mac / pc

[kuba]

I got a question, here is a MAC G4 spec...
* Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors
* 1GB memory (667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
* NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
* 250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1
* 16x double-layer SuperDrive

Could you not essentially build a PC with the same specs and have the same equivalent system. Or would the MAC run more stable and faster?
I went into a MAC store for the first time a few weeks ago and opening up several programs at once, I couldn't believe the speed and consistent "power" (meaning the processing) of various things in the programs.
ie - meaning, it didn't slow down much.

I'm contemplating a mac for digital imaging and video stuff, so just doing some homework on the stuff now.

 

[cmdrdredd]

That's all the OS. The hardware IS a PC...it's just a different OS running versions of apps specially made for that OS. I can open 20apps on my C2D and it will be faster than that mac, in fact...it's faster than any Mac you can buy since you can't overclock a Mac.

 

[Saku]

I have a PC desktop and a Mac laptop, they both have their good points. 99% of the spyware/viruses that I could acquire while on my PC have no effect on my Mac. Although the Mac is much more reliable, it is no where near as fun.

 

[Silversierra]

It isn't a mac g4, it's a mac pro's specs. The mac pro has dual dual core xeons(4 processing cores), so it is very fast. I don't think it's priced badly at $2499, considering how much just one of those dual core 2.66 xeons costs.

Edit: Also, with boot camp or parallels, you can install windows on the intel based macs, and then you have the "best of both worlds."

 

[Tarrant64]

I think what its coming down to nowadays is your preference in OS and software. If you are familiar with OS X and can get what you need done efficiently and with no hassle then go for it. OS X will have lots more to offer once it's new OS(Leopard) is released.

If you are a Windows guy, then build yourself a PC that matches the specs of that. If you feel it matches up to the performance then great, but it will most likely pair up to be the same(other than OS differences). For what you want to do(digital imaging and video), I tend to see preferences towards Macs. So do it to it.

 

[kuba]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
That's all the OS. The hardware IS a PC...it's just a different OS running versions of apps specially made for that OS. I can open 20apps on my C2D and it will be faster than that mac, in fact...it's faster than any Mac you can buy since you can't overclock a Mac.

C2D?
True it may be faster, but I remember someone telling me (or did I read it somewhere?) that if you kept a PC and a MAC on for 24hrs not doing anything.
At the end of the day, the resources (or RAM) would be lower on the PC and you would have to restart it, whereas on the Mac, it would sustain its levels and run just as fine as though you had first turned it on.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: kuba

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
That's all the OS. The hardware IS a PC...it's just a different OS running versions of apps specially made for that OS. I can open 20apps on my C2D and it will be faster than that mac, in fact...it's faster than any Mac you can buy since you can't overclock a Mac.

C2D?
True it may be faster, but I remember someone telling me (or did I read it somewhere?) that if you kept a PC and a MAC on for 24hrs not doing anything.
At the end of the day, the resources (or RAM) would be lower on the PC and you would have to restart it, whereas on the Mac, it would sustain its levels and run just as fine as though you had first turned it on.

Um...no. I run my systems 24/7

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: kuba

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
That's all the OS. The hardware IS a PC...it's just a different OS running versions of apps specially made for that OS. I can open 20apps on my C2D and it will be faster than that mac, in fact...it's faster than any Mac you can buy since you can't overclock a Mac.

C2D?
True it may be faster, but I remember someone telling me (or did I read it somewhere?) that if you kept a PC and a MAC on for 24hrs not doing anything.
At the end of the day, the resources (or RAM) would be lower on the PC and you would have to restart it, whereas on the Mac, it would sustain its levels and run just as fine as though you had first turned it on.

Maybe back in the windows 9x days. But today a well maintained windows XP system with decently written software is just as stable and resource conservative as a mac.

 

[spikespiegal]

99% of the spyware/viruses that I could acquire while on my PC have no effect on my Mac.

That's because you don't know how to use Windows without an admin account (like most housewives and teenagers), which pretty much makes windows as immune from that crap as OSX. You otherwise have my encouragement to go Mac so we have one less Windows user to baby sit and rant on about Spyware removers and how 'awesum' Apple is.

went into a MAC store for the first time a few weeks ago and opening up several programs at once,

Wow, when did you stop using Windows 3.11?

I haven't used the new PowerMac, but I have worked on Dual G5's, and frankly didn't find OSX on that platform more/less responsive than a 3ghz+ P4. If anything, I found my own custom built dual Core Athlon machines a bit snappier than the dual Apple G5 - except for Photoshop which screamed on the G5 because of Altivec. My conclusion here is you are so used to Windows machines bogged down with garbage, useless security programs and trojans from pirated software you think OSX is faster. Please look up 'PEBKAC' on Wikipedia for a technical explanation of this.

