What makes a pc better than a mac?

Respital

Active Member
I like this one.
pc-gun.jpg

mac-pc-motorcycle-777073.jpg


this pretty much sum it up. But in my opinion a pc is more customisable it feels, more of YOUR pc cause you can build it from scratch. Yes the mac may be better for photoshopping, and it may have ddr3 ram and crap but whats the point in this if you cant play a sodding game on it? If macs are so bloody amazing why cant they play games? XD they are also completely overpriced and a fashion item lol.

+1 :good:
 

ganzey

banned
+1, what do they have that makes them any more useful?
(note the last half of the sentence)

that what i was tryin to get out, macs dont even have i7 yet, and even when they do, you will have to buy a WHOLE new $2000+ computer, cause MACS ARENT UPGRADEABLE.
 

Ethan3.14159

Active Member
that what i was tryin to get out, macs dont even have i7 yet, and even when they do, you will have to buy a WHOLE new $2000+ computer, cause MACS ARENT UPGRADEABLE.
Really? Because I upgraded my Macbook Pro from 2 to 4Gb of RAM as soon as I got it, and I plan to upgrade to a 500 Gb HDD in the near future... I guess they aren't upgradeable.

Also, look up prices before you say dumb things. A 21.5" iMac is $1200. Which has a 3 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of DDR3, 500 GB HDD, a IPS display with 1920 x 1080 resolution, and it's all-in-one. Can you build all of that in a the back of a monitor? Didn't think so. Also, look up how much that quality of monitor will cost you from any other company. Especially try to find an equivalent to the 27" iMac. A 2560 x 1440 IPS based monitor.

And PS. The 27" iMac has Core i5... all-in-one as well.

Oh, PPS... The Mac Pro's have 2 Xeon CPU's.... a little bit better than your average i7.

Another thing... Look at how look a system with those specifications will stay fast on Mac OS X compared to Windows. An iMac will easily last 8+ years, and still be lightning quick because it's using a lightweight UNIX based OS. So, an average person will buy 2-3 computers in that time. So, the cost actually becomes less considering that Mac's have a much longer life compared to Windows computers.
 
Last edited:

TrainTrackHack

VIP Member
Mac desktops aren't nowhere as upgradable as PC desktops, but Macbooks and PC laptops are more or less in the same boat - practically the only components you can really upgrade are RAM and the HD.
 

Drenlin

Active Member
^ Me and tlarkin just had a pretty big argument about that. Most of them may not be very upgradable, but PC laptops still allow a lot more stuff to be added than Macs do.
 

Ethan3.14159

Active Member
Okay, but the average computer user has no idea how to upgrade their PC or Mac. So, they'll usually take it somewhere to get it upgraded. (Geek Squad, local computer shop, etc) And there are places to do that for Macs as well. :eek:

And Mac's don't come underpowered for the OS like a lot of PC laptops and desktops do. They all fly through OS X, even the lowest end Macbook.
 

Drenlin

Active Member
Depends entirely on the model. Could range form something simple like pcie cards, to a full GPU/CPU swap.
 

tlarkin

VIP Member
exactly what hardware architecture do they have that pc's dont?

First and foremost look up EFI

Second, the latest models of Macs went away with memory controllers and now the CPU accesses the RAM directly though the bus, and not through a controller, and on dual processor units they have two buses, 1 for each processor. Then they have grand central dispatch in the OS to help stream line resource management between the hardware.

Full on 64 and 32 bit support native, with out having to pay extra or add in an extra disk for 64 bit support. Both library files are present.

No registry.
 

gamerman4

Active Member
can this thread be closed all ready? =]
That would ruin the fun, I love watching these threads to see how ignorant PC fanboys are. I dislike OSX (the OS, not the hardware) for legitimate personal preference reasons but these guys are pulling out the same things that have been in use for years.

Nothing makes one system better than another system other than the person using it. Just look at Linux, the people that use Linux usually don't mind an extra hour of troubleshooting in order to get simple things to work. Linux guys are usually the troubleshooting type anyways so they find it fun.

