need, but your processor will be lagging behind everything else. At the rate hardware improves, it's not worth getting an expensive laptop unless you need one. I made that mistake with mine, got one with a graphics card because I thought I'd play games. I barely did, and now I'm stuck with a machine that's hard if not impossible to upgrade. Oh well, I only spent $750 for it. Buying hardware for future investments is silly, IMO. Unless, of course, it doesn't cost you so much.

 

I've never needed maintenance on my PCs, beyond my own quick troubleshooting. Then again, I've known how to fix every problem I've run into with a little Googling. And every issue was with the hardware, not the software, problems which Macs struggle with as well. I think you're as lucky with your Mac as some are unlucky with their PCs.

 

I don't know how my family does it, but they manage to get a virus on their PC every month. I've never had one that stuck around for more than an hour of virus scan.

post #542 of 637

When the first Mac Pro towers came out, they were atleast 30% cheaper than the competition, and the mac books used to be light years ahead of the pc laptop crowd. It is only recently that PCs have dropped their prices when it comes to high end parts. MAC was the the first company to offer substantial workstations for reasonable prices.

 

Sure, iMacs and Mac minis are not very cost efficient in a purely hardware sense but it doesn't make them slow. Macs will always be a bit slower than PCs because they use RAM of much higher quality, but has higher latency. 

 

Windows is a Jenga tower. the longer you have it running, the more blocks get pulled out until the B**** needs to be reformatted AGAIN. Macs enjoy a much much much longer uptime and pleasant expirience. I have only reformatted my mac once since I bought it is 06. My pc which I have had for 10 months had been reformatted like 3 times. To be fair, the reformatting was for performance and speed and not out of necessity, but windows quickly slows to a halt the longer it runs. 

 

Also, even if the processor is not absolute state of the art it does not make make is significantly slower either. We are talking at most 20% in synthetic mostly synthetic benchmarks, that for the price of constantly upgrading, to most means nothing

 

And again it is the reliability and up time that most people see as the best feature of a mac. 

 

There is denying pcs offer more flexibility and better prices, but they are not perfect.

post #543 of 637


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JxK View Post


It's late, so I'll give a partial answer now and a better one later. Basically, allow me to state the obvious.

 

1) Upgradability

     I cannot describe how much the lack of this feature annoys me with macs. Let's say I have a three year old computer that I would like to touch up a bit. With a PC I can buy a little extra RAM, maybe add another hard drive while I'm at it, and suddenly it's like I have a brand new machine. Not so with a mac. This relates to point 3 directly -- price.

 

Huh!? You sure can upgrade the RAM and hard disk in a Mac as well. They even tend to use the same components..

 

2) Compatability

     Software and hardware, it simpy is a fact that you'll have an easier time installing things on a PC. Sure, macs have their own versions of most of the common consumer programs, but for the most part they lack features in comparison to everything else that's out there.

 

What features?

Cause unlike a PC a Mac can run any Mac OS X, GNU/Linux and MS Windows application.

 

COmpatibility with lots of malware (virus, worms, ..) on the other hand is lacking.

Guess you would miss that!

 

3) Price

     Per unit performance, macs have a considerable premium attached to the sticker price in relation to PCs. This problem is only exacerbated by the lack of upgradability.

 

That is debatable, as I doubt you compare a PC and Mac with 100% the same features.

Anyways; How is price related to how much a computer can do? As you said -> "Compared to a PC macs do very little"

 

 

4) Operating System

     I don't like the apple philosophy of insulating the user as much as possible from the inner workings of the OS and machine. I would much rather be able to control, modify, and tweak when necessary. 

 

Insulated the user?

I do not see how that goes. Cause in Mac OS X you have full access to EVERYTHING, just whip open the Terminal.

The "inner workings" - guess you refer to the OS kernel - is 100% open-source. So if you want to modify, you have the possibility to do so.

