Mac or PC?
August 11, 2005 2:55 PM Subscribe
Mac or PC?
I need a new computer. I'm really visually attracted to Steve Job's machine, but I'm wondering if I can get a better value with any PC. I need some computer help.
I need a new computer. I'm really visually attracted to Steve Job's machine, but I'm wondering if I can get a better value with any PC. I need some computer help.
Response by poster: Yeah. Thanks for the help, I need it.
posted by benkolb at 3:00 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by benkolb at 3:00 PM on August 11, 2005
What do you plan to use it for? Are there any specific applications you depend on? Is this a desktop or a laptop? Are you into playing the latest computer games?
We really can't meaningfully help you on this one without some more info.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 3:09 PM on August 11, 2005
We really can't meaningfully help you on this one without some more info.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 3:09 PM on August 11, 2005
Spend the extra money on the computer you want and then forget about it until you need a new one in a few years.
posted by billysumday at 3:10 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by billysumday at 3:10 PM on August 11, 2005
Toss a coin.
posted by cillit bang at 3:10 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by cillit bang at 3:10 PM on August 11, 2005
Not to get all tautological on you, but the better value depends on, umm, what you value. You're really venturing into intangibles. I've been a Mac user since day one (I had a 128K Mac), but even I'll admit that you can spend fewer dollars on a new PC than a Mac.
Whether you'll be as happy five minutes after you pull it out of the box, or twenty minutes (by which point it's probably already infected by a virus) is another question. If you like the Macs, frankly, the monetary difference is not so great that you should be dissuaded from getting one. Unless you're really counting every penny. It looks as if you've already got a computer, meaning you also have a keyboard and screen. A mac mini for $500 can be beat, but not by a lot.
posted by adamrice at 3:10 PM on August 11, 2005
Whether you'll be as happy five minutes after you pull it out of the box, or twenty minutes (by which point it's probably already infected by a virus) is another question. If you like the Macs, frankly, the monetary difference is not so great that you should be dissuaded from getting one. Unless you're really counting every penny. It looks as if you've already got a computer, meaning you also have a keyboard and screen. A mac mini for $500 can be beat, but not by a lot.
posted by adamrice at 3:10 PM on August 11, 2005
Yeah. More information is needed. For some people, macintosh is the right answer, for others, PC.
it really depends on what you are used to and what you want to do with it. What are you buying this for? Work, school, games, audio, graphics-processing, 3d rendering, developing, video-editing? Laptop or desktop?
posted by fishfucker at 3:12 PM on August 11, 2005
it really depends on what you are used to and what you want to do with it. What are you buying this for? Work, school, games, audio, graphics-processing, 3d rendering, developing, video-editing? Laptop or desktop?
posted by fishfucker at 3:12 PM on August 11, 2005
Power, good price, games - PC
Reliability, good third party support, ease of use - Mac
posted by Navek Rednam at 3:13 PM on August 11, 2005
Reliability, good third party support, ease of use - Mac
posted by Navek Rednam at 3:13 PM on August 11, 2005
If you're going for a laptop with lots of features, you'll get more value per dollar from an iBook than with any Wintel alternative.
posted by Rothko at 3:15 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by Rothko at 3:15 PM on August 11, 2005
Mac unless you've got a compelling reason (i.e. software) to go PC.
posted by singingfish at 3:15 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by singingfish at 3:15 PM on August 11, 2005
I was a Windows user for years (since late 80s) always citing Apple's price tag as the reason I didn't switch each time I upgraded (went thru a lot of PCs in that time).
Three and a bit years ago I bought my first Mac. If I weren't such a sweetheart I'd have spent those 3 years kicking myself for not switching sooner. Though my Mac experience has not been problem free, I've spent a miniscule amount of time fighting with it.
If you have the money and *can* part with it for the Mac, I suggest you do so... unless you're a big gamer. That's the only reason I'd encourage someone to stay on Windows.
posted by dobbs at 3:18 PM on August 11, 2005
Three and a bit years ago I bought my first Mac. If I weren't such a sweetheart I'd have spent those 3 years kicking myself for not switching sooner. Though my Mac experience has not been problem free, I've spent a miniscule amount of time fighting with it.
If you have the money and *can* part with it for the Mac, I suggest you do so... unless you're a big gamer. That's the only reason I'd encourage someone to stay on Windows.
posted by dobbs at 3:18 PM on August 11, 2005
get both!
posted by nimsey lou at 3:29 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by nimsey lou at 3:29 PM on August 11, 2005
Yeah, but you can’t run AutoCad, Revit or 3dsMax on a Mac.
Of course we’d have to know what you’re gonna use it for to know whether that’s relevant.
posted by signal at 3:42 PM on August 11, 2005
Of course we’d have to know what you’re gonna use it for to know whether that’s relevant.
posted by signal at 3:42 PM on August 11, 2005
Also, it should be noted, business applications are written almost exclusively for the PC platform (it makes sense for software vendors to target the platform with 92% of the market).
