Mac vs PC - Serious considerations...

Amp34 said:
Thanks, we both have valid points, and it's nice ot have a debate on here that doesn't descend into a mindless slagging match.:)

At the moment I am planning on trying OSX on my PC to see how I get on but when I get a proper job (Uni student) I will again seriously consider a mac, when I can afford to upgrade the pesky 5400rpm drive;).
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, i want to upgrade my BTO 320GB 7200RPM drive for a 500GB 7200RPM. 320GB just isn't enough, especially with a windows partition.
 
Amp34 said:
Neither does the Vista core... I bet you also believe that OSX doesn't need an antivirus?



And the far more expensive way. Do you not begrudge spending up to £1000 extra for the case and OS? That makes Vista ultimate and a Lian-li case at £500 seem cheap!:p
Click to expand...

With the crashing debate, Windows 7 hardly does it compared to XP.

Current crash standings:
MBP: XP- 6 , W7 7000 - 1, OS X - 0
MP: XP - 1, W7 7068 - 2, OS X - 0

Its all experience tho! Mine thankfully has been a very, very positive one with macs :)
 
*reads*

I would happily pay the premium for the mac pro and as someone suggested run windows on bootcamp... But then you see that the premium is an extra £1000!!! Can a 'non pro' user really justify this cost... *thinks*
... I will be waiting to see what happens with the new OS's... I guess that will ultimately govern my choice of hardware in the not so distant future...

and thanks for everyone who has participated so far! :D
 
OSX? People started to make software for that? :)

But seriously, OSX doesn't tend to have the number of crashes of a windows machine cause most OSX users install a very limited number of additional apps compared to a windows user. (You may argue OSX user don't need to install additional programes)

But if OSX had to put up with the same number of 3rd party apps and hardware configurations, it would be just as bad in terms of crashing.

I have to use both platforms at work, but I'm not so impressed with osx, I hate it's crappy font usage limit, and it does crash now and then, and when it does it can be more of a problem to resolve.

If any component dies on a PC, you can have it fixed pretty damn fast if you know what you are doing, for a Mac a lot of parts are gonna be hard to come by, if you can get them at all. (If not you have to send it away, or pay for an over priced Mac dealer to look at it)

One of the biggest problem with mac I can see here is the limited range of models Apple make. You either get a slimline space saving unit or have to jump to high end server job.
 
having used some mates macs at uni i have had lots of software problems with them. programs that i use in computer labs and my physics labs simply dont work on macs, or if they work not all the fetures work or run as expected.

im currently running Vista and Ubuntu on my pc (mainly vista for games etc) and i dont have any problems with vista crashing, my pcs on 24/7 and it just works. no major issues with it some times itunes freezes or takes its time loading (i'm starting to look in to alternatives atm if anyone can suggest something), and sometimes i have an issue with holdem manager (poker tracking program) because of the built in windows firewall and windows defender stoping the main program accessing the database but these issues clear up when i disable the windows applications. i have never had any problems connecting to networks windows detects them automatically and connects.

buying mac pc's is like buying nike trainers, same as the other trainers but has nike on it so its more expensive, for example,

mac pro
Apple LED Cinema Display (24" flat panel) [+ £635.00]

OC
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?&groupid=17&catid=510&sortby=priceAsc

only one monitor which is more expensive most of them would give you a £200 saving.



Mac Pro

Two 18x SuperDrives [+ £80.01] (price to add a 2nd drive)

OC

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CD-048-PO&groupid=701&catid=10&subcat=314

saving you £10 and having blue-ray functions, which the mac dosent.



Mac Pro

1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s [+ £240.01]

OC
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-242-WD&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=1279

most expensive one on oc but still less money,

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-053-SA&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=1279
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-226-WD&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=1279

two nice alternatives at a fraction of the cost..