How about that in MS Windows? ;)

 

Edit: Post 4 is where the discussion about how macs don't do as much as a PC will fall into, but it is too late now and I'm too tired to go into depth right now. Give me a chance to sleep and I promise to give a better, much more in depth answer tomorrow.


See comments in bold above.

Also worth mentioning that several of your point is not related to how much they do "Compared to a PC macs do very little"...


Sounds like you have little knowledge of what you talk about!

 

Can't wait for your better, much more in depth answer.


Edited by krmathis - 5/30/10 at 1:27am
post #544 of 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by sokolov91 View Post

Macs will always be a bit slower than PCs because they use RAM of much higher quality, but has higher latency.


Source please, particularly for the "much higher quality"? I believe their Macbooks use 1333MHz DDR3 while some PC competitors use 1066MHz, but from my experience overclocking RAM to 1560MHz from 1333, that difference does very little for general performance outside of benchmarks. I actually underclocked the RAM to 1170MHz for a week to try to prevent BSoD a heavily modified game of mine was causing, and noticed no differences in either framerate or general computing. RAM timings and frequency are probably the two least significant impactors of general performance, though it helps in heavy video editing and the like.

 

And don't diss processors. 1300-1400x FLAC ReplayGain scanning is pretty awesome 

post #545 of 637

If I could get a mac for $700-800 I would consider buying one. But alas, I probably stick to my windows machine.

post #546 of 637

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post
 
You think that's what you're paying for? All the hardware in a Mac is made by the same companies, to the same standards. Sometimes special ordered to fit smaller cases or whatever, but I believe the all-in-one Macs use laptop parts (don't quote me on that). You're paying for nothing but the shiny case and OS. But hey, if an OS is worth a 50% or more markup to you, so be it.
------

In 4-5 years you might have all the RAM you need, but your processor will be lagging behind everything else. At the rate hardware improves, it's not worth getting an expensive laptop unless you need one. I made that mistake with mine, got one with a graphics card because I thought I'd play games. I barely did, and now I'm stuck with a machine that's hard if not impossible to upgrade. Oh well, I only spent $750 for it. Buying hardware for future investments is silly, IMO. Unless, of course, it doesn't cost you so much.

 

I've never needed maintenance on my PCs, beyond my own quick troubleshooting. Then again, I've known how to fix every problem I've run into with a little Googling. And every issue was with the hardware, not the software, problems which Macs struggle with as well. I think you're as lucky with your Mac as some are unlucky with their PCs.

 

I don't know how my family does it, but they manage to get a virus on their PC every month. I've never had one that stuck around for more than an hour of virus scan.


Ok, it's common knowledge the same companies make parts for Mac that do for PCs, not sure how I implied otherwise.

 

Logically speaking...if you want to use OS X, then you would buy hardware that it supports right?  Seeing as not all hardware is supported by OS X, buying a $250 Dell Mini 10v that supports it perfectly is smart.  Or buying a Macbook which supports it perfectly is smart.  Or building a hackintosh is smart.  (Look up any guide to building one, they always have a list of compatible hardware.)  Also, there's money to be saved if you're willing to install hardware upgrades yourself or buy refurbished.  And maybe Apple would reduce their retail prices if they had any real competition.

 

I would consider your having to 'trouble-shoot' with a little 'googling' part of what I like about not needing to do on a Mac.  (What hardware troubleshooting do Macs have to do again?)  And I exclude those who enjoy troubleshooting from this argument.  Because just because someone likes to fill up gas at the pump doesn't mean a Prius is any less fuel efficient.  

 

And I do keep my laptops around for 4-5 years, even if the processor is outdated, in my experience the computer still worked at 85% compared to contemporary machines, (maybe that's why I can afford a Mac?   ) 

post #547 of 637

I just saved $300 on my car insurance!