Basing an argument on what OS is superior by ease of use would put Linux at the bottom. There are is single factor that you can grade an OS on. An OS is an OS, it's just a box of tools. Each OS has it's own tools in its box but all the tools are basically the same. How can you possibly grade an OS on prescribed merits when those merits are based on personal opinion? Some argue that one OS is better because it handles networks better, some people couldn't care less about how an OS handles networking. It is the same way with every other ignorant metric of what makes an OS "superior".

For me, Windows is what I prefer because I like the taskbar and the start menu. Both are useful to me and I can get to what I want faster with those than I can with just a dock and Finder. I found the dock to be a decent app launcher but I thought it shouldn't be the launcher for all the apps on my system but I wanted a quick way of finding other apps that aren't on the dock so I like the Start Menu. In Vista and before, I used ObjectDock because it provided the app launching functionality of the OSX dock but at the same time I could keep the window management funcionality of the taskbar. With Windows 7 I have completely abandoned ObjectDock. The new taskbar provides what I want in an app launcher plus the same window management facility. The start menu lets me type exactly what I want and finds it. If I type even a few letters of the program I want, the search feature starts to narrow down the possibilities. I could actually use OSX in its current state but for one thing. The mouse acceleration is the worst of all OSs I have ever used. Even OS9 had a better acceleration curve. Trying to do slow movement in OSX feels like you're dragging the mouse through frozen syrup, sometimes I think that for every inch my mouse moves, the cursor moves 1 pixel. Of course, the acceleration is fine when moving at a normal pace but as a graphic designer I like the feel of the Windows mouse acceleration curve because it slows my mouse down enough to do slow intricate movements but not so much that I feel like I have to have a 20 foot mouse pad in order to do those movements.
Again those are all personal preferences and some may enjoy what I find annoying because we all have our own requirements for what we want to do in an OS.
 
Last edited:

ganzey

banned
Really? Because I upgraded my Macbook Pro from 2 to 4Gb of RAM as soon as I got it, and I plan to upgrade to a 500 Gb HDD in the near future... I guess they aren't upgradeable.

Also, look up prices before you say dumb things. A 21.5" iMac is $1200. Which has a 3 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of DDR3, 500 GB HDD, a IPS display with 1920 x 1080 resolution, and it's all-in-one.

Yeah, thats a DUAL CORE. and i7 is a QUAD CORE. a mac with an i7 would cost wayyy more than one with a c2d
 

just a noob

Well-Known Member
the lack of games/hardware is what really kills the mac for me, the price as well, seeing as i can build the same thing for less, essentially(i know you've already discussed this, but i'm saying, i would rather build my pc than go through voodoo, or falconpc)
 

Ethan3.14159

Active Member
Yeah, thats a DUAL CORE. and i7 is a QUAD CORE. a mac with an i7 would cost wayyy more than one with a c2d
And an iMac with i5 costs $1700, with a 27" 2560 x 1440 monitor. And it's all in one. Again I'll ask if you can build it for that price in the back of a monitor or do you even know of any PC manufacturer that does?

Do some research.
 

tlarkin

VIP Member
That would ruin the fun, I love watching these threads to see how ignorant PC fanboys are. I dislike OSX (the OS, not the hardware) for legitimate personal preference reasons but these guys are pulling out the same things that have been in use for years.

Nothing makes one system better than another system other than the person using it. Just look at Linux, the people that use Linux usually don't mind an extra hour of troubleshooting in order to get simple things to work. Linux guys are usually the troubleshooting type anyways so they find it fun.

Basing an argument on what OS is superior by ease of use would put Linux at the bottom. There are is single factor that you can grade an OS on. An OS is an OS, it's just a box of tools. Each OS has it's own tools in its box but all the tools are basically the same. How can you possibly grade an OS on prescribed merits when those merits are based on personal opinion? Some argue that one OS is better because it handles networks better, some people couldn't care less about how an OS handles networking. It is the same way with every other ignorant metric of what makes an OS "superior".