So, if you plan to use the computer for business, check that the software you want is available for the machine you want. I agree with the general consensus that the Macs are more fulfilling (and less frustrating) to use, but you can definitely get a faster machine for quite a bit less money. Check the Dell ads, and you'll see that you can get a fully equipt machine for around $450, including a 17-inch flat-panel monitor.
Windows is pretty stable now, and sofware for Windows machines tends to be more abundant and lower priced.
posted by curtm at 3:42 PM on August 11, 2005
So, if you plan to use the computer for business, check that the software you want is available for the machine you want. I agree with the general consensus that the Macs are more fulfilling (and less frustrating) to use, but you can definitely get a faster machine for quite a bit less money. Check the Dell ads, and you'll see that you can get a fully equipt machine for around $450, including a 17-inch flat-panel monitor.
Windows is pretty stable now, and sofware for Windows machines tends to be more abundant and lower priced.
posted by curtm at 3:42 PM on August 11, 2005
business applications are written almost exclusively for the PC platform
Umm, this has been a civil thread so far, but I want to reword that for you:
"Specialized applications targeting niche business audiences are written exclusively for Windows, except when they're written exclusively for Mac, or for both. Or not at all.
"Never mind."
posted by Mo Nickels at 3:57 PM on August 11, 2005
Umm, this has been a civil thread so far, but I want to reword that for you:
"Specialized applications targeting niche business audiences are written exclusively for Windows, except when they're written exclusively for Mac, or for both. Or not at all.
"Never mind."
posted by Mo Nickels at 3:57 PM on August 11, 2005
Windows XP is extremely stable - My new HP Laptop (5 months old) has not froze on me yet. I have arguably more power in my notebook then the 17 inch Power book gives and I got it for almost 1000 less (i paid 1720 for my 17 widescreen , i forgot to send in the rebate for another 60 off) and the Apple is selling for 2699 to get an apple notebook I would have had to go down to a 12 inch ... NEVER!
posted by crewshell at 3:57 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by crewshell at 3:57 PM on August 11, 2005
Do you own copies of software for one or the other that you need to run? Save a few bucks, then, by keeping with the machine that can run it. Otherwise, you're in the middle of this:
"PCs suck because of all of the viruses!"
"Oh yeah? Well Macs suck because not even virus writers support them!"
And on, and on, and on. Go to a place that has a hassle-free return and try both for a week.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 4:04 PM on August 11, 2005
"PCs suck because of all of the viruses!"
"Oh yeah? Well Macs suck because not even virus writers support them!"
And on, and on, and on. Go to a place that has a hassle-free return and try both for a week.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 4:04 PM on August 11, 2005
I've been a Mac user for years. I primarily use a PC at work. It really depends on what you'll be doing with it, as everyone has said. I had some Access dbs I had to work with at home, so I got Virtual PC and now have the best of both worlds (well, for me anyway). It's very excellent to be able to copy and paste between OS X and Win2k on the same machine.
Like curtm said, Windows is pretty stable now and so is OS X, I rarely experience a crash with either. With a Windows machine you can walk into any store and buy software, with a Mac you typically are more limited. The software exists, but it's easier to find online.
Good luck!
posted by jdl at 4:07 PM on August 11, 2005
Like curtm said, Windows is pretty stable now and so is OS X, I rarely experience a crash with either. With a Windows machine you can walk into any store and buy software, with a Mac you typically are more limited. The software exists, but it's easier to find online.
Good luck!
posted by jdl at 4:07 PM on August 11, 2005
I agree with singingfish:
Mac unless you've got a compelling reason (i.e. software) to go PC.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:30 PM on August 11, 2005
Mac unless you've got a compelling reason (i.e. software) to go PC.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:30 PM on August 11, 2005
I find it interesting how I almost never hear a person recommend a Windows system for the OS itself. It is almost always a qualified recommendation, "It has the most x", or"you can play games on it.", or "at least it is cheap".
Personally, I find PCs almost unbearably clunky to use. Their spyware/virus/insecure-by-default problem can only be held off by careful sysadmin and extremely aggressive protective actions which diminish the whole thing for me. I program on Linux at work, and have Macs all around at home, because I don't really enjoy sysadmin/tech-support anymore. Once you go Mac, you are unlikely to ever change back to Windows.
Add my voice to the chorus:
Mac unless you've got a compelling reason (i.e. software) to go PC
posted by Invoke at 4:40 PM on August 11, 2005
Personally, I find PCs almost unbearably clunky to use. Their spyware/virus/insecure-by-default problem can only be held off by careful sysadmin and extremely aggressive protective actions which diminish the whole thing for me. I program on Linux at work, and have Macs all around at home, because I don't really enjoy sysadmin/tech-support anymore. Once you go Mac, you are unlikely to ever change back to Windows.