 

Back to the topic at hand...I just purchased a quad-processor G5 with the 23" Cinema Display for $50...at that price, you can't compared it to a Windows machine. I will only buy a mac when it is substantially discounted.

post #548 of 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


Source please, particularly for the "much higher quality"? I believe their Macbooks use 1333MHz DDR3 while some PC competitors use 1066MHz, but from my experience overclocking RAM to 1560MHz from 1333, that difference does very little for general performance outside of benchmarks. I actually underclocked the RAM to 1170MHz for a week to try to prevent BSoD a heavily modified game of mine was causing, and noticed no differences in either framerate or general computing. RAM timings and frequency are probably the two least significant impactors of general performance, though it helps in heavy video editing and the like.

 

And don't diss processors. 1300-1400x FLAC ReplayGain scanning is pretty awesome 


It is due to the ECC RAM... error coding correcting. Makes the latency quite a bit higher, but much less prone to errors. If you ever looked at benchmarks Macs get for gaming even with substantial graphics cards, running windows, they are always slower than a PC counter part due to the RAM architecture.

post #549 of 637

I dunno what happened to the quote :S 



It is due to the ECC RAM server class ram that, to my knowledge, all mac models use... error coding correcting. Makes the latency quite a bit higher, but much less prone to errors. If you ever looked at benchmarks Macs get for gaming even with substantial graphics cards, running windows, they are always slower than a PC counter part due to the RAM architecture.


but you are right, overclock the actual frequency of the ram has negligible effects in many situations. However, latency and hz are not always related and in this case they are not


Edited by sokolov91 - 5/31/10 at 10:10am
post #550 of 637

Wow. I have to admit, I really didn't think my lowly post would garner such attention. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside .

OK, where to start? Perhaps, in the name of good sportsmanship and all, I'll begin with where I was wrong. I don't have the experience with macs that dedicated users have, so I'll concede the points about Macs not being able to do everything windows machines can for regular users. More on this later.

Now, onto the good stuff.

If macs are no worse than PCs (and I don't feel they are any better) what substantive advantage does the regular user have? Internet is internet, e-mail stays the same, and with a larger market share the supposed virus immunity isn't going to last once hackers start focusing more on macs.As far as I see it, you're paying a 50% markup for a pretty case and good looking UI. Eyecandy. Of course, not being a regular user and all, I may be missing something, and I'll leave that open.

 

***


But now let's shift gears and focus on the business side of things. I originally said macs are very limited in what a user can do, and from my experience on the business side of things, that is in fact the case.

When bringing a mac into the workplace, first one must be able to connect and integrate his/her mac onto the usual Active Directory/Exchange based network. Let me tell you, it's not a pretty picture. In fact, it's downright ugly. IT is helpless, and apple support are worse. The few macs we have on our network (a very few) are basically islands onto themselves. Worse than useless for the most part. In fact, starting in a few months, the organization has moved to completely ban macs in the workplace for this very reason alone.

Let's move onto one other issue I mentioned earlier as well: compatibility. Maybe for regular users it isn't so bad (although mac software is alot more expensive than windows software). But once you get into specialty programs things get a bit worse. Programs like Autocad and SOAPware, for instance, aren't natively supported. Now, there is boot camp or VMware out there which are supposed to work and alleviate this problem. Maybe it works for some.  It didn't work at my workplace (some 3500 networked computers). Another reason why the organization is just banning macs - it was hell for IT and was just plain bad for productivity. (note: calling 1800-myapple was also a waste).

This brings me to my last point: price. I don't see a practical advantage for regular users, but if they just like the eyecandy and the way they intereact with OS X, that's fine. But for a business? Hell no! From start to finish macs at the workplace were a total nightmare. There is no way to possibly justify paying so much for something that does so little. And is so hard to integrate. And that IT doesn't support. And that apple's own support can't fix.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason why macs haven't made the kind of headway into the business sector that PCs have (although they must work for some since it is growing a bit).

