Arguments for Mac over PC

[vigormusic]

thank you very much sir.

 

[noodles2k5]

I haven't had very good experiences with USB hard drives - USB is not a good protocol for high bandwidth data transfer. As elevate stated above, firewire is much better.

I had actually typed Firewire at first but posted USB 2.0 because of its 480mbps compared to Firewire's 400mbps. It's not always faster in sustained throughput though. But that's beside the point. I meant you can get an external drive for higher performance.

And in the server market - where cost, performance, and reliability are much more important than image - nobody uses Mac.

That's funny. I work for this place called NASA and we use a few of them. And by a few, I mean I have over 20 in my office.

 

[Codmate]

in the pro realm macs are just used more in recording audio, editing video, and desktop publishing.

thare is probably a reason

The reason is their very ubiquity. It's a catch22 situation. The easiest way to spec out a studio is to copy what somebody else has, therefore if somebody influential is using a Mac so will others, regardless of whether the influential person knows anything about computers.

Apple is also very good at doing deals with educational institutions and getting their gear in there, which increases the chances of their gear being used in a professional context. If everybody is trained on Macs then obviously they will get used more.

They can both do the job - seriously, it's a pointless argument.
Just choose the one you prefer!

 

[Codmate]

I had actually typed Firewire at first but posted USB 2.0 because of its 480mbps compared to Firewire's 400mbps. It's not always faster in sustained throughput though. But that's beside the point. I meant you can get an external drive for higher performance.



That's funny. I work for this place called NASA and we use a few of them. And by a few, I mean I have over 20 in my office.

The new firewire standard (IEEE 1394b) supports 800mbps, but I don't know if any external HDDs support this yet.

 

[Polaris20]

One thing I can say about Apple in comparison to Windows is this:

Latest benchmarks for Tiger just came out (I'll find the link if anyone's really interested) and even a lowly 400Mhz G3 runs great with it, and actually it runs faster on that and every chip above it than 10.3.8 did. Apple increased the performance with a new version of the OS.

Microsoft, on the other hand, released preliminary minimum requirements for Longhorn: 3Ghz HT P4, 512MB RAM. It requires more resources.

Now taking the generous way of saying a 400Mhz G3 = a Pentium 800Mhz P3 in speed (which I think is a bit scewed in Apple's favor) and you can see how much better Apple is at efficiency. Ain't no way Longhorn's gonna run on an 800Mhz P3.

Anyway, I use XP, but on it's own partition strictly for audio, and for Office/Photoshop/internet/e-mail I use Fedora Core 3.

I plan to get an Apple laptop of some sort in the future.

So I like all platforms, I guess you could say

 

[bdemenil]

almost any PC still in use will run better on XP than on win98. Windows can often be run on a machine below the minimum requirement. But your point is well taken, efficient use of resources has taken back seat to new features.

BTW, partitioning decreases hardrive performance - the cache and I/O of the drive are then split between the partitions

 

[bdemenil]

That's funny. I work for this place called NASA and we use a few of them. And by a few, I mean I have over 20 in my office.

So that's what the government does with our money?

Mac maybe has maybe 1-2% of the US server market - and a negligible presence in the global market. It could be that the new line of Mac servers will gain popularity, but given that Sun wasn't able to compete in this realm with proprietary hardware, I think Apple faces major obstacles. In the 'for profit' market that is...

 

[vigormusic]

One thing I can say about Apple in comparison to Windows is this:

Latest benchmarks for Tiger just came out (I'll find the link if anyone's really interested) and even a lowly 400Mhz G3 runs great with it, and actually it runs faster on that and every chip above it than 10.3.8 did. Apple increased the performance with a new version of the OS.

I'd like to see that link if you could find it again.

 

[elevate]

Microsoft, on the other hand, released preliminary minimum requirements for Longhorn: 3Ghz HT P4, 512MB RAM. It requires more resources.

Comparing system resources for an OS that will be released in a couple weeks to an OS that may or may not be released in a year is a tad disingenuous. Tiger is far more like XP than it is to the projected featureset of Longhorn.