Add my voice to the chorus:
Mac unless you've got a compelling reason (i.e. software) to go PC
posted by Invoke at 4:40 PM on August 11, 2005
I'm going to go out on a limb as a mac based photoshop user and suggest a coin toss. If you already own expensive apps on platform go with that one. Ultimately, both platforms suck in significant ways they just, to coin a phrase, "Suck Different."
posted by shagoth at 4:55 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by shagoth at 4:55 PM on August 11, 2005
I really think you can go either way, but if we are talking about a desktop, I would go with a pc. The price difference is pretty significant.
I really think people need to stop downloading so much porn and illegal shit if they get a virus in the first twenty minutes of use. Seriously people, I know the last pc you used was windows 98, but things are really on the up and up. I have never had any problems with my windows 2000 pro machine. It blows away my g4 powerbook speedwise (although this is not a fair comparison since it is a athlon 64 bit) and does everyting i need on it.
I repeat, you will not get any viruses if you use firefox, don't download a bunch of shit, and don't open random email attachments.
Although laptop wise I love my powerbook and would recommend going with a mac because the nice looking hardware and screen. I also don't see as much of a price difference.
Hope this helps, you really can't go to wrong either way.
posted by meta87 at 5:07 PM on August 11, 2005
I really think people need to stop downloading so much porn and illegal shit if they get a virus in the first twenty minutes of use. Seriously people, I know the last pc you used was windows 98, but things are really on the up and up. I have never had any problems with my windows 2000 pro machine. It blows away my g4 powerbook speedwise (although this is not a fair comparison since it is a athlon 64 bit) and does everyting i need on it.
I repeat, you will not get any viruses if you use firefox, don't download a bunch of shit, and don't open random email attachments.
Although laptop wise I love my powerbook and would recommend going with a mac because the nice looking hardware and screen. I also don't see as much of a price difference.
Hope this helps, you really can't go to wrong either way.
posted by meta87 at 5:07 PM on August 11, 2005
I can prove that Macs do not cost more than PCs in what is known as "total cost of ownership." In fact, I estimate they cost me 20-30 percent *less* than comparably spec-ed PCs.
Spend an hour sometime on the phone to Dell telephone support (and you will spend many) and you'll wish you'd bought a Mac. I run a lab full of macs, pcs, and linux boxes. The Macs cost less and do more. Unless you have specialized needs for PC-only software, a Mac will make you a lot happier for longer.
As for the cost of software, it's not really relevant unless you have a stash of very recent versions of expensive apps. And there is TONS of free software and shareware for the Mac OS X platform. A huge percentage of all the best open-source apps have been ported to OSX, since it's a unix-based OS. As someone who uses PCs and Macs every day, in a heavy duty environment (AV production, database serving, etc.) there is no question in my mind which is the superior machine on almost every point of comparison, price very much included.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:21 PM on August 11, 2005
Spend an hour sometime on the phone to Dell telephone support (and you will spend many) and you'll wish you'd bought a Mac. I run a lab full of macs, pcs, and linux boxes. The Macs cost less and do more. Unless you have specialized needs for PC-only software, a Mac will make you a lot happier for longer.
As for the cost of software, it's not really relevant unless you have a stash of very recent versions of expensive apps. And there is TONS of free software and shareware for the Mac OS X platform. A huge percentage of all the best open-source apps have been ported to OSX, since it's a unix-based OS. As someone who uses PCs and Macs every day, in a heavy duty environment (AV production, database serving, etc.) there is no question in my mind which is the superior machine on almost every point of comparison, price very much included.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:21 PM on August 11, 2005
I don't mean to get into an argument and this really was a loaded question that was questioned, but how exactly did you prove they are cheaper?
I mean who actually calls the support lines? I usually just use google.
I have nothing against macs and actually have a great powerbook, but I don't see how you can just throw that out there.
posted by meta87 at 5:26 PM on August 11, 2005
I mean who actually calls the support lines? I usually just use google.
I have nothing against macs and actually have a great powerbook, but I don't see how you can just throw that out there.
posted by meta87 at 5:26 PM on August 11, 2005
I use a PC at my office and have a Mac ibook G4 for home and travel. I thought that the environments would be radically different but find that I use both with no problem. Apple needs to get with it and make a 2 button mouse (or pad) but otherwise the Mac is great. Still, there's a lot to be said for PCs. 6 of 1...
posted by lois1950 at 5:32 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by lois1950 at 5:32 PM on August 11, 2005
lois1950 writes "Apple needs to get with it and make a 2 button mouse"
Ahem.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:38 PM on August 11, 2005
Ahem.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:38 PM on August 11, 2005
"Apple needs to get with it and make a 2 button mouse"
They have.
posted by clh at 5:45 PM on August 11, 2005
They have.
posted by clh at 5:45 PM on August 11, 2005
If you're going for a laptop with lots of features, you'll get more value per dollar from an iBook than with any Wintel alternative.