Mac Pro
Apple Wireless Keyboard (British) and User's Guide (English) [+ £20.00] (on top of the basic keyboard)
Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse [+ £14.00] (once again only an upgrade on the standard mouse you get with the mac)

OC
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?&groupid=702&catid=23&subid=1278&sortby=priceAsc

sorted by price any of the top 8 mouse and keyboard sets for the same price as upgrading the standard mac keyboard + mouse to a wireless one, if you factor in the cost for the standard your once again saving money with the pc Vs the mac.
 
aries2580 said:
*reads*

I would happily pay the premium for the mac pro and as someone suggested run windows on bootcamp... But then you see that the premium is an extra £1000!!! Can a 'non pro' user really justify this cost... *thinks*
... I will be waiting to see what happens with the new OS's... I guess that will ultimately govern my choice of hardware in the not so distant future...

and thanks for everyone who has participated so far! :D
Click to expand...

I think if you're a non pro user a iMac would be sufficient!

Maybe wait until they go i7!
 
CK61938 said:
Your PC boots up in 40 secs? strange...cos mine boots up in about the same time as your Mac Pro... :rolleyes: and I am running a Core i7 920 OC'd to 4.0GHz with 6GB DDR3 RAM, 2x 500GB HDD (OS is on the Samsung Spinpoint) and XFX 4870 X2...so does it still baffle you how mine can boot up in the same time as your Mac?

Even my other machine which has a Q6600 @ 3.57GHz can boot up in about 20secs. I think you will find its not hard to make a PC boot up really quickly...one just has to know how.
Click to expand...

Enlighten me!!! My install of Mac OS X is 2 years+ old and it still boots just as quick as when I first got it. ANY PC for that matter, degrades in terms of boot time over long periods. I've tried loads of different things to shave off the boot time of my PC. When I say 15 seconds I mean from turning it on to being able to use the OS. Most of my boot time for the PC is spent staring at the BIOS in all fairness so it might be a moot point. I still however have to wait for 5-6 loading bars of Vista before it boots in and even then it stays unresponsive for 5-7 seconds. If you have an i7 you can't have been on your format of Vista for long mate. It's still a new chip! Unless you just hot swapped when you upgraded and didnt bother to format?!
 
hughythomas said:
Enlighten me!!! My install of Mac OS X is 2 years+ old and it still boots just as quick as when I first got it. ANY PC for that matter, degrades in terms of boot time over long periods. I've tried loads of different things to shave off the boot time of my PC. When I say 15 seconds I mean from turning it on to being able to use the OS. Most of my boot time for the PC is spent staring at the BIOS in all fairness so it might be a moot point. I still however have to wait for 5-6 loading bars of Vista before it boots in and even then it stays unresponsive for 5-7 seconds. If you have an i7 you can't have been on your format of Vista for long mate. It's still a new chip! Unless you just hot swapped when you upgraded and didnt bother to format?!
Click to expand...

Boot time?! That's so 2006. I never ever shutdown (unless I have reboot) and only ever suspend and restore, my ~18months old Vista install resumes from suspend with all my apps running in less than 10 seconds.

IMHO, boot times on modern PCs and laptops is increasingly irrelevant because of suspend/hibernate which is quicker and more convenient. My iPhone takes ages to boot from off but it doesn't matter because it spends most of it's time asleep. Yes, I am aware it's a different class of product but PC usage is moving the same way aswell.

(The boot time not being important doesn't apply to enterprise servers)
 
hughythomas said:
Enlighten me!!! My install of Mac OS X is 2 years+ old and it still boots just as quick as when I first got it. ANY PC for that matter, degrades in terms of boot time over long periods. I've tried loads of different things to shave off the boot time of my PC. When I say 15 seconds I mean from turning it on to being able to use the OS. Most of my boot time for the PC is spent staring at the BIOS in all fairness so it might be a moot point. I still however have to wait for 5-6 loading bars of Vista before it boots in and even then it stays unresponsive for 5-7 seconds. If you have an i7 you can't have been on your format of Vista for long mate. It's still a new chip! Unless you just hot swapped when you upgraded and didnt bother to format?!
Click to expand...

Remember I did mention I was using a Q6600 before the Core i7...and that also boots up in the same time...granted I use the Core i7 for playing games but even with the programs it loads in the background I can be playing a game within about 20secs of it being booted up...

