Why do you guys believe Macs are superior so PC's?

[mark28]

Why PC is better.
1. Apple drops support of their products very fast while Windows will keep supporting older products. ( Where is iCloud for us Snow Leopard users? )
2. The screens Apple uses suck. Only the MBP has an anti-glare screen. Apple really needs to do something about that insane glare from the Glossy screens.
3. Windows 7 > Lion. Windows 7 is just way more efficient than Lion.
4. Apple = outdated old hardware and also weak hardware.
5. Much more software ( iPhone users make the same argument why iOS is better than Android, so the same argument can be made than for Windows )
6. Much better warranty. Apple = 1 year warranty PC = warranty dependent on your parts which can be 5+ years.
7. Much more powerful computer for the same money.
8. Most software like Adobe is optimized for Windows.

Why Mac is better.
1. Mac = Sexy. That's why everybody copies Apple.
2. Snow Leopard is way better than Windows 7. It's faster, more efficient, more advanced and more useable.
3. The people working at Applecare are awesome ( funny that the people working in the Apple Store are complete imbeciles though. Just go straight to Applecare )
4. Best Anti-glare laptop screens
5. Can run Mac exclusive software, yet also Windows exclusive software ( Mac's can run Windows too )
6. Lighter and thinner ( laptops )
7. More enjoyable to use. ( A Ferrari is faster than a Maybach, but a Maybach is just a much more enjoyable ride than a Ferrari. And it's way more luxurious )
8. Mac computers are completely silent ( this can be important if you do recording for example )

 

[s15119]

Honestly I'm curious why you believe that Macs are better than PC's?

For the amount of money you would spend on a iMac you could build a PC with twice the specs. Hell I bet my $900 PC could outperform any of your iMacs.

The design seems to be the main selling points for Macs, why? If you have any sense you would know that performance is better than design.

I'm not trying to troll or say that Macs are bad I'm just wondering why you guys think this.

The iMac IS a PC.

 

[JerryFn]

Don't confuse form and content.

Clearly mac lovers love the 'brand' but as someone who has both and considered a new build W7 PC with better specs for less money. In the end I opted for the 27" Imac.
Quite pleased so far but it is not perfect, just a bit different. (Maybe I just wanted a change of religion and got to hate 'blue')
The most annoying thing about macs is their allegiance to Apple. The lack of generosity and general sense of Apple hubris with the 'lock in'.
It facilitates Apple apps and integrates them at the expense of others.
W7 are now so much better for graphic pro's, Apple have lost most of that advantage.
Contrary to received wisdom they are not 'simple' idiot proof machines. W7 is just as easy to use.
Now we hear that virus builders target macs just as frequently as PC's.


27" is pretty though, till it is outdated fashion.... then ..well maybe Linux.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

It really boils down to the OS.

 

[elphillo]

The iMac IS a PC.

What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Wow, this is entertaining! Each person has to figure out what they need, right? For me, there is justa dearth of quality MS PC hardware. Sony has some good stuff, but I really wanted an all in one this time. The Sony was too small. I bought an iMac. I first thought I might load Windows on it, but I've grown to like enough of OSX that I've avoided doing so. One example is the more consistent implementation of color management. With a lot of Win apps, it's hit or miss. Win7 provides the tools, but the apps just aren't there.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

What does that have to do with what S15119 said?

 

[Thetonyk123]

It's not pc is better

 

[derbothaus]

It's not pc is better

I like plastic too.

 

[Stan Mikulenka]

Hi,
and stop claiming that PCs are cheaper.
This is a round cost for my PC.
(+ 2 monitors at over $1000 {each}...):
vid. card $600
sound card $200
CPU $600
M.B. $300
PSU $300
RAM (12Gb) $200
case $150
2 DVDs $100
cooling $100
2 HDs $200
1 SSD HD $250
OS (XP64+win7) $400
------------------------------
$3400

 

[HardBall]

For me since I don't really use any mac or windows software (I pretty mcuh use different distributions of linux exclusively), I don't really have much to say about the software side of a Mac, except thst both OS X and Windows are serious compromises in terms of features and performance efficiency compared to what I need to do on a daily basis. I'm a computor engineer that have worked on both microarchitecture / integrated-circuit design as well as some areas in AI and natural language processing. So using a conventional consumer grade client OS is simply not an option for me. No matter which computer I buy, the first order of business is to wipe the system and install debian or fedora, or something similar.

But for the hardware in question, I think that Macs are usually better integrated system design, more robust and durable chassis, as well as better extenal aesthetics, at the cost of losing some connectivity. The only windows PCs that I've come across in recent years that come close to or surpasses the Mac quality are the HP Envy 15 series (now defunct), and the current sony vaio SB and Z series. The Z series actually I think has better build quality and more interesting formfactor and functionality than MBP/MBA, but has a sky-high price. Most of the windows machines do not hold a candle in terms of either build quality or aesthetics compared to the current lineup of Mac laptops.