Seconded. My iBook was my first laptop, and my first mac. I made the choice on specs alone. You'd be hard pressed to get a PC laptop with 3 hours of battery life for a grand.
The software is, well, "softer" to judge. I find OS X simpler, and more fun to use than XP for the most part. You will probably find the same, but no promises.
posted by Popular Ethics at 5:58 PM on August 11, 2005
Seconded. My iBook was my first laptop, and my first mac. I made the choice on specs alone. You'd be hard pressed to get a PC laptop with 3 hours of battery life for a grand.
The software is, well, "softer" to judge. I find OS X simpler, and more fun to use than XP for the most part. You will probably find the same, but no promises.
posted by Popular Ethics at 5:58 PM on August 11, 2005
If you're going for a laptop with lots of features, you'll get more value per dollar from an iBook than with any Wintel alternative.
Unless you mean PC-card slots or screen resolution as features because the iBook offers neither. Where mainstream PC laptops between $1000 and $1500 are 1280x800 now, the iBooks still come in at 1024x768.
Truthfully raw hardware specs and features make those same PC laptops compare to Apple's $2k+ 15" Powerbooks. Nice machines yes, but here the Apple tax is pretty steep. Don't get me wrong, I use a 15" Powerbook and love it and don't think anybody should consider a laptop with a lower res screen in this day and age.
posted by shagoth at 6:03 PM on August 11, 2005
Unless you mean PC-card slots or screen resolution as features because the iBook offers neither. Where mainstream PC laptops between $1000 and $1500 are 1280x800 now, the iBooks still come in at 1024x768.
Truthfully raw hardware specs and features make those same PC laptops compare to Apple's $2k+ 15" Powerbooks. Nice machines yes, but here the Apple tax is pretty steep. Don't get me wrong, I use a 15" Powerbook and love it and don't think anybody should consider a laptop with a lower res screen in this day and age.
posted by shagoth at 6:03 PM on August 11, 2005
I've never heard of anyone switching from PC to Mac and regretting it.
And within days, I'll be making that switch, too.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:19 PM on August 11, 2005
And within days, I'll be making that switch, too.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:19 PM on August 11, 2005
Absolutely Mac if you: do open source development, need a UNIX prompt, want to never have a support headache again, develop Web sites, play music and just jazz around on the net, adore perfect typography.
Absolutely PC if you: want to play all the latest flashy games, want to use obscure Windows-only apps, need 100% compatability with everyone else, are addicted to MHz, have to develop using MS technologies, are comfortable dealing with support headaches.
To be honest, that's why you just get a Mac and then buy a console for your gaming requirements. My productivity has gone up (best year on record) and headaches shot down since I went to the Mac, and I used to get paid good money to fix PCs.. now I get paid good money to actually do what I want to do.
posted by wackybrit at 6:19 PM on August 11, 2005
Absolutely PC if you: want to play all the latest flashy games, want to use obscure Windows-only apps, need 100% compatability with everyone else, are addicted to MHz, have to develop using MS technologies, are comfortable dealing with support headaches.
To be honest, that's why you just get a Mac and then buy a console for your gaming requirements. My productivity has gone up (best year on record) and headaches shot down since I went to the Mac, and I used to get paid good money to fix PCs.. now I get paid good money to actually do what I want to do.
posted by wackybrit at 6:19 PM on August 11, 2005
Nobody's mentioned this, but as a 20-year Mac user, I will say sometimes I find the idea of building my own computer from almost-scratch (MOBO, CPU, graphics card, etc.) appeals to me as a tinkerer -- gamers do this on PCs but anyone can because it's sort of open source hardware... I'd buy a Mini with Superdrive (DVD burner), and buy or build a "white box" PC, and run both off a KVM switch. The Dell widescreens are supposedly the same LCD panels that Apple uses/used in its Cinema Displays.
What's that -- under $1K? Plus you get iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, etc. and Tiger, and whatever Windows is trying to go by these days.
posted by rleamon at 6:25 PM on August 11, 2005
What's that -- under $1K? Plus you get iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, etc. and Tiger, and whatever Windows is trying to go by these days.
posted by rleamon at 6:25 PM on August 11, 2005
Response by poster: Well, I'm a student. I don't play very many computer games at all. I don't need business software, so I guess Macs?
posted by benkolb at 6:29 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by benkolb at 6:29 PM on August 11, 2005
Best answer: I have and use both.
The PC (a desktop and a laptop) I use for general internet, e-mail, and gaming.
I'm a designer, and although I have the Adobe Suite on my PC, I switch to the Mac for creative work. I also manage all my personal stuff on the Mac; photos, MP3 library, etc.
