Mac vs. PC

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by Heltik, Jul 1, 2003.

  1. Heltik macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    I've been reading a few threads lately about the performance of particular specifications of computer, in particular notebook performance. People have been saying that the Centrino based IBM compatibles perform better than G4 PB's, and it strikes me that there are some serious issues here.

    I don't feel that it's fair to compare a mac to a pc at all in terms of "performance". The important thing to me, is that for general use, performance is not about raw gigahertz. It's about the symbiosis between the user and the device in question. When I use a Mac, I work far more in harmony with the equipment than when I use a pc. My productivity is increased as I flow through my workload. In that way, the performance of the overall system (of which I am a constituent) is higher.

    Also, going back to the notebooks. How much time is wasted because various devices crash the windows computer? They're still not plug and play! How much 'performance' is wasted whilst setting up a printer?

    Another argument that PC users come up with is "okay windows is bad, but I can use linux". What a load of nonsense. The thing that makes PC's appealing is that they have a standard OS, as soon as Linux is used, this is lost. PC users have to stop claiming that the architecture is better based on compatability of a standard OS that they admit is junk, and stability of an OS that is not even their working environment. And I believe, also that I am right in saying that OSX is now the most widely used Unix based OS?

    I guess what I'm trying to say, is that, as exemplified by Apple's digital hub strategy, a computer is a device for making your life easier. It's a tool for humans to interact with to derive benefit in their lives, and too many people miss the point, that when gauging performance of the system, they have to consider their own interaction with it.
     
  2. KershMan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Location:
    VA, USA
    #2
    I couldn't agree more. I have a real-world example between my office and home. At the office I am forced to use a Dell P4 at ~1.4Ghz (do not remember exactly). It has 512MB of RAM. Although Ghz wise it is faster than my 12" Powerbook, I get much more done on my Powerbook at home.

    The Dell runs W2K and Office 2000. We use Outlook for our PIM. When I have Outlook, IE, and about 4-5 Word documents open (this is the norm) The Dell comes crawling to its knees and becomes very unstable. If I actively work (like cut and paste) from one Word document to the other I can usually get Word to crash on Windows.

    Now, I go home and do the same type of work on my Powerbook. I have Safari with multiple tabs open, Mail, and several Word documents. Sometimes I even have Virtual PC running W2K in the dock. I need W2K to run Oracle for one of the classes I am taking (school only provided Windows version). I can cut and paste from one Word document and do all my other tasks no problem. Granted, Word speed, especially for scrolling through large documents, is not always that good but my computer is stable and Word rarely crashes.
     
  3. tazo macrumors 68040

    tazo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA actually
    #3
    XP is almost as stable as OS X. the claim can no longer be made that either side's OS is unstable. Lets face it, OS 9 was crap, but then again so was 98.
     
  4. KershMan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Location:
    VA, USA
    #4
    I agree, but unfortunately many businesses are not quick to upgrade to XP. Microsoft's new license model is not very palatable. I work as a contractor for the Army. Both the Army and my company use W2K. Neither will upgrade to XP soon.
     
  5. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #5
    The reasons

    wow you guys made a good point actually.

    I'm a regular at nforcershq.com -- it's basically an enthusiast site for PC users who are running the nVidia NFORCE2 motherboards.

    Anyway, the funny thing is, most people go to the thread who the usual hardware problems--most of course being cured by "computer" common-sense (switch jumpers/cables around/using 2nd-rate generic computer parts/etc.)

    Of course on top of that is tweaking--most Apple Users i can say do not concern themselves that much with tweakin :)

    Even funnier is that a thread was started on that forum regarding what to "do" after they found the fastest stable overclock (stable memory timings, sufficient voltages settings in dimm vcore and vdd, etc.).

    I asked them, rhetorically--why do we go to all this trouble to tweak if we don't do anything with the very processing power we're trying to increase?

    Of course most if not all of the nforcershq.com users play games and i can see where you "may" need more fps, though the videocard tends to be the limiting factor (mobo cpu tweakin is uninvolved then).

    A small niche might actually use it for business/3d software/or other purposes besides the "regular" mp3 storing or encoding/divx/photoshop multimedia center.

    I want to pose the question to all mac users and perhaps pc users--what if the Mac OS was brought over to PC's as well?

    I don't think it's the chips (g4 and g5) that mac users value the most--it's consistently mentioned how much they love the OS.

    It'd be really good to try it out--(Mac acting as a software/OS company vs. competing computer firm)

    How if PC users were given the chance to try it? I know it sounds funny, but if this drove MS to make XP better, i'd be all for it.

    Many Mac users talk about how bloated XP is--and i DEFINITELY agree.

    The average user IS NOT literate enough to know how to disable half of the UNNECESSARY things that MS includes in XP.

