Mac versus Windows

[manchesteruk]

It's got to be windows for me.  I work in IT and we have around 50 macs and over 200 PC's.  I spend more time fixing the macs than the PC's go figure!  Also putting mac's onto a network produces laughable results there are several messageboards on the internet devoted completely to the bizzare problems caused.  Not to mention if you buy anything from apple you are paying 10-15% more than you should anyway because of the amount they spend on marketing to make them look coooool!

[chadnla]

i will say that i have had a better experience with MAC than PC.  but i will admit one of the reasons i purchased an 20" iMac was the design. i mean having the disk drive inside the monitor is an incredible idea. no CPU to take up space, just a sleek modernistic design (which is my style).  what also sold me was the entertainment factor..iLife, built-in cam, etc.

believe me it wasn't a quick decision. i went back and forth for 6mos before i moved forward with my MAC purchase. sure its more expensive on the surface, but my previous PC got some nasty viruses and ultimately crashed. can that happen with a MAC? possibly but hasn't yet for the most part. too me, that was a huge factor.  it's been 7 mos now and i've never had to run a virus program or buy one for that matter.

so i guess you really need to test drive both, figure out what you would really use and maybe talk to MAC users.  in addition, the MAC community seems to be quite helpful and when i needed questions answered there are tons of MAC forum websites to help you out.

bottom line, i haven't had this much fun with a computer since my first one many moons ago.

good luck in whatever you decide, but i'm not going to throw stones or nasty comments either way   

[GSOgymrat]

After much research I decided to get a HP Pavilion laptop with Vista. I seriously considered a Macbook but didn't make the switch because:
1) A Macbook with 2 gig RAM and 120 hard drive would have cost $1675, which is more than I wanted to spend
2) My beloved MP3 player would not work with it without installing Windows, another $250
3) It doesn't have any expresscard slot and I may want to get wireless broadband

My HP has a 14" display and weighs 5 lbs, which is the size I wanted. It has a AMD Turion 64 X2 processor, 120 hard drive and all the typical bells and whistles for $750 after rebates. I got an extra gig of RAM for $99. If I wasn't already invested in Windows-based products I might have spent the money on a Mac but for my purposes I'm very happy with this laptop.

[fondeveau]

 Wimp!  LOL - well, I'm sure you will be happy with your 'puter.

[Boo Radley]

I'm not gonna argue mac vs. pc because that horse is a can of glue.  It's subjective.  You might as well discuss religion.

I echo fearless's belief the Mac's OS is no more "intuitive" than Windows or another other gui or OS.  You must learn how to use each one before becoming anywhere near proficient. The Mac OS is not intuitive -- I mean, dragging a disk to the trash to expel it from the drive?   And yes, I've used OS X.

Some people like Macs, others like Windows (or are pretty much forced to deal with them as the biggest player in the monopolistic PC industry), LINUX, whatever.  Rarely does anyone change his/her preference unless forced to.  I used Mandrake LINUX for several years and would love to go back but getting all the crap (MP3 players, drives, bluetooth crap, etc. to run under LINUX would be more of a challenge than I am currently able to tackle (without going berserk and smashing everything to bits)).

Boo

[RapidRod]

Fighting with a PC running windows in bull crap. Set your updates to automatic and not worry about it. If you can't operate a simple system as windows, you might as well shut the computer down and forget about it. If you have a freeze, no need to shut down and reboot as in earlier windows, but then again I went to DeVry.

[aztecan]

My first computer was an IBM. To use it, I learned Fortran IV. I used to buy punchcards by the case.

I now have an e-Mac at home. Love it. I use a PC at work. I get by with it and haven't had too many problems, but then I don't do much but work-related business on it either.

It's like sex, while some things are more fun than others, use what you have at hand and enjoy.

HUGS,

Mark

[David_CA]

I think a lot of the 'instability' problems with PC's / Windows that Mac users talk about is that PC's can be assembled by any company or individual.  That's what I used to do at my previous job.  A well assembled PC from quality components is not cheap, but people want cheap.  They'll buy that $299 pc with 90 days of warranty and wonder why it lacks quality.  A Mac is not a clone and Apple can easily monitor quality control.  When you consider the all the manufacturers of motherboard, video cards, network cards, video capture cards, etc, is it any wonder that a PC can suffer from some reliability or stability issues?  There is certainly a greater number of options of PC configurations than Mac configurations.