High-end Macs are still exhorbitantly expensive if you're comparing specs to a PC, but I do prefer the Mac user experience to the PC, as virtually anyone else does.
But everyone else is right: it depends on what you're using it for. If you need to be compatible with everyone (especially clients) get a PC. If you want to play games, get a PC (though Macs have gotten much better in this area in the last few years). If you do creative work or want to manage your personal stuff, get a Mac.
The vast majority of other things (internet use, e-mail, P2P, etc.) is essentially a wash, as both platforms are more than capable.
And between PDFs, JPEGs, MP3s and Quicktime, you won't have any trouble sharing ANY sort of file with someone on the other platform (niche filetypes excepted.)
The best thing to do is give them both a demo. Go to an Apple Store nearest you and ask for a complete demonstration. Have in mind some things you think you'd like to be able to accomplish and ask or see how something like that would be done.
You'll actually be hard-pressed to find a similar demo situation for a PC (since there's no concerted retail effort to sell a particular brand or experience), but you can take what you saw and learned at an Apple Store, and go into a Best Buy or similar environment and see if the sales guy can show you how to do the same thing on a PC. You will be able to do everything, but it probably won't feel as "integrated".
On Preview: if you're a student, I'd lean towards a Mac. You should be able to get a decent discount using your student I.D, and they have a cheaper Office package for educational use.
posted by robbie01 at 6:42 PM on August 11, 2005
The PC (a desktop and a laptop) I use for general internet, e-mail, and gaming.
I'm a designer, and although I have the Adobe Suite on my PC, I switch to the Mac for creative work. I also manage all my personal stuff on the Mac; photos, MP3 library, etc.
High-end Macs are still exhorbitantly expensive if you're comparing specs to a PC, but I do prefer the Mac user experience to the PC, as virtually anyone else does.
But everyone else is right: it depends on what you're using it for. If you need to be compatible with everyone (especially clients) get a PC. If you want to play games, get a PC (though Macs have gotten much better in this area in the last few years). If you do creative work or want to manage your personal stuff, get a Mac.
The vast majority of other things (internet use, e-mail, P2P, etc.) is essentially a wash, as both platforms are more than capable.
And between PDFs, JPEGs, MP3s and Quicktime, you won't have any trouble sharing ANY sort of file with someone on the other platform (niche filetypes excepted.)
The best thing to do is give them both a demo. Go to an Apple Store nearest you and ask for a complete demonstration. Have in mind some things you think you'd like to be able to accomplish and ask or see how something like that would be done.
You'll actually be hard-pressed to find a similar demo situation for a PC (since there's no concerted retail effort to sell a particular brand or experience), but you can take what you saw and learned at an Apple Store, and go into a Best Buy or similar environment and see if the sales guy can show you how to do the same thing on a PC. You will be able to do everything, but it probably won't feel as "integrated".
On Preview: if you're a student, I'd lean towards a Mac. You should be able to get a decent discount using your student I.D, and they have a cheaper Office package for educational use.
posted by robbie01 at 6:42 PM on August 11, 2005
Unless you've got a compelling reason to run Windows: If you can afford a Mac, buy a Mac.
posted by cribcage at 6:46 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by cribcage at 6:46 PM on August 11, 2005
how exactly did you prove they are cheaper?
Not meaning to be inflammatory, just reporting my small lab's experience. We've got 7 workstations (3 Mac G5s, 4 PCs, 2 Sonys and 2 Dells). Sometimes we have more, if we're busy. We also have a Mac server and a linux server, and a few laptops. So over the course of a year I buy 2 or 3 machines and have watched the life cycles here for about 5 years. I also pay the bills. My biggest expense is labor. The students who work in my lab (on audio or video or web or image processing work) are far more productive on Macs, even when I compare work using the same applications (dreamweaver, acrobat pro, filemaker, etc.). Yet they also *prefer* the Macs and seem happier working on them. (Correlation, for sure. Causality seems assured.) Ergo, the Macs save me significant money. Since a computer is an individual productivity tool as well, if you value your time, place a price on the user experience. In addition, I could cite the usual litany, starting with security challenges on the PCs that waste a lot of very expensive time for me. Or I could show you the plain evidence that my PC workstations start to get crusty and obsolete at a two years old, retire to a printing and websurfing career for a year, and get stripped for parts. The Mac G4 tower serving my Filemaker database over the web is going on 5 years old and runs like a top, with a TB of storage and a gig of RAM. It clocks at 933, but under modest traffic (including fairly constant multi-GB uploads of audio and video) it's still snappy, secure (because security is easy to administer in OSX server for a guy who dabbles in unix) and it's outlasted a top-of-the-line Dell P3 workstation that was the last server. Macs cost me less.
