I have both a Mac and Athlon
I have both a Dual G4 1 GHz PowerMac Quicksilver, customized to the gills in a dual monitor setup; and a handbuilt Athlon XP 2700 Computer running Windows XP. Yes, the Athlon is faster and cheaper in some ways. (I also have simultaneously running a Powerbook G3 2000, and a Powerbook G4 Titanium, and an HP Athlon-based PC).
I, however, prefer using the PowerMac over the PC.
Compared to Windows XP, Mac OS X is so much more elegant, useful, cleaner, extensible, intuitive, smarker and faster to use than Windows XP. I can accomplish more things simultaneously on the Mac than in Windows XP.
For example, Microsoft Explorer on OS X is SO much better than in Windows XP. When I go online, I open up 20 windows each to a website I am interested in. This allows me to be very efficient in reading online. Try this in Windows XP - its very clunky and inefficient when doing this. Windows XP is made for people who single-task, using one window at a time; compared to multi-tasking as on the Mac.
Upgrading the hardware on the PowerMac is much easier compared to upgrading the PC. I don't have to register with Microsoft when I want to do it either.
The PowerMac is useful for almost everything I use it for, including video work. I use the Athlon PC for mainly grunt work - such as digitizing audio, downloading software, scanning files; and for programs that don't have a Mac counterpart. But almost all the time I spend with the computer is on the PowerMac. With Audiocorder X on my Powerbook 2000, I don't even have to use the Athlon for digitizing audio.
For those that complain about speed: go ahead. Buy a PC. Enjoy it.
If you appreciate the Mac for what it is, if you truly understand what the Mac is about, what the ZEN of Mac is about, you will soon realize how clunky and underproductive the Windows XP PC is compared to the Mac, no matter how fast the PC may be. You will soon realize how much faster you can get things done on the Mac - you aren't fighting with your Mac as you do with the PC.
For those that complain about price: get over it. Get a better job.
The Mac has always been more expensive when compared to a PC. It is made for people who are brighter and wealthier on average than the average PC user. When using the analogy of automobiles, the Mac is a Lexus, the PC a Chevy. Most people can't buy the Lexus. Those that want to need to get a higher paying job.
It is unfortunate that Apple had to compete on price with low end models. That brought in cheapskate dregs who don't appreciate the elegance that the Mac offers, for whom Windows is just good enough, for whom the saying "The relentless pursuit of perfection" flows through one ear out the other.
I define the next generation computer, be it a Mac or a PC, as the model that is 4 times faster than the previous generation. I usually purchase new computers based on this because any smaller jump in speed is not perceptibly much faster. I don't get a high from smaller jumps. Since the 3 GHz Pentium 4 is NOT four times faster than my Athlon XP 2700, I'm not going to upgrade, similarly for the Mac 1.25 GHz Dual G4s. I am amused by PC sites who slobber over 20% gains in speed. That is such a small jump. Sure - if you have to do something data intensive repetitively such as in video production, you may gain time. But in day-to-day use with less data intensive work, such as word processing, games, database use, Photoshop work, music, this small gain is not that much. It certainly doesn't justify for most people having to purchase a whole new computer - or even motherboard - since you may have to purchase new memory or even a new graphics card.
I can wait for the PowerPC 970 PowerMacs, particularly if they are dual processor. At the 1.8 GHz anticipated top end, given a dual processor model will be about four times faster than my Dual 1 GHz G4, if not more given the huge jump in speed of the databus. I'll buy that when it comes out.
I have both a Dual G4 1 GHz PowerMac Quicksilver, customized to the gills in a dual monitor setup; and a handbuilt Athlon XP 2700 Computer running Windows XP. Yes, the Athlon is faster and cheaper in some ways. (I also have simultaneously running a Powerbook G3 2000, and a Powerbook G4 Titanium, and an HP Athlon-based PC).
I, however, prefer using the PowerMac over the PC.
Compared to Windows XP, Mac OS X is so much more elegant, useful, cleaner, extensible, intuitive, smarker and faster to use than Windows XP. I can accomplish more things simultaneously on the Mac than in Windows XP.
For example, Microsoft Explorer on OS X is SO much better than in Windows XP. When I go online, I open up 20 windows each to a website I am interested in. This allows me to be very efficient in reading online. Try this in Windows XP - its very clunky and inefficient when doing this. Windows XP is made for people who single-task, using one window at a time; compared to multi-tasking as on the Mac.
Upgrading the hardware on the PowerMac is much easier compared to upgrading the PC. I don't have to register with Microsoft when I want to do it either.
The PowerMac is useful for almost everything I use it for, including video work. I use the Athlon PC for mainly grunt work - such as digitizing audio, downloading software, scanning files; and for programs that don't have a Mac counterpart. But almost all the time I spend with the computer is on the PowerMac. With Audiocorder X on my Powerbook 2000, I don't even have to use the Athlon for digitizing audio.
For those that complain about speed: go ahead. Buy a PC. Enjoy it.
If you appreciate the Mac for what it is, if you truly understand what the Mac is about, what the ZEN of Mac is about, you will soon realize how clunky and underproductive the Windows XP PC is compared to the Mac, no matter how fast the PC may be. You will soon realize how much faster you can get things done on the Mac - you aren't fighting with your Mac as you do with the PC.
For those that complain about price: get over it. Get a better job.
The Mac has always been more expensive when compared to a PC. It is made for people who are brighter and wealthier on average than the average PC user. When using the analogy of automobiles, the Mac is a Lexus, the PC a Chevy. Most people can't buy the Lexus. Those that want to need to get a higher paying job.
It is unfortunate that Apple had to compete on price with low end models. That brought in cheapskate dregs who don't appreciate the elegance that the Mac offers, for whom Windows is just good enough, for whom the saying "The relentless pursuit of perfection" flows through one ear out the other.
I define the next generation computer, be it a Mac or a PC, as the model that is 4 times faster than the previous generation. I usually purchase new computers based on this because any smaller jump in speed is not perceptibly much faster. I don't get a high from smaller jumps. Since the 3 GHz Pentium 4 is NOT four times faster than my Athlon XP 2700, I'm not going to upgrade, similarly for the Mac 1.25 GHz Dual G4s. I am amused by PC sites who slobber over 20% gains in speed. That is such a small jump. Sure - if you have to do something data intensive repetitively such as in video production, you may gain time. But in day-to-day use with less data intensive work, such as word processing, games, database use, Photoshop work, music, this small gain is not that much. It certainly doesn't justify for most people having to purchase a whole new computer - or even motherboard - since you may have to purchase new memory or even a new graphics card.
I can wait for the PowerPC 970 PowerMacs, particularly if they are dual processor. At the 1.8 GHz anticipated top end, given a dual processor model will be about four times faster than my Dual 1 GHz G4, if not more given the huge jump in speed of the databus. I'll buy that when it comes out.