For me, Windows is what I prefer because I like the taskbar and the start menu. Both are useful to me and I can get to what I want faster with those than I can with just a dock and Finder. I found the dock to be a decent app launcher but I thought it shouldn't be the launcher for all the apps on my system but I wanted a quick way of finding other apps that aren't on the dock so I like the Start Menu. In Vista and before, I used ObjectDock because it provided the app launching functionality of the OSX dock but at the same time I could keep the window management funcionality of the taskbar. With Windows 7 I have completely abandoned ObjectDock. The new taskbar provides what I want in an app launcher plus the same window management facility. The start menu lets me type exactly what I want and finds it. If I type even a few letters of the program I want, the search feature starts to narrow down the possibilities. I could actually use OSX in its current state but for one thing. The mouse acceleration is the worst of all OSs I have ever used. Even OS9 had a better acceleration curve. Trying to do slow movement in OSX feels like you're dragging the mouse through frozen syrup, sometimes I think that for every inch my mouse moves, the cursor moves 1 pixel. Of course, the acceleration is fine when moving at a normal pace but as a graphic designer I like the feel of the Windows mouse acceleration curve because it slows my mouse down enough to do slow intricate movements but not so much that I feel like I have to have a 20 foot mouse pad in order to do those movements.
Again those are all personal preferences and some may enjoy what I find annoying because we all have our own requirements for what we want to do in an OS.

You know as far as UI features goes, OS X has probably the most. The difference is, their keyboard short cuts and methods they use by keystroke or search to find an application or file are just different than Windows. You are used to windows and you like it, and you admit that is why. Which is what it comes down to as far as end user preferences.

Now the technology under each OS, that is a whole different story. Most people care less though, like you said, they just want it to work, which is another great things Mac does. In fact, if you had never in your life ever touched a computer and I sat you in front of a Mac and a Windows box, I think you would most likely find the Mac more intuitive.

However, here in the USA, that is pretty damn rare, especially these days where there are computers in pretty much every class room. Even when I was in school my school had several old computers and once I hit high school we had labs of computers.

The first school system I worked for had over 10,000 PCs in it. All running Windows and only about 300 or so Macs. So, even as a kid you are more exposed to Windows. However, over the past 7 years or so that has started to change as Linux jumped up a whole percent, and now has about a 2% market share and Apple has just under 10% market share.

Most people that try Mac or Linux switch back to windows with in a few weeks or maybe a month or two. They never actually sit down and learn the platform. To be honest, in my opinion, you will need to sit down with something for at least a year every day to get a full hang of it. It took me several years to even like Macs, as I didn't like the classic OSes and 10.0 and 10.1 really did not impress me all that much. 10.2 I was like, OK, this is getting better and I jumped into using Macs.

I doubt most people even know the differences like Unix POSIX permissions, and why by design it is, I dunno, 500 times more secure than Windows versions of permissions. Then again, I don't really expect people to know either, because if they did they would probably lean more towards a Unix like OS.
 

bomberboysk

Active Member
First and foremost look up EFI

Second, the latest models of Macs went away with memory controllers and now the CPU accesses the RAM directly though the bus, and not through a controller, and on dual processor units they have two buses, 1 for each processor. Then they have grand central dispatch in the OS to help stream line resource management between the hardware.

Full on 64 and 32 bit support native, with out having to pay extra or add in an extra disk for 64 bit support. Both library files are present.

No registry.
The new mac's have a memory controller, it is just on the CPU die, just as the i5 and i7 cpu's that pc's use. You also ge two buses on dual processor xeon 5500 based motherboards.
that what i was tryin to get out, macs dont even have i7 yet, and even when they do, you will have to buy a WHOLE new $2000+ computer, cause MACS ARENT UPGRADEABLE.
Mac pro's have i7 cpu's, well technically xeons but they are for all intents and purposes the same cpu.
 
Top