 

[kingtj]

An opinion from a former PC guy ....

I honestly know where you're coming from with this question. I've been there myself. I got started with computers back when all the machines were 8-bit systems like the Tandy/Radio Shack computers, the Apple // series, the Atari 400/800, Commodore 64, etc. etc. When I got my first generic "PC compatible" clone, I thought I really had something impressive and it was the "way of the future" for computing.

I stuck with it throughout all the versions of MS Windows from 3.0 through XP without really considering a Mac, other than a brief experiment with a Performa tower back in '97 that ended badly.

But one day, I got a job working for a guy who was all about the Mac, as a Mac technician. I didn't know anything about Macs but figured they were as easy to troubleshoot or fix as any other PC. I soon learned that the newer Macs he had in the office, running OS X (10.2 Jaguar at that time) were really slick-looking. I was mainly fixing older, vintage Macs, which fascinated me too with their creative design and thought put into so many details. But still, they were clearly outdated by modern standards of processor power, hard drive space, etc. -- so they served as little more than curiosities. It was the OS X machines that hooked me. I realized they were running a Unix platform underneath the custom GUI, and knowing a fair bit about Linux, that was a big plus to me, too.

I finally broke down and bought a brand new PowerMac dual processor G4 tower with OS X for myself. It was expensive, yes -- but the fact it was something completely different than the Windows machines I stared at every day for so many years had a lot of personal value to me. I started realizing the Mac had this whole community around it too. When you bought a Mac, it was a little like buying a Harley Davidson motorcycle (as opposed to any other sport bike) ... You became part of a close-knit group that shared your choice in products. It was almost a lifestyle choice, vs. just another electronics purchase, if that makes any sense?

The more I got used to the Mac's way of doing things, the more I found myself agreeing with their software and design decisions, too. I started looking forward to replacing other PCs at home with Macs and eventually getting to the point where I had an "all Mac" network at home. I noticed system crashes requiring reboots were practically a thing of the past. Yes, it *could* happen, but only when you found a particularly misbehaved program that was CLEARLY the culprit. Remove it, and voila -- back to stability again.

As the years have progressed since then, I've switched over to all Macs at home, except for a PC or two running Windows 7 that mostly get used by the kids for games and educational programs. I still support Windows all day at work, as my day job, but I recommend Macs to everyone who expresses some dissatisfaction with their Windows box. The virus/spyware problems are SO much less of a worry on a Mac and that alone makes one make sense for a LOT of people.

I'll be honest... a lot of die-hard Windows people are gonna read all of this and think, "Well, ok ... but STILL, why not just make a hackintosh out of a custom built PC and run OS X on something cheaper and maybe even better-spec'd out?" And you can ... but to me, that's not worth the hassle. I mean, look at it this way. #1, you do that and you've got an illegal setup since OS X is NOT legally licensed for use in that manner. #2, you STILL spend a decent chunk of money making that hackintosh, and it won't have any of the elegance/styling of a REAL Mac, nor will you have any guarantee future OS X updates will work on it without delays and more hacking/patching of code. #3, Apple really does have superior customer service after the sale, so to me, that justifies some of the additional cost. I'm really tired of RMAing defective hard drives or motherboards or video cards when they conk out under warranty and there's nowhere to turn but the original manufacturer. With Apple, you can actually drop the whole machine off at a local store to get fixed promptly, and not have to start tearing it apart to pull bad parts out yourself to ship them off, etc.

Sorry this is so lengthy, but the best suggestion I can really give you is to actually BUY a new Mac if you're truly interested in considering them. It'll play nicely with your Windows network and all that. If you really don't like it after giving it an honest try (which will take 2-3 months at least, if you ask me)? You'll get great resale value out of it if you want to turn around and resell it -- and the money lost you can chalk up to investment in learning about them.

Honestly I'm curious why you believe that Macs are better than PC's?

For the amount of money you would spend on a iMac you could build a PC with twice the specs. Hell I bet my $900 PC could outperform any of your iMacs.

The design seems to be the main selling points for Macs, why? If you have any sense you would know that performance is better than design.

I'm not trying to troll or say that Macs are bad I'm just wondering why you guys think this.

 

[kingtj]

re: OS X morphing into iOS?

Umm... this is definitely NOT an absolute fact, at this time.

It's one THEORY, based on the fact OS X Lion started including some of the features found in iOS. But that *could* simply be because they thought the OS would become more user-friendly to folks using the iPad, iPhone or iPod Touch, who didn't yet own a Mac. It doesn't necessarily mean Apple is working on a long-term plan to turn one into the other.

