Apple vs. Windows

[Martin]

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.

[wtd]

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.

[Dan]

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.

[Tony]

Dan,

the comparison here is Windows running on a PC vs. OSX running on a Mac.

[codemage]

If you're really hurting for linux-type functionality on a "Windows" PC, you can always dual-boot.

[Dan]

Tony wrote:

Dan,

the comparison here is Windows running on a PC vs. OSX running on a Mac.

then how can linux be a +?

[Tony]

its an option

[Dan]

*shakes head and walks away*

[wtd]

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.

[codemage]

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.

[wtd]

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.

[md]

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

[rizzix]

can do the same with a mac... it's just a lot more integrated.. that's all.

[wtd]

Indeed. Lots of hackery... or... installed by default.

[Martin]

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 ....