What separates a Mac from a PC?

Winston · May 4, 2003, 03:32

I've never actually operated a Macintosh computer, so I have no idea what makes it different from a PC. But I'd be interested to know what it is that a Mac does better, faster or more intuitively etc. And vice versa, what are the strong points of the PC over the Mac.

VJ · May 4, 2003, 03:34

Wait, isn't Mac a Personal Computer?

Asher · May 4, 2003, 03:35

Mac's hardware is totally and completely inferior.

Their OS is different, but from a usability standpoint it's generally considered that MacOS 9 and Windows XP are the best, MacOS X is prettier but less functional as its predecessor.

It's good for if you like purty things and don't care for gaming, and all you want is a nice purty word processor, internet browser, etc. -- and you've got lots of cash to blow.

Read: Niche market.

monolith94 · May 4, 2003, 03:38

pc = more games and software with faster speeds
mac = more intuitive interface, better programs for digital photos, cameras, better mp3 software, etc. We have some great games too, just not as many. Better computer design. The new imac saves a tremendous amount of space.

Plus, if the deal with IBM pulls through, the speed will soon come to match PCs, and the latest Radeons are coming to Mac as well.

Winston · May 4, 2003, 03:38

Tuomerehu,

Windows/Intel based PC, then.

I rarely if ever see Macs referenced as PC's, but anyhoo...

Macintosh vs. the Windows/Intel based PC.

Asher · May 4, 2003, 03:40

Quote:

Originally posted by monolith94
mac = more intuitive interface

Like, for example, on the Mac, you have a single menu-bar at the very top of the screen rather than at the top of each window. This is more "intuitive", because it surely makes far less sense to attach the window controls to the window itself like they do on the PC.

Quote:

better programs for digital photos, cameras, better mp3 software, etc.

lies! Really.

Quote:

Better computer design. The new imac saves a tremendous amount of space.

There are PCs that are smaller.

Quote:

Plus, if the deal with IBM pulls through, the speed will soon come to match PCs, and the latest Radeons are coming to Mac as well.

Current benchmarks put it on par with late 2002 P4s...and IBM's chip is coming out in late 2003.

monolith94 · May 4, 2003, 03:41

"MacOS X is prettier but less functional as its predecessor."

As someone who has used both I can let you know that this is COMPLETELY false. I get things done with greater speed on OS X than I EVER did on OS 9. OS 9 is a bit less processor intensive, but that issue has been adressed by OS X updates.

"Mac's hardware is totally and completely inferior."
*cough* ipod *cough*

Winston · May 4, 2003, 03:45

Great, this is very educational for me so far- and a bit entertaining as well.

Asher · May 4, 2003, 03:45

Quote:

Originally posted by monolith94
"MacOS X is prettier but less functional as its predecessor."

As someone who has used both I can let you know that this is COMPLETELY false. I get things done with greater speed on OS X than I EVER did on OS 9. OS 9 is a bit less processor intensive, but that issue has been adressed by OS X updates.

The finder in OS X is getting better but still not as good...

Plus I've read quite a few comparisons which state OS 9 is better functionality-wise.

Quote:

"Mac's hardware is totally and completely inferior."
*cough* ipod *cough*

We're talking about computers, not horrendously overpriced consumer electronics.

(BTW, I got a Nomad Zen today...about half the price of an iPod, more features, longer battery life, supports WMA, 20GB

)

Asher · May 4, 2003, 03:53

Monolith: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3064

Quote:

Conclusion

There are a lot of things we did not discuss in this article, but it would not be practical to write a real paper on these DEs. It would take me a month each and many-many pages. But I think this article summarizes well my view on how well these DEs they function and deliver what they are supposed to deliver to the user.

I acknowledge that there are good reasons for dealing with the negatives of Gnome and KDE, since there are other reasons for using Linux, and many people weigh the options and make that choice. However, today we live on times where everyone is pushing Linux on the desktop (or the corporate desktop by the mighty Red Hat) so including the main X11 offerings in this comparison article was appropriate.