Also, it's worth noting that Microsoft Windows 8 previews look an awful lot like they're bolting their Windows Mobile phone UI onto it. So even if Apple does morph OS X into more of an iOS type operating system, Microsoft will be headed the same direction on their side of the fence.

Only one thing that is missing here: OS X will morph into iOS. I leave it to yourselves what the implications will be for that.

(similarly that the iPod is slowly but surely dying - mobile phones are taking over as a music player, why carry two pieces of gear when one can do?)

 

[pianojoe]

While "performance is more important than design" is just an opinion, performance is more than mere number crunching. It's what I have accomplished at the end of a work day, and working with a computer that's actually fun to work with yields better results.

Here's my answer to your question:

- The design of the Mac extends far into the OS. In a way (if you're programming in Cocoa) the OS design rules are shoved down your throat as a developer. This is actually a Good Thing. What the user gets is a highly consistent user interface, and apps that comply to the user interface guidelines.

- From my personal observation, 99% of Mac users don't run virus detection software in the background AND have no problems. Talking about performance penalty…

- Since you're doing performance-intensive work, you may have seen that pro video or audio applications on Windows will only be guaranteed to work with a certain selection of chipsets or graphics cards. [And if I'm spending $5000 on software, I want to be sure I can run it hassle-free.] Not so on the Mac.

- Build quality: Isn't Apple market leader in customer satisfaction? To quote an old saying: Windows users swear at their computers, Mac users swear by their computers.

----------

And for the OS morphing secret-agenda followers: Did you notice that iOS actually IS OS X?

 

[kingtj]

Some sensible comments, pianojoe ....

A lot of the Windows PC die-hards are very firmly caught up in the idea that a computer's worth is measured solely by the specifications printed on the side of its box. (EG. Machine Y has a 3.2Ghz processor while machine X only has a 2.8Ghz so Y is better than X.) They extend that thinking to every detail of a PCs spec-sheet, comparing and contrasting everything from the number of available SATA ports to the speed/latency of the particular type of RAM it uses.

And hey, it sure SOUNDS like a sensible argument at first. I mean, who can argue with the facts about measured performance of all the components, right?

But the whole problem with it lies in the reality that you can't separate the design from the performance, as though one matters without the other. It's a HUMAN BEING who must interface with a given computer. I can guarantee you it will hurt overall "performance" FAR more if the user struggles with a poor keyboard or mouse that "sticks" than if he/she has a machine that's .5Ghz slower than another one!

Same with issues like bogging a machine down with sluggish anti-spyware/malware applications running in the background, or memory-hogging HP "all in one" printer/fax/copier/scanner drivers that add 20 seconds to the boot time.

While "performance is more important than design" is just an opinion, performance is more than mere number crunching. It's what I have accomplished at the end of a work day, and working with a computer that's actually fun to work with yields better results.

Here's my answer to your question:

- The design of the Mac extends far into the OS. In a way (if you're programming in Cocoa) the OS design rules are shoved down your throat as a developer. This is actually a Good Thing. What the user gets is a highly consistent user interface, and apps that comply to the user interface guidelines.

- From my personal observation, 99% of Mac users don't run virus detection software in the background AND have no problems. Talking about performance penalty…

- Since you're doing performance-intensive work, you may have seen that pro video or audio applications on Windows will only be guaranteed to work with a certain selection of chipsets or graphics cards. [And if I'm spending $5000 on software, I want to be sure I can run it hassle-free.] Not so on the Mac.

- Build quality: Isn't Apple market leader in customer satisfaction? To quote an old saying: Windows users swear at their computers, Mac users swear by their computers.

----------

And for the OS morphing secret-agenda followers: Did you notice that iOS actually IS OS X?

 

[panzer06]

I've got a dogs nads beastly PC for gaming, i7 2600k, 12gb ram, twin gtx580's, 2x256gb ssd's. Love it BUT I only use it for gaming - as much as Windows 7 is pretty good, I just massively prefer OSX for anything other than gaming. Despite those specs above, general os usage feels waaaay quicker on my 2011 MacBook air, hell even on my 3 year old MacBook pro with a ssd. I find even freshly installed Windows slightly less responsive than an old OSX install, more to do with windows legacy than actual specs.

snip

^This. I have a powerful Alienware laptop but it is only used for gaming and nothing else. I don;t think Windows is bad, I just prefer OS X.

I agree that the price premium on iMacs is sometimes hard to swallow but I haven't bought a full price Mac in years. I also buy refurb or last year's model new and get an outstanding deal. So you can get a decently priced iMac with plenty of power and the ability to run Windows when you need/want to. You just can't do that on a std Windows PC w/o a bunch of mackintosh tweaks.

