its an option
Computer Science Canada Apple vs. Windows |
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Apple vs. Windows |
Okay, I'm still torn. Here's what I've got. iMac G5 vs. a comparably priced built custom PC. iMac +Stylish +Remote +No games. +OSX +Linux +64 bit +iLife +Smaller. +Portable. -Fewer USB ports -Not very upgradable. -sketchy dual monitor support Custom +More powerful. +More software. +Games. +Upgradable. +Linux +64 bit +dual monitor support +RAID +7800GTX +Half-life 2. -Windows -Bigger -More power consumption. -No real included software. Well, solitare. -Way less productivity (because of games). So I don't know. It's the gamer in me crying out in protest. I'm sure I'd be happy with either, but still, it's a big investment. So yeah. I need some advice (wtd:read convincing) here. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, with the iMac there are games. Just no Deer Hunter 2006 Wal-Mart Platinum Discount Edition. You're a programmer, right? I'd say +Xcode. Also, you have +Linux, but with Apple's X11 implementation, you can run a lot of that software side-by-side with native OS X apps. Dual-booting is cool... but a pain in the ass. Yeah, you could probably kinda sorta do the same with Windows, but it works out of the box with the Mac. With Mac OS X you have an actual functional command-line with lots of tools. Of course, there's the usual security stuff. Give me time and I can probably come up with more. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: -Windows -Bigger -More power consumption. -No real included software. Well, solitare. -Way less productivity (because of games). thaking - for windows is not fair, a pc dose not have to run windows. if i made a crapy os for mac in a few mins should that take away from it's rating? bigger is realtive, i have seen small form pcs that are smaller then macs. more power consumption is also realtive, this greatly verys depedning on the type of power supile and the hardware choices. the software one is only partly ture for windows, there are linux distros that come with an admazing amount of software. Also depedning on what u get some of the pcs that come with windows come with other M$ software like M$ office. way less productive b/c of games? now you are just being slilly. And how can you be productive with a mouse that only had one buttion??? That should be a negtive for the mac right there. What it comes down to is u can not comaper windows + pc and mac you have to comaper windows os vs the mac os and pcs vs macs hardware wise. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dan, the comparison here is Windows running on a PC vs. OSX running on a Mac. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you're really hurting for linux-type functionality on a "Windows" PC, you can always dual-boot. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tony wrote: Dan,
the comparison here is Windows running on a PC vs. OSX running on a Mac. then how can linux be a +? |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
its an option |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
*shakes head and walks away* |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: If you're really hurting for linux-type functionality on a "Windows" PC, you can always dual-boot.
Yes, but as mentioned, dual-boot is more of a pain than simply running X11 apps side-by-side with native apps for the Mac. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dual boot is only a bit of a pain to set up though. Once it's up and running, you're pretty much home free. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh the setup is pretty painless. It's just annoying to have to drop everything you're working on, save it, then reboot, start again, and when you're done, reboot again. If you can run both sets of programs in one environment, then you have a smooth workflow. |
|
| Author: | md [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cygwin is a very good for running *nix apps on windows; and what you can't run on cygwin you can run on another computer and use a local X11 server to see it  |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
can do the same with a mac... it's just a lot more integrated.. that's all. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Indeed. Lots of hackery... or... installed by default. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hacker Dan wrote: Quote: -Windows -Bigger -More power consumption. -No real included software. Well, solitare. -Way less productivity (because of games). thaking - for windows is not fair, a pc dose not have to run windows. if i made a crapy os for mac in a few mins should that take away from it's rating? bigger is realtive, i have seen small form pcs that are smaller then macs. more power consumption is also realtive, this greatly verys depedning on the type of power supile and the hardware choices. the software one is only partly ture for windows, there are linux distros that come with an admazing amount of software. Also depedning on what u get some of the pcs that come with windows come with other M$ software like M$ office. way less productive b/c of games? now you are just being slilly. And how can you be productive with a mouse that only had one buttion??? That should be a negtive for the mac right there. What it comes down to is u can not comaper windows + pc and mac you have to comaper windows os vs the mac os and pcs vs macs hardware wise. Okay, what would you run on an intel/AMD x86 box? Windows and Linux/BSD as the two best choices, wouldn't you say? Similarly, on a G5, the two best choices are OSX and Linux/BSD. Bigger because of what I'd want to put into it. I'm not bashing all x86 boxes, just the one I want to build. Besides, the Mac I'm looking at is an iMac. I don't think that the Mac Mini is smaller than it (with an equivalent sized monitor). Power consumption. 7800GTX. Hyperthreading. RAID. Yes, there are. But I can get linux for either platform. I do like solitare. As for productivity, read: Half-Life 2, F.E.A.R., Civ 4 (at least I'll have to wait a bit for this to come to the Mac). And I'm definitely getting myself a Logitech mouse with this (or the MS Laser mouse maybe, looks cool). I'm going to go with the Mac though I think I've decided. I think this is mostly just fear of the unknown. As long as I can get a bash terminal, I'll be happy. Actually, now that I think about it, I can get OSX for x86 .... |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Martin wrote: Actually, now that I think about it, I can get OSX for x86 ....
Not on generic hardware for long. And the builds that are in the wild only have good support for Intel 915G graphics chipsets. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Extreme. Yeah. Definitely going with the Mac. Ashita... I can't wait. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Martin wrote: Okay, what would you run on an intel/AMD x86 box? Windows and Linux/BSD as the two best choices, wouldn't you say? Similarly, on a G5, the two best choices are OSX and Linux/BSD. Bigger because of what I'd want to put into it. I'm not bashing all x86 boxes, just the one I want to build. Besides, the Mac I'm looking at is an iMac. I don't think that the Mac Mini is smaller than it (with an equivalent sized monitor). Power consumption. 7800GTX. Hyperthreading. RAID. Yes, there are. But I can get linux for either platform. I do like solitare. As for productivity, read: Half-Life 2, F.E.A.R., Civ 4 (at least I'll have to wait a bit for this to come to the Mac). And I'm definitely getting myself a Logitech mouse with this (or the MS Laser mouse maybe, looks cool). I'm going to go with the Mac though I think I've decided. I think this is mostly just fear of the unknown. As long as I can get a bash terminal, I'll be happy. Actually, now that I think about it, I can get OSX for x86 .... I am not trying to start yet another mac vs pc debate i am just trying to point out that as an objective review or comaperson your is more then a bit basied. Witch is good for your personal desisons just not so much for others =p. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This post was all about my personal decision . |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
wtd wrote: Martin wrote: Actually, now that I think about it, I can get OSX for x86 ....
Not on generic hardware for long. And the builds that are in the wild only have good support for Intel 915G graphics chipsets. I would point out that this is not a release-quality OS, and is not in any way indicative of what OSX86 will look like upon release. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
wtd wrote: Not on generic hardware for long. I doubt apple will release it for generic hardware... they are surely going to use intel's DRM chips.. and try and restrict their OS to run only on that set of chips |
|
| Author: | redisforever [ Tue May 25, 2010 6:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Apple vs. Windows |
Well, about the Mac's few USB ports, you can easily aquire a cheap USB hub. |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Tue May 25, 2010 8:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Apple vs. Windows |
This is quite possibly the most epic necro post ever. Locked. |
|