 

[HangDawg]

I personally can't stand spending hours fixing bad printer divers.

The problem may be you and not the computer. Ever think of that? All these people that say PCs are unstable just don't know how to maintain them.

 

[Polaris20]

Comparing system resources for an OS that will be released in a couple weeks to an OS that may or may not be released in a year is a tad disingenuous. Tiger is far more like XP than it is to the projected featureset of Longhorn.

Well, Longhorn was already supposed to be released, but due to setbacks is being held back.

And actually, Tiger will have more features than Longhorn will. I am not defending anything, just stating the facts.

Most of the innovative features of Longhorn aren't even going to be in the initial release, and the stuff that is is being backported to XP in a future service pack.

So, what's the point of Longhorn? I'll be staying with XP, at least for the next few years.

 

[vigormusic]

The problem may be you and not the computer. Ever think of that? All these people that say PCs are unstable just don't know how to maintain them.

I understand that and agree completely. My old pc was very unstable because I didn't care about it. I got my mac and reformatted my pc(and keep it in shape) so now I have two systems for the house.

 

[elevate]

Well, Longhorn was already supposed to be released, but due to setbacks is being held back.

That would be called feature creep.

And actually, Tiger will have more features than Longhorn will. I am not defending anything, just stating the facts.

How are you quantifying this? How do you know how many features will be in Longhorn. I'm an MSDN Universal subscriber, and as such am privy to a bit of insider info, but in no way do I have any idea how many features will be in Longhorn. So, unless you're employed by Microsoft, I fail to see how you can say with any degree of certainty that Longhorn will have less features than Tiger.

Avalon, Indigo, and WinFX are each, architecturally, much larger than anything being released in Tiger.

 

[Polaris20]

That would be called feature creep.

How are you quantifying this? How do you know how many features will be in Longhorn. I'm an MSDN Universal subscriber, and as such am privy to a bit of insider info, but in no way do I have any idea how many features will be in Longhorn. So, unless you're employed by Microsoft, I fail to see how you can say with any degree of certainty that Longhorn will have less features than Tiger.

Avalon, Indigo, and WinFX are each, architecturally, much larger than anything being released in Tiger.

WinFS in XP:

http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,120051,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp

Avalon and Indigo in XP:

http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=59301466

Longhorn features:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/Aug04/08-27Target2006PR.asp

If there's anything more groundbreaking, I'd be surprised. Of course I'd hope there'd be more features, for that kind of system requirements.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/

I don't see how Tiger is more like XP, but maybe I'm missing something. seems to me it's far more advanced.

I can tell you're more of a fan of MS, and that's fine. I use Windows too, but I am not biased towards something else just because I don't use it.

I just fail to see the point of Longhorn when it's 3 highly touted main features will probably end up in XP anyway.

 

[Polaris20]

Comparing system resources for an OS that will be released in a couple weeks to an OS that may or may not be released in a year is a tad disingenuous. Tiger is far more like XP than it is to the projected featureset of Longhorn.

And what is the featureset of Longhorn, besides Avalon, Indigo, and WinFS (which won't be in Longhorn right away anyway)?

I guess my whole point in this debate with you is that taking into consideration Avalon, Indigo, and WinFS, and comparing it to Tiger (and sorry, there are more people than just myself comparing the two) Longhorn comes up short.

But you're right; it's not out yet, so we shouldn't pass judgment.

http://news.com.com/An+early+peek+at+Longhorn/2100-1016_3-5671586.html?tag=nefd.lede

Interesting article. Talks about comparisons between Tiger and Longhorn.

Allchin stressed that Microsoft has broken new ground in Longhorn. For example, document icons are no longer a hint of the type of file, but rather a small picture of the file itself. The icon for a Word document, for example, is a tiny iteration of the first page of the file

Wow, that's groundbreaking. Linux has had that for awhile now.

At the time, the company focused largely on the "under the hood" features of the OS--in particular, a new file system, Web services architecture and the presentation system.

And???? What else significant will be in there?