Personally I much prefer overall the Windows XP experience with a close second the ones of MacOSX and BeOS. In fact, a DE that could have the best values found on these three operating systems, plus the power of Unix underneath, would make my utopian desktop environment. But there isn't such a DE (in fact, there is no such thing as "the perfect desktop", this is just a myth), so I usually reboot to them to enjoy their capabilities.

Here is the final rating, summed up from all the ratings above:

Final Rating:
Windows XP 8.55
MacOSX 8.33
BeOS 8.22
KDE 6.72
Gnome 6.61

Winston · May 4, 2003, 03:59

Not many companies use Macintosh computers compared to how many private/home users have them, is that right?

And can you partially upgrade the hardware in a Mac like you can in a PC? Adding extra RAM, additional HDD and so forth.

Combat Ingrid · May 4, 2003, 04:44

I can't really say whether the Mac interface is more or less intuitive than Windows. I only know that after using Windows exclusively for many years, MacOSX seems almost counter-intuitive, but that seems to go both ways around.

On the newer Macs you can upgrade at least some of the hardware, like RAM and graphics card, don't know about older models.

Dis · May 4, 2003, 04:53

One is for losers

the other is for geeks

Willem · May 4, 2003, 07:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Winston
Not many companies use Macintosh computers compared to how many private/home users have them, is that right?

It depends on what the company does. Macs have been used extensively in any business that works with graphics, particularly the printing industry. They're also used alot for video and music production. They once were superior to IBM/Intel/Microsoft PCs in all those areas, but that has been changing for many years now.

Quote:

And can you partially upgrade the hardware in a Mac like you can in a PC? Adding extra RAM, additional HDD and so forth.

IMO, that's one of the weaknesses of the Mac. Everyting is pretty much integrated so you can't configure it nearly as well as you can with the standard PC. Although adding RAM and HDDs are no problem, you're pretty much stuck with the default video/sound cards etc.

The flip side of that though, is that there's less problems with compatibility, unlike PCs which can be a real pain. Sometimes you just can't get things to work because your video card isn't quite compatible with a particular program for example, yet there's no problem whatsoever with other software.

As for HDDs, since Macs use SCSI drives, it's much easier to add more to your system.

Winston · May 4, 2003, 07:48

Thanks Willem. I can see I have a lot to learn and adjust to if I ever get myself a Mac.

It's a bit intriguing how they've managed to have a reasonable amount of software available for such a comparatively small market. But then I understand that the Macintosh computer will typically have more additional software installed from the manufacturers than a standard PC.

Willem · May 4, 2003, 08:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Winston
Thanks Willem. I can see I have a lot to learn and adjust to if I ever get myself a Mac.

Having worked with both systems, I used the Mac exclusively while in school but have a Intel machine at home, I've come to prefer the latter. A big issue for me was the price. I started out with a cheap system, and gradually upgraded as I could afford the peripherals that I wanted. With a Mac you can't really do that, it's all or nothing.

I also find it much easier to manage files with a standard PC. With Macs you have to open a folder and drag and drop from one to another. That can get to be a real pain if you have alot of sub-folders. I'm using a file manager that shows lists of everything on my system, so I just have to select what I want and hit the Move button.

I also prefer having multiple mouse buttons, Macs only have one. IMO it's much more convenient than using a combination of keyboard/mouse commands.

Then of course there's the fact that there's way more software available for the PC.

BTW, it was IBM who first developed the Windows/Intel configuration, and then licensed out the technology to others. So the best way of avoiding those picky people who point out that they're both personal computers would be to compare Mac PCs to IBM based PCs.

Worthingtons · May 4, 2003, 08:56

I used to have a Mac, i liked the Mac a lot , but because i didnt have money to waste i had to get a PC in the end

Panag · May 4, 2003, 12:01

hi ,

try the MAC forums , .....

have a nice day

Aro · May 4, 2003, 12:51

I had to work with both platforms, with heavy graphics. Sincerely, no differences. After a little time, you are used to both systems. Painter7 (Procreate- a Corel subsidiary, I think) and Photoshop are the same.

G4/OS X is excellent, as well the P4/XP combo.
So, if you'll work with graphics (heavy ones!