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:57 PM on August 11, 2005
Not meaning to be inflammatory, just reporting my small lab's experience. We've got 7 workstations (3 Mac G5s, 4 PCs, 2 Sonys and 2 Dells). Sometimes we have more, if we're busy. We also have a Mac server and a linux server, and a few laptops. So over the course of a year I buy 2 or 3 machines and have watched the life cycles here for about 5 years. I also pay the bills. My biggest expense is labor. The students who work in my lab (on audio or video or web or image processing work) are far more productive on Macs, even when I compare work using the same applications (dreamweaver, acrobat pro, filemaker, etc.). Yet they also *prefer* the Macs and seem happier working on them. (Correlation, for sure. Causality seems assured.) Ergo, the Macs save me significant money. Since a computer is an individual productivity tool as well, if you value your time, place a price on the user experience. In addition, I could cite the usual litany, starting with security challenges on the PCs that waste a lot of very expensive time for me. Or I could show you the plain evidence that my PC workstations start to get crusty and obsolete at a two years old, retire to a printing and websurfing career for a year, and get stripped for parts. The Mac G4 tower serving my Filemaker database over the web is going on 5 years old and runs like a top, with a TB of storage and a gig of RAM. It clocks at 933, but under modest traffic (including fairly constant multi-GB uploads of audio and video) it's still snappy, secure (because security is easy to administer in OSX server for a guy who dabbles in unix) and it's outlasted a top-of-the-line Dell P3 workstation that was the last server. Macs cost me less.
posted by realcountrymusic at 6:57 PM on August 11, 2005
shagoth: Where mainstream PC laptops between $1000 and $1500 are 1280x800 now, the iBooks still come in at 1024x768..
Good point. Honestly thought, in laptop territory, battery life and weight are far more important than screen size. The bargain pc laptops you cite use desktop processors (P4s or celerons) which will eat a charge before you can finish watching a DVD, burn your nuts, and require 7lbs+ worth of battery. This is a different discussion however
I do reccommend a laptop though (PC or mac, but if PC, make sure it's a Pentium M, a.k.a. Centrino based model). The price is double what a desktop would cost, but nothing beats working while laying in bed :)
posted by Popular Ethics at 7:03 PM on August 11, 2005
Good point. Honestly thought, in laptop territory, battery life and weight are far more important than screen size. The bargain pc laptops you cite use desktop processors (P4s or celerons) which will eat a charge before you can finish watching a DVD, burn your nuts, and require 7lbs+ worth of battery. This is a different discussion however
I do reccommend a laptop though (PC or mac, but if PC, make sure it's a Pentium M, a.k.a. Centrino based model). The price is double what a desktop would cost, but nothing beats working while laying in bed :)
posted by Popular Ethics at 7:03 PM on August 11, 2005
I should add that the reason we have so many pcs is that my predecessor preferred them and built our main digitizing studio around a PC-specific hardware setup. So I kept buying new PC workstations for the studio every year (and the old studio boxes became lab workstations) until we just switched to a new Mac-based setup. I am retaining only one PC workstation going forward.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:16 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:16 PM on August 11, 2005
I work part-time with Apple, so take this with a giant salt shaker, but the iBook does have some incredible details to it that many Windows notebooks don't:
posted by themadjuggler at 7:21 PM on August 11, 2005
- Freefall detection on the hard drive
- Two button vertical and horizontal scrolling on the trackpad
- No external latches or hinges to get stuck on things
- It's 4.9 pounds for the 12" and 5.9 for the 14" But most importantly,
- Polycarbonate plastic (ie bullet-proof glass) casing + magnesium frame = incredible durability. I've lugged mine with big books in a shoulder bag (with no padding) all over here and in Europe for a couple years with no hardware issues.
posted by themadjuggler at 7:21 PM on August 11, 2005
Virtually everything laudatory that has been said in this thread about the iBook also applies to a Thinkpad T42 (at student prices, at least). I wouldn't know about IBM support, though, because my machine never breaks and I never have to fucking call them.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:09 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by Kwantsar at 8:09 PM on August 11, 2005
This is still a $1000 notebook with wireless internet, bluetooth, and 512 MB of RAM standard.
You'll spend at least another $600 (with student discount) for a Thinkpad with those kinds of features. Additionally, Thinkpads aren't made and supported by IBM any longer, so its difficult to say what will happen with the technical support and quality control.
posted by Rothko at 8:27 PM on August 11, 2005
You'll spend at least another $600 (with student discount) for a Thinkpad with those kinds of features. Additionally, Thinkpads aren't made and supported by IBM any longer, so its difficult to say what will happen with the technical support and quality control.
posted by Rothko at 8:27 PM on August 11, 2005
This whole argument reminds me of the US-built vs Japanese-built cars argument in the 80s. You know what? Both of them were nearly-equal in value, but each one had an advantage in a particular area (reliability vs. power, for example). At this point, if you're a conscientious user and stay up-to-date on your virus defs and OS patches, either one's going to serve you well for many years to come.
IMHO, of course.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:46 PM on August 11, 2005
IMHO, of course.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:46 PM on August 11, 2005
There is no best answer to your question, but put me in the apple camp, ibook especially. You can throw all the stats out the window:
Truthfully raw hardware specs and features make those same PC laptops compare to Apple
I can do everything I need to do on both, its just more enjoyable on a mac.
(and I get about 5 hours on my iBook)
posted by justgary at 9:12 PM on August 11, 2005
Truthfully raw hardware specs and features make those same PC laptops compare to Apple
I can do everything I need to do on both, its just more enjoyable on a mac.
(and I get about 5 hours on my iBook)
posted by justgary at 9:12 PM on August 11, 2005
I think you will find that the MeFi people are very much biased towards Macs, and IMHO for good reason. That said, I second the idea, if you do not know Macs that well, is to go to an Apple Store, try them out, and see what the best option for you is. I am sure you know what a PC feels like already :) Good luck from me as well and hope you go for a Mac, can't see why you should not unless there is some obscure application you need to use that is not available on an OS X/Unix platform. Oh, and the Microsoft Office package on a Mac is superior to the Windows one, funnily enough, trust me, I've spent way too many hours using both.
posted by keijo at 10:27 PM on August 11, 2005
posted by keijo at 10:27 PM on August 11, 2005
Just bought my first Mac yesterday, and truth be told, I'm finding OSX pretty counter-intuitive. I'll be sticking with it though, and I'm sure I'll get used to it in a while. What's interesting is how good KDE/linux is as a desktop environment these days. I'd say it's certainly worth consideration along with Windows and Mac.
posted by salmacis at 1:12 AM on August 12, 2005
posted by salmacis at 1:12 AM on August 12, 2005
I'm finding OSX pretty counter-intuitive.
That is to be expected if you're using any OS for the first time. Every unix/linux geek I know thinks the OS X GUI is the superior GUI for 'nix, although of course some think all GUIs are for wusses. So if you like KDE give OSX some time to grow on you. I think most people who routinely work in mixed platform environments (like many in this thread) would rank the OS X GUI as superior to XP or KDE, whatever they think about the guts of the OS behind the pretty pictures.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:04 AM on August 12, 2005
That is to be expected if you're using any OS for the first time. Every unix/linux geek I know thinks the OS X GUI is the superior GUI for 'nix, although of course some think all GUIs are for wusses. So if you like KDE give OSX some time to grow on you. I think most people who routinely work in mixed platform environments (like many in this thread) would rank the OS X GUI as superior to XP or KDE, whatever they think about the guts of the OS behind the pretty pictures.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:04 AM on August 12, 2005
I've just switched to a Mac mini, as my (relatively decent spec) PC was just getting more frustrating to use.
The Mac is nice and easy, although there is a definite learning curve. Programs still crash, but not as often - and they don't bring the whole system down.
Odd things do happen (occasionally my Bluetooth keyboard is not immediately recognised upon booting) just like they would Windows... except that for some reason when this happens on the Mac, it doesn't give me a Stressed Eric-style embolism!
One other thing to consider - if you're familliar with certain PC applications, be aware that the equivalent Mac version may not be as full-featured (although it may be the other way around), and it may do things in a different manner.
You might be able to buy the same software package (e.g. MS Office) but it is frighteningly expensive... I'm currently "making do" with AppleWorks... and hating every single loathsome minute of it. The database is crap, the spreadsheet is crap... argh!
posted by Chunder at 5:57 AM on August 12, 2005
The Mac is nice and easy, although there is a definite learning curve. Programs still crash, but not as often - and they don't bring the whole system down.
Odd things do happen (occasionally my Bluetooth keyboard is not immediately recognised upon booting) just like they would Windows... except that for some reason when this happens on the Mac, it doesn't give me a Stressed Eric-style embolism!
One other thing to consider - if you're familliar with certain PC applications, be aware that the equivalent Mac version may not be as full-featured (although it may be the other way around), and it may do things in a different manner.
You might be able to buy the same software package (e.g. MS Office) but it is frighteningly expensive... I'm currently "making do" with AppleWorks... and hating every single loathsome minute of it. The database is crap, the spreadsheet is crap... argh!
posted by Chunder at 5:57 AM on August 12, 2005
You'll spend at least another $600 (with student discount) for a Thinkpad with those kinds of features.
Well, no. No you won't. My school, at least, offers the 14" iBook with 3 years of AppleCare for $1549. It also offers the 2378-RRU Thinkpad for $1390. These appear to be pretty much identical specs. I don't know whether the 1.42 G4 is slower or faster than the P-M 1.7, but unless the Mac's a lot faster, I'm not sure that your value metrics hold up.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:25 AM on August 12, 2005
Well, no. No you won't. My school, at least, offers the 14" iBook with 3 years of AppleCare for $1549. It also offers the 2378-RRU Thinkpad for $1390. These appear to be pretty much identical specs. I don't know whether the 1.42 G4 is slower or faster than the P-M 1.7, but unless the Mac's a lot faster, I'm not sure that your value metrics hold up.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:25 AM on August 12, 2005
14" iBook with 3 years of AppleCare for $1549. It also offers the 2378-RRU Thinkpad for $1390.