    Many gaming sites offer a registry tweak--when loaded, essentially disables most of the useless apps/bg progs that windows xp tends to load for novices... this frees an incredible amount of memory that is ordinarily wasted on "M$" progs.

    After this tweaking, i find that XP is that much faster and stable--many errors originate from these unnecessary background progs that are loaded on default.

    On the flip side--i doubt many Mac users would like to use XP -_-

    *(a small comment to the one with the 1.4ghz Dell
    My friend had the exact same system. It was also incredibly slow compared to an equally clocked AMD system.

    I believe that the Dell system you were using was based on the aging Williamette core--that core was even surpassed by old pentium 3's that were lower clocked!

    I believe your experience with a 1.8A Northwood would have been alot different)
     
  6. Sabenth macrumors 6502a

    Sabenth

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Up untill a month ago i was on the verig of quiting computers altogether thanks to the problems i have had with windows lattly then i came across an old i mac on e bay and decided hell cant be any worse than using this crap can well i was wrong ive had this mac just over a week now and can safly say that i have now placed an order for a new e mac with supper drive reason been i am running mac osx 10.2 on this i mac it only has 128 sdram but it s fantastic no matter what it runs slow on some items like i movie but its runing at the same speed as my windows machine when i work on movie files for home cds in the music side of things i use reason and cubase to make music its a hobby that iam taking mahybe a bit to seriously the windows machine strugles to do the simpliest of tasks were as this i mac ive only got demos of things so far but its out doing itself already the diffrance in how the mac works to the windows box is well the only way i can put it is less time trying to fix things and more time working its a pleasure to have the mac were as the windows machine its a night mare from start up if it starts up..

    i know that the i mac is old my pc is only a year old and i can say that i dont think the pc will be here much longer... i only use the pc to store files on now as the i mac has only got 6 gig on it ...

    but even that was a challange from the windows end that is the i mac found the windows machine without even thinking about it the windows xp machine cant even see it....

    well thats my line for today
     
  7. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7

    As long as Macs have a closed system controlled by Apple and an OS made by Apple an out of the box Mac will always be more stable than an out of the box PC running Windows. If you put OS X and XP, or even 2k, on the exact same hardware I think you will get simliar performance. But as long as Macs stay a closed system and Windows has to attempt to work w/millions of possible hardware/software/chipset combinations you are always going to end up w/more conflicts and stability problems on the Windows platform. There are just too many variables in the x86 Windows world.


    Lethal
     
  8. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #8
    Mav451, I hate to nitpick, but this annoys a lot of people so I'm gonna say it before someone else does: It's Mac, not MAC.
     
  9. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #9
    wow well said--i think you summarized the reasoning behind the "bugs" and instability issues that are always pointed out with the windows environment.

    It's extremely hard to be a jack-of-all-trades (which is what the windows driver environment is like--some drivers that hardware firms provide are bad, some are good--there's not a single standard).
     
  10. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #10
    i don't want to admit this, but the windows crashing issues of windows 95 98 ME are basically a thing of the past and windows xp is actually pretty decent

    and yes, pc laptops are faster and cheaper than mac laptops

    i see that the mac laptops have two advantages

    in almost every case, macs a way tougher for mobile use...esp in a backpack

    and in a small way, macs still have the edge on basic ease of use...but windows is continuing to bridge the user friendly gap

    now if the pb 12" was 1299 usd and the basic ibook was under 800 usd, then things would look better for macs

    too many potential laptop users are prolly turned off by mac laptops being more expensive and dollar for dollar, offering less...at lest on paper

    but in real world terms, i choose the mac

    btw...i have an ibook and a compaq pc laptop...bought just one day apart
     
  11. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #11
    Win2K is about 30 times as stable as 98. it's just as rock solid as XP or more. XP moved from the win95 codebase to the NT/W2K codebase, and that's the only reason it is stable at all. W2k is the same on that level. just missing some multimedia features, really.
     
  12. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #12
    w2k had weak 3rd party support and a small hcl (hardware compatability list), but overall it's just as stable as windows xp

    there really is no reason to get w2k now that xp is what 3rd party people make drivers for
     
  13. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #13
    true, but if you already have W2k and you run a business that doesn't rely on multimedia there is no reason to upgrade that is justifiable given the cost. unless you have unsupported hardware.
     
  14. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #14
    if i mostly ran microsoft office and the internet and email most of the time, w2k is fine and there prolly won't be a need to migrate until the next major release of a microsoft operating system

    i think w2k server will be around for a long time and windows server 2003 won't overtake it since there seems to be little need to migrate there, too

    w2k had the unfortunate fate of falling after a hugely popular windows 98 and before a hugely popular windows xp...microsoft put many home users, during that time, with windows me, so many pc buyers in 2000 and 2001 got windows me on their pcs and only got w2k as a special order or more expensive upgrade...that's too bad since windows me is not microsoft's best os
     
  15. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    WindowsME was terrible. 98 without the DOS underpinnings (turns out that was what was holding it up). I constantly had problems with 98 - 1st, 2nd, and 4th (WinME - that's what it says it is, Win98 4th edition). So I upgraded to 2000. And things were ok. For awhile. But yeah, I did have a lot of hardware incompatibilities and issues. Multimedia's not so great.