Since then, Microsoft has significantly reshaped the OS. Last year, the company announced that it would pull out the new file system and that the Web services and presentation pieces would also be made available for Windows XP.

As an IT person involved with the direction of choices when it comes to desktop platforms, I watch with cautious interest.

 

[elevate]

WinFS in XP:
Avalon and Indigo in XP:

These are Longhorn technologies that are being worked into XP. This is kind of like giving game developers pre-release copies of an X-Box or PlayStation. These are core technologies that Microsoft wants fully exploited by developers when Longhorn drops.

If there's anything more groundbreaking, I'd be surprised. Of course I'd hope there'd be more features, for that kind of system requirements.

As if a brand new filesystem, a brand new display layer, a brand new communications infrastructure, and a brand new managed API are not groundbreaking enough? These are all serious under the hood things.

I don't see how Tiger is more like XP, but maybe I'm missing something. seems to me it's far more advanced.

Aside from miscellaneous little utility apps, what's so much more advanced? CoreImage is being touted as something incredibly fabulous, but it's really just a simplified version of the various DirectX calls - that is, simply a hardware abstraction layer to more easily fascilitate display functionality. I've seen FileVault heralded as something great - welcome to Windows circa 5 years ago. I'll admit that Tiger has more bundled apps than Windows does, but this is an area where Microsoft has to tread lightly anyway. And besides, do you really want to establish a trend where you, the OS company, copies or buys out every developer for your platform? Regardless, Tiger has more stuff that you need a 3rd party app for in Windows, but in so much as it being more "advanced", I don't see it. Perhaps you can shed some light here.

I can tell you're more of a fan of MS, and that's fine. I use Windows too, but I am not biased towards something else just because I don't use it.

I use and prefer Microsoft stuff, but I do own a Powerbook, and I will give Apple credit when they're due it.

 

[Polaris20]

Regardless, Tiger has more stuff that you need a 3rd party app for in Windows, but in so much as it being more "advanced", I don't see it. Perhaps you can shed some light here.


I use and prefer Microsoft stuff, but I do own a Powerbook, and I will give Apple credit when they're do it.

And I'll give MS their credit when they deserve it. But I've yet to see it, and I've seen the hype before.

Anyway, I won't debate this with you anymore, there's not much point to it, since there's an obvious difference in opinion.

 

[elevate]

And I'll give MS their credit when they deserve it. But I've yet to see it, and I've seen the hype before.

Exactly, yet to see it, and already claiming Tiger is more advanced and has more features, yet you still won't tell me what exactly makes it more advanced.

 

[Polaris20]

Exactly, yet to see it, and already claiming Tiger is more advanced and has more features, yet you still won't tell me what exactly makes it more advanced.

Actually, I said:

I don't see how Tiger is more like XP, but maybe I'm missing something. seems to me it's far more advanced.

I was comparing XP and Tiger, not Longhorn, in respect to level of advancement. If you're referring to me not seeing Tiger yet and already claiming it's more advanced than XP? Well, I think Panther's more advanced than XP, personally.

As far as features, Tiger has 200 new features (I know, many little misc. "neato" features). Longhorn has 3 new features.

Now, like you said, these are major features. But when these features will be available in XP, I still don't get the point of buying Longhorn.

I also don't get why Windows gets less efficient with each release, OSX gets more efficient with each release.

 

[bdemenil]

As far as features, Tiger has 200 new features (I know, many little misc. "neato" features). Longhorn has 3 new features.

Come on - this statement makes no sense and you know it. Do you really think MS won't bundle all kinds of dinky, questionably useful 'features' into Longhorn - same as Apple with Tiger.

Really, I think Elevate has a point here. It's foolish to make categorical statements about products that aren't available yet. It's all speculation.

Comparing the level of 'advancement' of these OSes doesn't make sense either. By what criteria?

It's an interesting point this claim that XP is less resource efficient than OSX. Is there a benchmark to prove it? For instance, the OSX GUI has all kinds of animation that must be very resource draining. Efficiency is hard to measure, since the two OSes won't run on the same hardware. I don't think minimum hardware requirements really tell you much either.