Cheers,

 

[TSE]

To be honest, if my 2011 MacBook Pro ran Windows 7, I would like it just as much.

The real seller for me was:

1. The build quality - only Thinkpads or high-end Sony Vaio laptops that are the same price come in comparison.

2. The aesthetics - I don't want to look at something for 4-5 hours a day that looks hideous. I have a very specific taste in aesthetics... Only PC ones I like are the business lines of certain manufacturers and the high-end Vaios.

3. Battery life - I get 6-7 hours regularly, but if need-be, can stretch that out to 8. Very few laptops with equivalent power have that kind of battery life, like the Dell XPS15. However, it requires a gigantic, awkward, 9-cell battery hanging out from the bottom.

4. I am an Industrial Design major and Apple laptops were recommended. Not required. But recommended.

5. I am an owner of AAPL.

 

[lexvo]

I think Mac's are better, but not much.

I have used Windows PC's for like 25 years and never had much trouble (one monitor replaced under warranty, broken CD-burner, and maybe few small things).

In 2009 I bought an iMac. Very fine machine, but:
- slightly yellow tinting (acceptable though)
- Magic Mouse needed to be replaced after 1 year
- and now it looks like my ethernet port is broken

From my perspective, the quality hardware-wise isn't that much better.

 

[Taz Mangus]

Honestly I'm curious why you believe that Macs are better than PC's?

For the amount of money you would spend on a iMac you could build a PC with twice the specs. Hell I bet my $900 PC could outperform any of your iMacs.

The design seems to be the main selling points for Macs, why? If you have any sense you would know that performance is better than design.

I'm not trying to troll or say that Macs are bad I'm just wondering why you guys think this.

It is obvious from your post that you don't know whether to scratch your watch or wind your butt. I guess you didn't see the sign that says, "Please do not feed the trolls".

 

[BarkingGhost]

I'm just bewildered by the sens of need to use the portable version of graphics chips in the non-portable iMacs. Was it really a design decision to not have an accommodating bump on the back of the iMac, because it is more important to look good 'back there' than in front?

I get the usage of using portable versions of graphics chips/cards for truly portable devices, but ...

 

[risc]

I'm just bewildered by the sens of need to use the portable version of graphics chips in the non-portable iMacs. Was it really a design decision to not have an accommodating bump on the back of the iMac, because it is more important to look good 'back there' than in front?

Of course it mattered to Apple what the back of the iMac looked like, just as much as the front. If you don't get that, you don't get Apple.

 

[mjn298]

I've had both Macs and Windows.. I roll with Windows now because I am a HUGE hardware tinkerer and that is just easier to do with windows machines.

The "maintenance" that people are deriding is something I actually enjoy but honestly for the average user (who does everything through a browser anyway) it just comes down to what looks cooler with the least amount of effort, and that's Mac.

I should also add that I am a desktop guy primarily - I have a dinky little netbook that I take around when I travel and stuff like that. If I was more of a laptop user I'd probably be going Mac because Windows laptops of comparable build quality are just about as expensive.. and I can dual boot more easily with Mac.

 

[Zeov]

Theres way too much downtime, frustration and irritation involved in a PC, i use both Mac and PC.. and whenever i switch over to my mac everything feels so much better.


Besides, the mac might be an expensive product, but they are much easier to sell at a good price when you're done with it.

 

[EricT43]

It's a matter of personal preference, they are not necessarily superior. Macs do some things better than PCs and vice-versa. I like the OS and the apps, the display on my iMac is amazing, and the build quality and quality of materials IS superior to a cheaper PC. That's why I bought mine. Not only that, the resale value is awesome on these things. I had about $1500 invested in my PC and I only ended up getting $400 for it. You can use a Mac for a couple years and get most of your money back on the used market.

The price debate is always contentious, some people don't mind paying a premium for what they feel is a better product. Some people like Macs just because of image or style, and that's totally OK, too.

 

[Echtel]

Two words: user experience.

Apple codes the software and creates the hardware. That's what makes it so good.

Mac OS X is fantastic IMO, I love the eye candy. Don't get me wrong, I also use a Windows 7 PC to do my work (my 4 year old MacBook Pro is showing its age) - after using both Windows and Mac OS X, it seems like Windows is much more like a 'utilitarian' OS. It's a tool to do what I need to do, whereas Mac OS X is such a joy to use. It still does what I need to do, but better, through the user experience.

People take functionality for granted these days - to me it's not enough for something to just 'work', it also has to be pleasurable to use as well.

That plus the excellent hardware. My 4 year old MacBook Pro still looks like new