Does the Thinkpad come with a 3 year warranty? If not, those aren't comparable prices. 3 years of AppleCare for a notebook is ca. $400.
MS Office [for Mac] . . . is frighteningly expensive"
Unless you know someone who is a student, a teacher, or has a kid in school, in which case you can buy the student and teacher edition with 3 (count 'em) legal installs for $99.
I know this has departed from the original question, so mods feel free to delete.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:29 AM on August 12, 2005
Does the Thinkpad come with a 3 year warranty? If not, those aren't comparable prices. 3 years of AppleCare for a notebook is ca. $400.
MS Office [for Mac] . . . is frighteningly expensive"
Unless you know someone who is a student, a teacher, or has a kid in school, in which case you can buy the student and teacher edition with 3 (count 'em) legal installs for $99.
I know this has departed from the original question, so mods feel free to delete.
posted by realcountrymusic at 7:29 AM on August 12, 2005
Well, the nice thing about getting a PC is that, if you know your way around computer hardware (or have friends who do), you can upgrade it cheaply without having to replace the whole damn thing. So they're not just cheaper computers, they're a lot cheaper and less wasteful in the long run, if you know what you're doing.
Of course, this doesn't apply to crappy PCs like HP/Compaq, more for homebuilt ones.
If you have lots of money, or don't know anyone who'll gladly mess around with your computer innards, or you want a laptop, go with a Mac.
posted by dagnyscott at 7:59 AM on August 12, 2005
Of course, this doesn't apply to crappy PCs like HP/Compaq, more for homebuilt ones.
If you have lots of money, or don't know anyone who'll gladly mess around with your computer innards, or you want a laptop, go with a Mac.
posted by dagnyscott at 7:59 AM on August 12, 2005
Does the Thinkpad come with a 3 year warranty? If not, those aren't comparable prices. 3 years of AppleCare for a notebook is ca. $400.
Yes, the Thinkpad comes with a three-year warranty.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:10 AM on August 12, 2005
you can upgrade it cheaply
And the difference between that and a Mac is . . . .?
Any upgrade you might do to a PC you can do with a Mac, with aftermarket parts. Even a processor upgrade (which almost never makes economic sense). G5s take 8 gigs of RAM, off the shelf ATA hard drives, and PCI-X cards. What's the difference? Anyway, it's all moot with Apple moving to x86 hardware.
On the thinkpad warranty, color me impressed. My favorite PC laptop of the last few years was a thinkpad. Quality throughout.
posted by realcountrymusic at 2:48 PM on August 12, 2005
And the difference between that and a Mac is . . . .?
Any upgrade you might do to a PC you can do with a Mac, with aftermarket parts. Even a processor upgrade (which almost never makes economic sense). G5s take 8 gigs of RAM, off the shelf ATA hard drives, and PCI-X cards. What's the difference? Anyway, it's all moot with Apple moving to x86 hardware.
On the thinkpad warranty, color me impressed. My favorite PC laptop of the last few years was a thinkpad. Quality throughout.
posted by realcountrymusic at 2:48 PM on August 12, 2005
umm, off the shelf S-ATA hard drives. sorry.
posted by realcountrymusic at 2:48 PM on August 12, 2005
posted by realcountrymusic at 2:48 PM on August 12, 2005
Sorry to hound on the iBook vs. Thinkpad question, but if you're talking about student discounts on one computer, don't forget them for the other... The Apple educational discount is the same anywhere you go, some schools just offer different packages for bigger savings-- so here's the standard educational pricing for the new iBooks + AppleCare (redeemable at any retail store or online):
12" iBook + AppleCare
$999 $949
+249 $183
= $1132
14" iBook + AppleCare
$1299 $1199
+249 $183
= $1382
posted by themadjuggler at 3:59 PM on August 13, 2005
12" iBook + AppleCare
+
= $1132
14" iBook + AppleCare
+
= $1382
posted by themadjuggler at 3:59 PM on August 13, 2005
I run the yearbook program at a small, private college. I am able to administer about 10 Macs with no real computer knowledge. That's impressive, in my mind. Too, several of our computers are quite old (300 MHz B&W G3s), dating back to 1999 or so, but yet they are running the most up-to-date operating system (10.4) quite well. That's impressive, too. Too many factors in the Macs favor to count. Best of luck!
posted by unclejeffy at 6:53 AM on October 30, 2005
posted by unclejeffy at 6:53 AM on October 30, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by ryanissuper at 2:57 PM on August 11, 2005