At work, we use higher-end Dell notebooks, desktops, and servers.  We have a standard configuration that is incredibly stable.  These systems are so reliable that I buy them as surplus when they're replaced and re-sell them.  After a few dozen, I did have one with a bad floppy. 

As Boo said, neither are really all that intuitive.  Some people think Macs are cool, some don't like Bill Gates, and some want compatibility with the majority of software produced.  That's really the only difference I can see between Macs and PC's of recent vintage.

David

[Boo Radley]

I'm veering off-topic here but tough.  It seemed germane at the time.

When I managed a UNIX based library system one of the daily tasks dictated by the vendor was a physical reboot.  While supporting others' personal computers over the years it finally dawned on me to reboot as the first tactic with almost any type of problem (unless it appeared data might be lost) since many times the problem is resolved (at least initially...) after rebooting. 

Has anyone ever dealt with an operating system that doesn't need to be refreshed by a regular reboot?  I know some people swear their particular LINUX (or other, but certainly not Windoze!!)  OS runs for 3 months without a glitch but personally I am skeptical. 

Please discuss amongst yourselves.  I apologize again for hijacking...

Boo

[David_CA]

Has anyone ever dealt with an operating system that doesn't need to be refreshed by a regular reboot?  I know some people swear their particular LINUX (or other, but certainly not Windoze!!)  OS runs for 3 months without a glitch but personally I am skeptical. 

Actually, yes, and it's with Windows 2000 on a Dell Latitude C610 (84 days but I installed some software that required a reboot), Windows XP on a Latitude D610 (about 9 weeks, again, installed updates), Server 2003 (many, many months; only when I install an update), and Win XP on my Optiplex 270 at work (about 4 months).  I just installed Service Pack 2 on it around Thanksgiving 'cause I wanted to see how long before it needed a reboot but wanted the security updates that require SP2.  So, it certainly CAN be Windows.

David

[budndallastx]

Guys -
This is one of those "no-win" topics.  Macs and PC's have their pluses (and minuses).  Neither is perfect.  

Let's just agree on one thing, the guy in the Mac commercial is a cutie !!

http://patrickmccarron.com/images/applead.png

[Boo Radley]

Actually, yes, and it's with Windows 2000 on a Dell Latitude C610 (84 days but I installed some software that required a reboot), Windows XP on a Latitude D610 (about 9 weeks, again, installed updates), Server 2003 (many, many months; only when I install an update), and Win XP on my Optiplex 270 at work (about 4 months).  I just installed Service Pack 2 on it around Thanksgiving 'cause I wanted to see how long before it needed a reboot but wanted the security updates that require SP2.  So, it certainly CAN be Windows.

David

You just installed SP2?  You are conservative!  I have to admit that running Windows Server 2000 and 2003 was relatively pain-free and daily reboots were not required.  My experience with every one from Windows 3.1 to NT to 2000 to XP was that, at least for me, the machine was noticeably sluggish as time wore on and rebooting improved performance.   There were also regular system-wide problems that made rebooting necessary but maybe it was the cheap library vendor software we used, probably ported from a DOS 3.1 platform.    I certainly have no reason to doubt you so my inference is you have good ju-ju with MS software. 

Boo

[David_CA]

You just installed SP2?  You are conservative!  I have to admit that running Windows Server 2000 and 2003 was relatively pain-free and daily reboots were not required.  My experience with every one from Windows 3.1 to NT to 2000 to XP was that, at least for me, the machine was noticeably sluggish as time wore on and rebooting improved performance.   There were also regular system-wide problems that made rebooting necessary but maybe it was the cheap library vendor software we used, probably ported from a DOS 3.1 platform.    I certainly have no reason to doubt you so my inference is you have good ju-ju with MS software. 

Boo

Not so much conservative but I didn't want to reboot!  I keep so many IE windows open continuously, including these forums (10 open at the moment) plus Outlook (for work email), Outlook Express (for personal email), and a few work apps.  Of all our systems, I think the NT 4.0's were probably the most stable.  Positive PC / Microsoft karma is good when one works in IT!   

David