 


Edited by JxK - 5/31/10 at 9:24pm
post #551 of 637

have you read any of the posts in this thread?  multiple people have responded in multiple different ways to multiple points in your post. 

post #552 of 637

^I read the posts. They're enough to show me that I'm no expert at all when it comes to macs and personal computing, something I've already acknowledged. But what  do the multiple posts in this thread have to do with the fact that at my workplace at least, trying to incorporate macs was a dismal failure? If it works for other businesses, that's fine. But in my experience, in a business environment, macs were worse than PCs in virtually every practical facet. All the posts in the world won't change that single immutable fact. That the organization is issuing a blanket ban on all macs is testament to their failure (in our working environment and experience) as a viable platform.


Edited by JxK - 5/31/10 at 10:32pm
post #553 of 637

for one thing, you're talking about the target pc consumer, the business.  You can't just say that a pc is better because it's better at your work.  That's like saying that an AKG K271 is better than an HD800 for studio use because you need a closed headphone for studio use.  It's just not a very sound argument.  unless you're just saying that pc's are better for your business. 

 

My point is that it has nothing to do with the platform.  If macs were currently used in businesses everywhere, than all the software would work on them, and pc's would be the ones that wouldn't work and would be banned because everyone uses macs and pc wouldn't get along. 

 

what a lot of people are saying is that the mac OS is heaps better than windows, and the hardware is at least as good.  and that's worth whatever extra money to some people. 

 

If I had to use a pc, I wouldn't do what I do.

post #554 of 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by sphinxvc View Post

Quote:


Ok, it's common knowledge the same companies make parts for Mac that do for PCs, not sure how I implied otherwise.

 

Logically speaking...if you want to use OS X, then you would buy hardware that it supports right?  Seeing as not all hardware is supported by OS X, buying a $250 Dell Mini 10v that supports it perfectly is smart.  Or buying a Macbook which supports it perfectly is smart.  Or building a hackintosh is smart.  (Look up any guide to building one, they always have a list of compatible hardware.)  Also, there's money to be saved if you're willing to install hardware upgrades yourself or buy refurbished.  And maybe Apple would reduce their retail prices if they had any real competition.

 

I would consider your having to 'trouble-shoot' with a little 'googling' part of what I like about not needing to do on a Mac.  (What hardware troubleshooting do Macs have to do again?)  And I exclude those who enjoy troubleshooting from this argument.  Because just because someone likes to fill up gas at the pump doesn't mean a Prius is any less fuel efficient.  

 

And I do keep my laptops around for 4-5 years, even if the processor is outdated, in my experience the computer still worked at 85% compared to contemporary machines, (maybe that's why I can afford a Mac?   ) 


Having to pray every time you do a software update that it wont screw up your software install isn't really that great.  That's what you get using a Hackintosh.

 

Apple have constantly been reducing their retail prices, due to shareholder pressure more than anything.  They aren't interested in competing with the cheap throw-it-out-the-door vendors.  While everyone was saying they should make a netbook, instead they've designed multiple game-changing devices that have created entire markets and completely changed others.

For the next bit, replies are in bold below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JxK View Post

Wow. I have to admit, I really didn't think my lowly post would garner such attention. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside .

OK, where to start? Perhaps, in the name of good sportsmanship and all, I'll begin with where I was wrong. I don't have the experience with macs that dedicated users have, so I'll concede the points about Macs not being able to do everything windows machines can for regular users. More on this later.

Now, onto the good stuff.

If macs are no worse than PCs (and I don't feel they are any better) what substantive advantage does the regular user have? Internet is internet, e-mail stays the same, and with a larger market share the supposed virus immunity isn't going to last once hackers start focusing more on macs.As far as I see it, you're paying a 50% markup for a pretty case and good looking UI. Eyecandy. Of course, not being a regular user and all, I may be missing something, and I'll leave that open.

 

For the regular user, they get a machine that doesn't screw up randomly and require either a lot of effort from a professional and/or a complete re-install to fix.  Even if you DO end up re-installing Mac OS X for some reason (because you installed something that, due to not being updated, is causing issues and you can't (be bothered to) track it down, your entire set-up will still be there, without requiring a re-install of all software.

