What exactly do Windows PCs do better than Apple Macs?


kalisphoenix

macrumors 65816
Jul 26, 2005
1,234
1
Uh, games.

Edit: WTF? Did the link come out wrong or does this really link to an article talking about how hot-**** a 2-way KVM is???
 

Capt Underpants

macrumors 68030
Jul 23, 2003
2,859
3
Austin, Texas
greatdevourer said:
Not so. There was a test done with same-spec machines running the same game with the same engine, and they scored the same
Same-spec machines, eh? Same performance? I call BS on this one. Do you have a link?
 

MacsRgr8

macrumors 604
Sep 8, 2002
7,830
1,120
The Netherlands
kalisphoenix said:
Uh, games.
Only thing thay are better at, but the sole reason why so many home users don't wanna switch.
Sure, Mac is cool nowadays..... sure, Mac is safe etc..... but, hey..... no super games on the Mac. The few top notch games that do get to the Mac, suffer from performance problems. Man o man... how many times I have heard that....
 

neonart

macrumors 65816
Sep 4, 2002
1,065
30
Near a Mac since 1993.
As silly as this seemingly incomplete article sounds (I was like- "Where's the rest?"), it does a good job of informing the uninformed.

There are a ton of people saying what great machines Macs are, and how cool the Mini is, etc. This makes them realize that they can keep their whole setup and just add a Mini to try the OSX experince.
I know that should be obvious, but there are some really unimaginative people that need the media to tell them what to do.
 

Analog Kid

macrumors 601
Mar 4, 2003
4,777
2,797
Time to send my resume to the Herald... I can't believe they're willing to pay people for stuff like that!
 

plinden

macrumors 68040
Apr 8, 2004
3,969
3
greatdevourer said:
It was somewhere on Barefeats. DP G5 against an X2
You mean this: http://www.barefeats.com/macvspc ? That showed that in non-3D graphics, the DP G5 was as good as or better than Opterons and Xeons?

What's that got to do with games? http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc shows why people say you can't play games on a Mac.

But perhaps you were just thinking about the Quake 3 Arena benchmarks (near the bottom of http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc), which show what you could have if games are optimized properly for the Mac.
 

areyouwishing

macrumors regular
Feb 19, 2003
236
0
Utah
There is only one app i think a PC is truly useful for (other than games of course... which i don't play). It's called CD Architect Pro. It's basically DVD Studio Pro but for Audio CDs, it's elegent, easy to use, not cpu intense, and there is nothing on the mac that can even remotely compete when making mix cds.

To Quote Dane Cook: "I swear to god if you say Roxio Jam, I'll stab you in your jaw!"

Anyone who has actually used both programs would agree.
 

greatdevourer

macrumors 68000
Aug 5, 2005
1,996
0
plinden said:
But perhaps you were just thinking about the Quake 3 Arena benchmarks (near the bottom of http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc), which show what you could have if games are optimized properly for the Mac.
Yeah, it was that (I think). If you look on any of the Mac Vs PC things, it always says "the PC version was running Direct X, and the Mac version had it ported to OpenGL, which sucks anyway" or "the PC version was optimised properly. The Mac version was just compiled at a moments notice." To quote an ID Software release:
Amount of time Apple/ATI/nVidia have had to optimize specifically for Doom 3. On Windows, ATI/NVIDIA spent multiple programmer years tuning their OpenGL implementations for Doom 3, starting back over a year ago while the game was still in development. Apple/ATi/NVIDIA have done an immense amount of work on OS X's GL in the last 3-4 months, but there is no way they could get as much done as the dozens of Windows engineers working on the problem for over a year.
 

Capt Underpants

macrumors 68030
Jul 23, 2003
2,859
3
Austin, Texas
greatdevourer said:
Yeah, it was that (I think). If you look on any of the Mac Vs PC things, it always says "the PC version was running Direct X, and the Mac version had it ported to OpenGL, which sucks anyway" or "the PC version was optimised properly. The Mac version was just compiled at a moments notice." To quote an ID Software release:
But still, whether it be the software's fault or not, the gaming experience on the PC side of things. There's better performance and more games on the PC side of things. Some great games are never even released for OSX.
 

GodBless

macrumors 65816
Jan 22, 2005
1,005
0
I think the writer of the article needs to take a look at the processor speeds of the Mac mini and the PowerBook again before saying that Apple offers them both at the same maximum processor speeds. :rolleyes:
 

mpw

Guest
Jun 18, 2004
6,364
1
GodBless said:
Maybe you will change your mind after reading this. ;)
I don't doubt that there are few shortcuts that aren't available to both OS's and that some from the list you linked to are 'simpler' in OSX than XP but it's the method under windows I like.
Say I want to paste from the clipboard in XP I ctrl-v in OSX I 'Apple'-v so you might say there's no difference, except I've got to first know that it's v to paste and remember that under OSX whereas under XP if I can't remember or never knew I can Alt-e (I think, I'm using OSX so can't be sure if it's not e then it's whichever letter in the Edit menu is underscored) to drop down the Edit menu from where I can either see the shortcut ctrl-v or just hit whichever letter is underscored in paste. Having the underscores means I only need to know the method and I can access any action through the keyboard however obscure and don't need to touch the mouse or memorize any lists.
 

dubbz

macrumors 68020
Sep 3, 2003
2,284
0
Alta, Norway
That's all? What a silly article.

And for me the main thing that Windows PCs do better than Macs are Games. There's way many games that's released for Windows but not OS X.

...and for anyone say that you could just buy a console (since they're made for games, or some other nonsense), I swear I'll slap you.


And the little geek in me is also whispering that the ability to easily build your own Windows box is a plus over Mac. Most whouldn't give a damn about that one though, which I quite understand ;)
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
I can (and do) honestly recommend Windows PCs--but only in VERY narrow and rare sets of circumstances. Like if you need a Windows app for your boss, and can't afford VirtualPC because your budget for a computer is $500.

PCs can indeed be better for games, depending on your needs. Or consoles can be better than both. For other people a Mac is the best of the three for games. You have to decide what your needs are--one answer isn't right for everyone.

I game frequently (FPS fan) and for my needs:

Mac is best
PC would be second
Console is a distant last choice

I like my mouse for aiming, my free downloadable demos and online multiplayer, and the endless user-built add-ons. No console can give me what UT 2004 does.

I also demand security and ease of maintenance. Those general benefits of OS X benefit ALL users--even gamers. Dealing with Windows (heck, even taking the time to LEARN to deal with Windows security) isn't what I call fun and isn't worth it to me, when OS X has more games than I could ever play anyway. (And I don't care about bragging rights that come with getting a game 4 months earlier. Some do.)

So for me, a console or a PC are unacceptable for gaming.

The number one benefit of a PC, to me, is editing tools. I'd consider dealing with Windows for that!

Luckily, that's starting to improve on Mac. For instance, UT 2007 will have Mac editing tools :)

And if I want a great environment to make my own games--EVEN games for Windows--Unity is ONLY available for Mac.

For other people, a console or PC is the best game machine. Whatever meets your needs!