If you're constantly having problems with a PC then you're likely to encounter similar problems with a Mac. While it's less likely that you'll contract malware, Macs can still get bogged down like any other computer when not properly maintained.
I would say that the only valid reasons to get a Mac would be preference of the Mac OS user interface over Windows, their top notch customer service, or because you think that they are stylish. If you think that Macs are somehow magically invincible and better with media applications then you'll likely be disappointed.
Personally, I prefer PCs because they run about 1/2 to 1/3 the price for an equal amount of power, and I've learned to maintain them so that I don't have the problems that you described. I also like the greater variety of programs available to PCs, and the fact that they're much easier to work on hardware-wise.
qft
in fact you can get a PC that has more power than a mac for 1/2 - 1/3 the price
How do you measure power of a computer though? By just hardware specs alone? There are more factors to consider, and I am not talking about macs versus PCs either. I am talking about how the OS handles the hardware. You can have the fastest desktop on the market but if you load, say Windows 98 on it, it is going to run like crap regardless of how fast the hardware is. That is a bad example, but you get my drift?
To say that you get more power for half the price is false. I think I paid $1400 for my last PC build, which is more expensive than both the iMac and the Mac mini which would be their two desktops to compare to.
Granted the only difference in my build really is that I got a quad core processor and I got a GTX 260 video card. Spec for spec on everything else is pretty much the same. So, it is hardly half the price.
How do you measure power of a computer though? By just hardware specs alone? There are more factors to consider, and I am not talking about macs versus PCs either. I am talking about how the OS handles the hardware. You can have the fastest desktop on the market but if you load, say Windows 98 on it, it is going to run like crap regardless of how
fast the hardware is. That is a bad example, but you get my drift?
To say that you get more power for half the price is false. I think I paid $1400 for my last PC build, which is more expensive than both the iMac and the Mac mini which would be their two desktops to compare to.
Granted the only difference in my build really is that I got a quad core processor and I got a GTX 260 video card. Spec for spec on everything else is pretty much the same. So, it is hardly half the price.
Imac 24", $2,199:
4GB Memory
3.06Ghz Core 2 Duo
GT130(Basically a 9600gt)
1TB HDD
You could prolly build a pc similar to this for that price(maybe more maybe less):
Core i7 920
Coolermaster V8
X58 motherboard
6gb Memory
GTX275/285
850W PSU
24" 1920x1200 monitor
Windows 7/Vista x64
2x 1TB hdd
Lets see, quad core itself is double the power of dual, plus its i7 so add in an extra 20% or so. Next about double the storage, 50% more memory, GPU immensely more powerful, Superior cooling. Now if you went mac pro vs pc you will get more similar in performance, but you can get more for the price with a pc..
Actually, a PC does cost relatively less than getting a personal Macintosh. Compare the same system built buy, say, HP or Dell, or even iBuyPower, and it costs less.I am not a fanboy of either, but misinformation is misinformation and every time you try to say that a PC is half the cost of a Mac I will prove you wrong every time.
lol wow a flame war
Why not just custom build a computer and install OS X on it if you don't like windows anymore.
Done.
Actually, a PC does cost relatively less than getting a personal Macintosh. Compare the same system built buy, say, HP or Dell, or even iBuyPower, and it costs less.
However, you can run whatever operating system you want on it.
Wha? Im talking the core i7 has an increased performance clock for clock over a core 2 dual/quad. More performance means more performance on any operating system. As for led backlit screens, add another $40-50 to a monitor. Apples main problem is that the imac uses laptop parts which cost more, they need something back like the cube, a somewhat user upgradeably tower within peoples budgets(unlike a mac pro for example). Even if you go for the lowest cost imac for example, your getting a 20" 1680x1050 display and specs than can be beat with a pc for $600 or so, the graphics arent even dedicated in the low end imac, they are integrated(which for the uses of many osx users, suits just fine). True you cant get that sexy full aluminum sleek enclosure, but you can get a nice tower case(for me i prefer my tower over an all in one, although many peoples opinions differ).+20% performance in what, running Windows? That is incorrect, the actual difference in running Windows on a dual core, quad core, or i7 is really nil because windows does not take advantage of such technologies, nor will it for a while. It took windows forever to take advantage of multiple cores, or address 64bit hardware.
Also, you must make sure that monitor is LED back lit for it to be comparable. I agree that it is cheaper and that is why I built a PC to play games with and I like it. However, to say that a custom built PC is half the price of an equivalent Mac is wrong, because you aren't comparing all the features.
It is just Apple's business model I don't think you all understand. It is much like the Asian car business model and which is what made Asian cars such a success. They are engineered upon a similar business model.
I am not a fanboy of either, but misinformation is misinformation and every time you try to say that a PC is half the cost of a Mac I will prove you wrong every time.
Also, who buys RAM from the manufacturer? No one does because all of them like to jack the price up. HP, Dell, Apple, and everyone else does that. Plus RAM is something that can be easily upgraded on almost any machine by anyone who can turn a screw driver.
No it doesn't because a mac has every bell and whistle you could want. You are going to have to match FW, FW800, 802.11ABGN wifi, bluetooth EDR, built in web cam (if you look at iMac or laptops), SMS sensor, ambient light sensor, LED back lit screens, so on and so forth. If you build a PC part for part matching what you get with a Mac it is not way cheaper, they are about the same price almost.
It isn't a flame war, it is just plain and simple facts.
With all those bells and whistles where the HELL is the SD card reader? It is such a lame thing to not have.
No it doesn't because a mac has every bell and whistle you could want. You are going to have to match FW, FW800, 802.11ABGN wifi, bluetooth EDR, built in web cam (if you look at iMac or laptops), SMS sensor, ambient light sensor, LED back lit screens, so on and so forth. If you build a PC part for part matching what you get with a Mac it is not way cheaper, they are about the same price almost.
Firewire is on pretty much any computer these days, 802.11ABGN cards can be had for $40-50 (if you even have the use/need for one), SMS is only on laptops i believe, ambient light sensor- ill give ya that one, even though its not that important, LED screens are not that much greater....Except they are brighter, Bluetooth can also be had with a simple usb dongle, many monitors these days have webcams built into them though. But the thing with a pc is- if you dont need any of those things, you dont have to pay for it, which is one place that apple fails, is at customizability.
Edit- Response to your 5 year old computer post, the G5's costed how much when they were released? YOu could have built a geforce 6800 card based system with an athlon x2 that would also run vistaI have nothing against macs/osx, thye have their place. But that place is not on my desk
![]()
Yeah but you can buy those for 5 bucks I bought an all in one like 9 card reader for 7 dollars at a computer store. I hear ya though some things are over looked.
My point is that even though it was more expensive, they do last longer. My first ibook I got lasted about 4 years with solid performance
ABGN wifi is also quite expensive in comparison to just BGN and A radios are more rare to find so it is not used as much thus it makes it more expensive.
+20% performance in what, running Windows? That is incorrect, the actual difference in running Windows on a dual core, quad core, or i7 is really nil because windows does not take advantage of such technologies, nor will it for a while. It took windows forever to take advantage of multiple cores, or address 64bit hardware.