 

***


But now let's shift gears and focus on the business side of things. I originally said macs are very limited in what a user can do, and from my experience on the business side of things, that is in fact the case.

When bringing a mac into the workplace, first one must be able to connect and integrate his/her mac onto the usual Active Directory/Exchange based network. Let me tell you, it's not a pretty picture. In fact, it's downright ugly. IT is helpless, and apple support are worse. The few macs we have on our network (a very few) are basically islands onto themselves. Worse than useless for the most part. In fact, starting in a few months, the organization has moved to completely ban macs in the workplace for this very reason alone.

 

The reason it's so much trouble is, IT support are mostly guys who have done an MCSE to get a job.  They don't have REAL computer knowledge, just a bunch of textbook stuff.  They would rather die than actually learn anything, especially anything outside of Windows. That being said, MS have long dominated the business market and are far better at it than Apple, but the gross mis-management at MS regarding OS development will be their undoing.  

Let's move onto one other issue I mentioned earlier as well: compatibility. Maybe for regular users it isn't so bad (although mac software is alot more expensive than windows software).

 

Such as?

 

But once you get into specialty programs things get a bit worse. Programs like Autocad and SOAPware, for instance, aren't natively supported. Now, there is boot camp or VMware out there which are supposed to work and alleviate this problem. Maybe it works for some.  It didn't work at my workplace (some 3500 networked computers). Another reason why the organization is just banning macs - it was hell for IT and was just plain bad for productivity. (note: calling 1800-myapple was also a waste).

 

See above.  There's no Final Cut Pro for Windows, by the way, so it goes both ways. Autocad, nor FCP for that matter, are the entire business software market.

This brings me to my last point: price. I don't see a practical advantage for regular users, but if they just like the eyecandy and the way they intereact with OS X, that's fine. But for a business? Hell no! From start to finish macs at the workplace were a total nightmare. There is no way to possibly justify paying so much for something that does so little. And is so hard to integrate. And that IT doesn't support. And that apple's own support can't fix.

 

Apple's system is based on designs that far pre-date Windows.  It's not just eye candy, though you may think so.  That you have an IT department that is ignorant reflects on them, not their desire to ban Macs.

 

About the "eye candy" as you put it: It was introduced to demonstrate the technology inbuilt into Mac OS X.  Compare this to Vista/Win7 which incorporated it purely for the sake of eye candy, and poorly at that. Apple provide this technology for developers to leverage so that they can make great software.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason why macs haven't made the kind of headway into the business sector that PCs have (although they must work for some since it is growing a bit).

Apple are hopeless at selling solutions to large businesses.


 

post #555 of 637


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post


Apple are hopeless at selling solutions to large businesses.

 

With this I have to disagree. Apple is just following a slightly different approach to this. Whether it will work remains to be seen, although it is working so far.

 

Basically, as I see it, Apple just reversed Dell's business strategy. What Dell originally did was mass market its computers to businesses as business machines. The philosophy was that if everyone at your workplace uses a dell, than most likely when it comes time to order a computer for home use employees would also order a Dell. It worked. And thus Dell grabbed both halves of the market.

 

Apple, unlike Dell, instead chose to market to the general public. The philosophy was that if the Mac is so very good for home use, then people might be tempted to try it out for  business use. And if a CEO happens to own a mac at home, he just might decide that for the next upgrade the entire company will get macs. It worked (so far at least). That's part of the reason apple's market share in the industry is growing.

 

They clearly didn't have the problems we did.

 

@Currawong

I'll also admit that your other points are salient. If I ever have the chance, I would certainly enjoy trying out a mac for personal computing. My experience at the workplace has (if you haven't guessed by now) left a bad taste in my mouth for macs, so trying them out at home would be nice. Heh, for that matter I would welcome the chance - should I find the time- to try out Ubuntu as well.
 


Edited by JxK - 6/1/10 at 12:17am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › PC to Mac: My Not-So-Genius Switch