    But there is no way I'm upgrading to XP. I though 2000 was ugly. Maybe XP Pro is better, but after playing with XP for awhile on several machines (and spending hours fixing my Moms Sony), you will never see me use XP. Even if it looked better. I'm sure other people have had better luck, but color me unimpressed.

    Sometimes I wish I still had my old Performa 6400 with OS 8. Thing was slow as heck, but it ran circles around my 166 MHz Win95 P1. Still works too, after all these years. Long since my 166 kicked the bucket. Moms got it at her school.

    Can't wait to get my new Mac with OS X. The best OS I've ever used.

    Hardware's hardware.
     
  16. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #16
    Well I need to compare PCs and Macs in terms of performance because I do things that require a lot of power (3D modelling, games, video editing etc). I will probably always get a Mac because I prefer them, but for me to get rid of my PC, I would need to be able to get a cheap powerful Mac. The current iMac/eMacs are just too slow for anything other than office/internet work. The iMac is only about as fast as a 2Ghz P4 costing the same as a 3Ghz P4, but the iMac also has a rubbish graphics card. The current G5 Macs are a joke in terms of graphics. I don't know if Apple knows it, but the radeon 9000 in older Macs is faster than the Geforce 5200FX and at those prices, the ATI Radeon 9800 should come as standard.
     
  17. GulGnu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    #17
    Well, W2K is essentially XP pro minus the my-first interface look, so the difference between XP and W2K isn't all that big...

    /GulGnu

    -Stabil som fan!
     
  18. GulGnu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    #18
    Don't let looks keep you away from XP - you can pretty much make it look any way you want. (The included silver/metallic theme is pretty acceptable). Sure, not OS X, but if you are using a PC, you should be using XP Pro.
     
  19. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #19
    It's not because of the way it looks, I have changed the way 2000 looks (slightly). I can take physically ugly. I should have been more specific. The interface is ugly, the design is ugly, and I had problems with it. It might have been Sony's doing, but my experiance with XP so far has been negative. My experiance with 2000 hasn't exactly been good, but it's better than 98, and less restrictive than XP.

    I ain't paying for XP. ;)

    Can't wait to get a new OS X machine.
     
  20. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #20
    who said anything about paying?
     
  21. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #21
    Well I didn't exactly pay for 2000 either. I know that Product Activation can be circumvented, and was actually offered a hacked version of XP for free. Turned it down.

    2000 works ok for now. Won't have to worry about it much longer, though.
     
  22. brandon_deal macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    #22

    thats what im thinking
     
  23. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #23
    w2k is great if all your hardware and software works with it...there was not a big push to make w2k work well with a lot

    but you don't need a lot...just the right parts

    my pc laptop was six months too old to be 100 percent compatible with that operating system so some stuff does not work...like the modem...but it's ok for coding and for ms office stuff

    for cruising around on the net, i need my modem so i use windows 98, even though it crashes more than w2k

    one can only make an old machine go so far, so when i go get a pc replacement for my old compaq, i will make sure it has windows xp pro on it and if i can afford it, i would like centrino technology...but it's still new so it's price of centrino laptops is still artificially high
     
  24. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #24
    we should all switch back to system 7 heehee :D
    anyway, windows millennium, 9x and previous versions all SUCKED.
    win nt/2k were okay
    XP == the worst operating system on the face of this planet
    i cant help but puke when i look at the heinous color of the start button
    personally i'm a win2k user. xp is too damn ugly to use, plus it's not as stable as 2k
    windows 2k has got to be the best operating system ever to come out of redmond.
     
  25. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #25
    haha you know i used to agree that xp just plain sucked--and that was coming from a user who used 98se (but tweaked).

    Compared to most people, having spent almost 3 years using it, i basically did not experience a blue screen in the last 2 years (basic via 4-in-1 drivers were the problem).

    In fact, i consider it almost like the energy degredation--95 has 100% probability of BSOD's...98se reduces it significantly (i would say 10fold nearly--95 was daily bsod essentially).

    XP pro- not once in the 5 months has it BSODed.
    I have to agree that the blue start button and all is ugly--that's why i use classic color/interface.

    You go to advanced system settings and remove all the "shadows' or other system taxing visualities.

    Load the gamingregstart registry file (eliminates nearly half of unused MS services).

    And voila -- you got a stable OS w/o the bloated services running in the background.

    *many of my friends ran into problems with win2k--mostly software/hardware support--with xp, those issues were virtually eliminated.
     

Share This Page