), exclusively, any choice is good.
Movies and sound, I suppose is a job for Mac's. OTOH, digital animation is for PC's (I know that... My wife owns a little animation studio, with 10 animators working in PC's, including her), cause you have more programs and is less expensive.

Games? No-brainer... PC.

monolith94 · May 4, 2003, 12:57

"I also prefer having multiple mouse buttons, Macs only have one. IMO it's much more convenient than using a combination of keyboard/mouse commands."

$20 for a multi button mouse.

yavoon · May 4, 2003, 13:01

willem not to point out the obvious but its easy to get a multi button mouse for a mac.

Panag · May 4, 2003, 13:14

hi ,

nothing in the world above a kensington trackball

have a nice day

DarthVeda · May 4, 2003, 13:16

*chant* Mac must die *chant*

*repeat*

Agathon · May 4, 2003, 13:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Like, for example, on the Mac, you have a single menu-bar at the very top of the screen rather than at the top of each window. This is more "intuitive", because it surely makes far less sense to attach the window controls to the window itself like they do on the PC.

This is actually worse since it takes up more space than it needs to. The toolbar pertains to the selected window. It is easy to see and use. That is unless you use two mice at once - but who does that?

Windows is a mess, there's cr@p everywhere and that stupid registry causes untold problems, or so my Windows using friends tell me. I'd rather die than go back to it.

Quote:

Current benchmarks put it on par with late 2002 P4s...and IBM's chip is coming out in late 2003.

The processor speed is about the only decent thing PC's have going for them, and that's largely Motorola's fault for messing about. It's a temporary problem.

Drake Tungsten · May 4, 2003, 13:53

Mac's greatest advantage is that it has Apple, the world's best software maker, designing programs exclusively for the platform. As such, Mac users get to enjoy groundbreaking and innovative software years before Microsoft manages to copy them. Read about the iTunes Music Store if you want a good example of this process in action.

OS X > XP

Agathon · May 4, 2003, 13:54

Quote:

Originally posted by monolith94
"I also prefer having multiple mouse buttons, Macs only have one. IMO it's much more convenient than using a combination of keyboard/mouse commands."

$20 for a multi button mouse.

If you learn how to use the system you shouldn't need a 2 button mouse.

Sava · May 4, 2003, 13:57

Mac's aren't quite up to par with PC's. Despite Windows sucking, the overall disadvantages don't come close to outweighing the advantages. As for Mac's being better for Imaging, Media editing, etc; well that simply is false. I go to a school that has both Mac and PC computers for use in those areas and the PC's are far more powerful and user friendly. The biggest beef I have with the Mac's is the single button mouse. It makes it more difficult to use such programs. Instead of being able to right click and do things, I have to memorize confusing keystrokes. User friendly indeed. OS is better than XP. Unfortunately, you can't get OS/X on a PC.

Q Classic · May 4, 2003, 14:12

ag, the fact that i have to press a keyboard key and then click--using two hands-- is a negative aspect of it when instead all i have to do is use a different finger on the one hand that is controlling the mouse.

multibutton mice are one thing i find far superior about non-ppc systems. at least you can buy one of those and put it on a mac.

Juggernaut · May 4, 2003, 14:13

Mac has way superior fonts.

Agathon · May 4, 2003, 14:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Mac's aren't quite up to par with PC's. Despite Windows sucking, the overall disadvantages don't come close to outweighing the advantages. As for Mac's being better for Imaging, Media editing, etc; well that simply is false. I go to a school that has both Mac and PC computers for use in those areas and the PC's are far more powerful and user friendly.

What have you been smoking? I've never heard anyone call Windows user friendly.

Quote:

The biggest beef I have with the Mac's is the single button mouse. It makes it more difficult to use such programs. Instead of being able to right click and do things, I have to memorize confusing keystrokes. User friendly indeed. OS is better than XP. Unfortunately, you can't get OS/X on a PC.

As I pointed out before, if you use a Mac as a Mac and don't attempt to use it like it was Windows, you don't need a two button mouse. You don't even need to use the keyboard.