However, if we're really going to talk about boot up times with OS's...you say your Mac is 2yrs old right? Ok I have an FTP server that runs on an AMD Athlon 2500+ XP (OC'd from 1.8GHz to 2.2GHz). This machine is over 5yrs old. I have been using it as an FTP now for almost a year...it boots up also in about 15secs (that includes the auto login feature). So tell me even tho that machine runs Win Server 2003 and is used just for FTP...does it still make Windows the slowest bootable OS compared to OSX? I use to work for Apple for 18mths and i have used countless Macs during that time...yet u dont see me with a Mac and wouldnt want a Mac for anything at all.
 
Last edited:
TruBlu said:
Boot time?! That's so 2006. I never ever shutdown (unless I have reboot) and only ever suspend and restore, my ~18months old Vista install resumes from suspend with all my apps running in less than 10 seconds.

IMHO, boot times on modern PCs and laptops is increasingly irrelevant because of suspend/hibernate which is quicker and more convenient. My iPhone takes ages to boot from off but it doesn't matter because it spends most of it's time asleep. Yes, I am aware it's a different class of product but PC usage is moving the same way aswell.

(The boot time not being important doesn't apply to enterprise servers)
Click to expand...

Can I give you a +1 my friend :D well put. Boot time is definitely irrelevant these days...only my FTP and Windows 7 machine are on 24/7. The laptop is used daily but is asleep when I am going to and from work and home or if I go out. The gaming machine is always turned off when I am not at home.
 
CK61938 said:
Remember I did mention I was using a Q6600 before the Core i7...and that also boots up in the same time...granted I use the Core i7 for playing games but even with the programs it loads in the background I can be playing a game within about 20secs of it being booted up...
Click to expand...

I really want to see this! My Vista install takes forever to load, we are not talking about getting to the password screen, we are talking about being usable. I would say my OS X install load in about a quarter of the time the Vista install does.

With OS X once you're at the desktop you're good to go, no other programs are loading. With windows when you're at the desktop so many other programs are loading in the background even if you have msconfigged to not do so.

I wouldn't say boot time is irrelevant at all. Especially with a windows pc when a restart is needed most of the time to fix problems and get it running at it's best. I have always had to restart on a windows pc to get the best benchmark scores etc...
 
Logsi said:
I really want to see this! My Vista install takes forever to load, we are not talking about getting to the password screen, we are talking about being usable. I would say my OS X install load in about a quarter of the time the Vista install does.

With OS X once you're at the desktop you're good to go, no other programs are loading. With windows when you're at the desktop so many other programs are loading in the background even if you have msconfigged to not do so.

I wouldn't say boot time is irrelevant at all. Especially with a windows pc when a restart is needed most of the time to fix problems and get it running at it's best. I have always had to restart on a windows pc to get the best benchmark scores etc...
Click to expand...

God knows what you were running if u were having to reboot your windows PC to get the best benchmark scores.

Ok if you want evidence I will do a video tonight of said Core i7 machine booting up and post it on youtube and put the link on here.

And I am also talking about once the machine has booted in. I dont have to log into the gaming machine cos I didnt set a password for it and I dont need to lol. :D
 
I look forward to it! :p

I'll time my macs and see how they fair! :D

When you do the timing, load the forums up as soon as possible to see how long ie takes to load and loads it's page.
 
Last edited:
Boot time isn't moot if you're a student - I can't leave my laptop on standby because it's bloody blue lights keep me awake; and I need it to start quick -when it plays up it can take 5 minutes to get going properly (more to do with crappy hardware and me filling it with **** than the OS), which can leave me 40 mins of my lunch break to do anything productive.
 
Logsi said:
I look forward to it! :p

I'll time my macs and see how they fair! :D

When you do the timing, load the forums up as soon as possible to see how long ie takes to load and loads it's page.
Click to expand...

Erm...why? I wont be loading IE from my Core i7 machine...I will be loading it from my Q6600 machine cos thats what I am going to use to make the video and upload said video...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom