AppleMac VS. PCs

Santi

Santi

Joined
Sep 12, 2000
Messages
2,483
Anybody here is hooked by the AppleMac?
I got few friends who said they'd never use the PCs cause the Mac is so good.

I remember read about this once somewhere (it's a long list), but can't recall where.
Could andone tell me what're all the good of the Mac over the PC ?

Thanks.
 
NOTHING !!

A mac was my first computer and my brand for the first five years or so of my computer life. Ive since been using PC's for the last two years. I almost never freeze (my macs were good for that five times a day) I can find software on anything anywhere and because there is more competition in Pc land I can get alot more computer for the same money. The Mac people can never really explain why they think thier system is better. They just talk about the satanic Bill Gates. Or "oh but its so easy to use and its so cute" Blech !! Its no easier to use than a PC. Save some money, be able to exchange files with almost everyone on the planet and buy a PC. My .50 cents

------------------
Alex

My Knife Page
 
I think I'll go through the issues one at a time:

Stability: The old Macs (pre 1994) were very stable. You could run them for ever without a crash. Between 1995 and 1999 they released operating systems that wern't very good and the crashes became more frequent. I havn't heard about the newest Macs. PC's (Win95 and later) are stable as long as you don't push them too hard. If you run lots of programs (especialy from non-Microsoft ie: Netscape) expect a few crashes.

Software: There is more software availible for PC however a lot of it is really bad (every bozo programer thinks they can make software). Macs have less software but most of it is of reasonable quality (The Mac company tries to enforce some QC on the software makers).

Price: If you compare computers of similar capability the Mac will cost a little more (maybe about 15%).

Useability: Windows has all these Wizard/Help programs to help you do things. I find that most of them are poorly implemented and usually just screw up my computer. I never use them. If you disable these 'features' on your PC you will get a much more stable and less anoying system.

As a final note. If you really want to get a powerful system that will do anything, consider Linux. The only drawback is that you have to be a nerd and learn about all the intricacies of computers. Right now I have two computers, a PC for mundane stuff and a Linux machine for real power use.

Hope this helps more than it hurts
 
Santi, I'm a Desktop Sys. Admin for a Large Govt. Facility. We have thousands of Macs and PCs as well as various Unix machines, Main Frames, Super Computers, etc. The whole mess exists on various networks, many connected to the internet. I've worked with Macs since their inception, and with their predecessor, Lisa. I've worked with Intel computers for their years prior to the Mac. Boriqua gives a great assessment of the Mac community versus the PC community. Mac fans are typified as simply saying how great they are, but mostly come across as fanatical. Their corresponding PC fanatic is much the same. Josh is pretty good in his assessment. The Mac OS was very stable at first, then became unstable. For the last couple of years or so, since vers. 8.5.1, it's been very stable. Windows has had the same type of problems since it's inception. 95, 98 and NT each have their moments and their major deficiencies. 2000 and ME have improvements, but still break, just as every flavor of Unix will as well. The real beauty of the Mac is the OS. Windows, including 2000 and ME get closer, but are still not nearly as intuitive or graceful. But function will always drive the implementation if done correctly. Mac is distanced in both the Business/Accounting realm as well as the CAD/modeling arena, even though the Mac hardware will outperform the Intel in the CAD/modeling arena. Developers will still only write these packages on the Windows platform because of the larger market. The Mac is infinitely easier to maintain and deploy, even in my networked environment, but does not have as robust administrative tools available to it. Some old figures from I believe the Sans group showed that Unix cpus are maintained at a 20 to 1 ratio of cpus to Sys Admins. Intel at 75 to 1. Macs about 125 to 1, even with the poor admin tools available.

Hank

[This message has been edited by HankS (edited 01-06-2001).]
 
Many thanks!, though it's a bit too difficult for me to grasp. . .
smile.gif
 
Why would you want to start a Mac vs. PC flame war on a knife site? Just please don't ask me why I'm answering
smile.gif


I prefer Macintosh. I've used both, and some other systems as well. To be completely honest, I prefer a CLI like DOS or UNIX - or if I could ever remember the commands, CP/M. And to go along with that strange preference, I like old computers, and have many of them laying around the house. But for a modern computer, I'd take a Mac over a Windows PC any time. And to add to the fun - If your main complaint is Windows software, get a fast PowerMac and then get SoftWindows or VirtualPC! As long as you don't need anything that depends on hardware, you can run all the Windows software you want. You could also run DOS, OS/2, or any other x86 OS. And don't forget the Mac versions of Linux and BSD. And now that Apple finally got smart and started using USB(way too slow on that), as well as their own creation, Firewire, they have some small ability to use PC hardware if you can find a hacker to make a driver for it.

As mentioned before, older systems were much better. I think MacOS topped out with System 7.1. Very fast, very stable. The only way to crash it is through hardware or crappy bug-ridden software, which will crash anything you can put on a computer. Since then, though, they have acquired a Microsoft type attitude. MacOS keep bloating - bigger, more features, more bugs, more crashes, etc. And my biggest problem with Apple - as strange as it might sound - is the return of Steve Jobs. He's done some good things, but at the same time he almost manages to kill the good things about Apple. <sigh> At least I still have an Apple II to go back to... Isn't it lovely how 15-20 year old 8 and 5.25 inch floppies still hold data, but brand new 3.5 inch floppies last maybe a few months, or are even DOA sometimes? Even the higher quality disks from 3M and IBM don't hold up very long(compared to the old stuff). Many CD from my first Mac (a IIvx) are going bad - CD's that are maybe 6 or 7 years old completely unreadble. Sometimes due to scrathes, some of the crack(don't sit on them!), but some of them are just crap and start to decompose or something. Always use high quality media! Computers aren't much good if you have nothing to re-install Windows or MacOS from!

Oh my... I'm afraid to go back and proof read, it's such a long message... I'm gonna go play with my knives now.
 
No matter what you do, have quality backup systems.
Why make things worse by buying cheap or cutting corners?

Example:
Use Iomega ZIP discs. I've had two non-Iomega discs loose my files. Same goes with Printer ink.

Remember the 6 P's:
Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance.

Something else I live by is:
"Know your exit routes."
 
Whoa, Size15s, I was amazed to see you use the term, quality backup systems and Iomega Zip discs in the same breath! If you mean quality, you need to qualify that with a price tag or something. While better than 3.5" floppies, I've had my share of Zips fail around the offices here! Most of us here are using DLT tapes for production server backups. For SOHO or personal use, zips are ok but slow! I'd rather use 4mm dat tapes. This leads us to another issue, backup versus archive. A lot of people think that they are synonymous, but they are two very different things. Backups are used to bring a system back on line after a catastrophic event like a hd crash/failure. Archive require a catalog/search function and long life media. Look to CD-r for an archive media, but much too slow for backup purposes. And like you said, use quality media, Maxell, TDK, Verbatim are fine. Don't trust the .25/cd-r media. The reflective material is cheap and not up to standards.

Hank
 
ZIP Drives are not my personal fav by a long shot!
My University has them installed on all of it's PCs so the only way I can move stuff around other than a stack-load of floppies is by ZIP.

The Parallel Port ZIP is so slow, but the best SCSI setups are much better. I've no experience of USB though as my home PC doesn't have it.

Some of the Uni PCs have CD-R or CD-RW but that takes even longer than ZIP. I buy the best CDs I can as most scatch etc like crazy!

I was just saying how in my experience, I've never had a Iomega ZIP disc fail, but the cheaper ones have...

My current requirements mean that I don't need a DAT or whatever to backup or archive as I don't have that much data I can't replace (about 500-600MB) which I usually backup to ZIP once a month or whenever I'm doing something important.

 
Long Live Apple.....!!!!!

I am a Mac user from the start, even in an orgainsation that uses PCs, I would bring my personal Mac to work. Nowadays connectivity between different platforms is so easy. I have no problem retriving my mail from the companies' Lotus Domino server cause I can have Notes installed in my Mac. Not mentioning the easy file conversion of most of the software like MS Office or Photoshop.
I would not say that it is convenient if I am back in the early 90s. But things are really much easier now...

I always believe, Mac is not just a computer, it's a religion....and I am baptised in it....

------------------
Irìd Ghibht Dhé Agus An Ban-Rìgh
"Through the Grace of God and the Queen"
 
Problem with zipdiscs is that they're pretty much useless to the user today - - -100 mb discs are absurdly small, and the price is way up there. It would take 500 zip discs to backup ONE of my drives. Another 300 to back up the secondary. I'd have to mortgage my house to buy that many
wink.gif


CD-R is a cheaper alternative. . you can get the discs for free half the time with rebates, and they store 740mb/disc.

I did a different solution. I have 3 HDD's on my system. The first two are for use. the third has a clean install of Win98, Office, Photoshop, and a few other apps. if the main drives crash, the third HDD, which is disabled in BIOS so it's never used, can restore. It's a LOT faster than CD-R or zip.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top