The Mac Pro is based on a Intel Dual Xeon motherboard that if you do some research you can find pretty much the same beast at Supermicro.Com or inside a Dell Precision, minus of course the Apple BIOS allowing OSX to be run on it. There is otherwise nothing special or unique from a hardware perspective about Mac Pro compared to any dual Xeon Intel based workstation. It's an Intel clone in an Apple case and a whole lotta marketing - so deal with it.

You could build your own dual Xeon with te same specs as the Mac Pro, but it wouldn't be much cheaper. However, this is just a lunatic pursuit because as iMac users are starting to grumble about in Apple forums the Mac Pro is not an ideal machine in terms of price/performance. Four cores can't do more work that two cores at the same clock unless you're using a one of a handfull of apps spawing simplistic threads that can utilize the extra cores. however, I'm sure the dude in the Apple store didn't tell you that. In fact, a single processor 2.66 Core 2 Duo machine would perform identically to a 2.66ghz Mac Pro expect for those few tasks. The difference in price however would be dramatic.

So, the problem is if you want to run OSX (the only arguable reason to buy a Mac), is you're forced between an Apple Notebook, iMac (a desktop LCD built on a laptop chassis and not very expandable), or the inefficient and expensive Mac Pro.

True it may be faster, but I remember someone telling me (or did I read it somewhere?) that if you kept a PC and a MAC on for 24hrs not doing anything.

I'm sure you read this on Apple.Com as well. Feel free to google the top 10 web/application hosts in your area offering 24/7 service and find how many of them are running OSX vs Windows. Some of the Windows Citrix boxes I've installed and supported run upwards of 50 simultaneous applications, yet the only time I reboot them is to install or update apps every couple of weeks - going back to NT 4. To be honest, when I hear comments like that I no longer have sympathy for U.S. tech jobs going over seas that's for sure.

 

[Saku]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

99% of the spyware/viruses that I could acquire while on my PC have no effect on my Mac.

That's because you don't know how to use Windows without an admin account (like most housewives and teenagers), which pretty much makes windows as immune from that crap as OSX. You otherwise have my encouragement to go Mac so we have one less Windows user to baby sit and rant on about Spyware removers and how 'awesum' Apple is.

Exactly, generally speaking macs are much more stable. I don't have any problems with viruses/spyware that why I said "I COULD acquire..." so calm down with your accusations.

 

[jleves]

Originally posted by: kuba

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
That's all the OS. The hardware IS a PC...it's just a different OS running versions of apps specially made for that OS. I can open 20apps on my C2D and it will be faster than that mac, in fact...it's faster than any Mac you can buy since you can't overclock a Mac.

C2D?
True it may be faster, but I remember someone telling me (or did I read it somewhere?) that if you kept a PC and a MAC on for 24hrs not doing anything.
At the end of the day, the resources (or RAM) would be lower on the PC and you would have to restart it, whereas on the Mac, it would sustain its levels and run just as fine as though you had first turned it on.

Whoever told you that is somebody who owns a Mac and needs to justify their purchase. I have nothing against Macs and they have their place. However, I leave my XP systems on 24x7 for months at a time and have never run out of resources. It's an old argument based on Windows platforms that relied on DOS as the underlying operating system. If you are used to using a Mac and like the OS and it does everything you want, that system is very powerful. If you are used to Windows or the Mac can't do some of the things you want to, get a new Conroe based system and you'll be happier.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: jleves

Originally posted by: kuba

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
That's all the OS. The hardware IS a PC...it's just a different OS running versions of apps specially made for that OS. I can open 20apps on my C2D and it will be faster than that mac, in fact...it's faster than any Mac you can buy since you can't overclock a Mac.

C2D?
True it may be faster, but I remember someone telling me (or did I read it somewhere?) that if you kept a PC and a MAC on for 24hrs not doing anything.
At the end of the day, the resources (or RAM) would be lower on the PC and you would have to restart it, whereas on the Mac, it would sustain its levels and run just as fine as though you had first turned it on.

Whoever told you that is somebody who owns a Mac and needs to justify their purchase. I have nothing against Macs and they have their place. However, I leave my XP systems on 24x7 for months at a time and have never run out of resources. It's an old argument based on Windows platforms that relied on DOS as the underlying operating system. If you are used to using a Mac and like the OS and it does everything you want, that system is very powerful. If you are used to Windows or the Mac can't do some of the things you want to, get a new Conroe based system and you'll be happier.

Occationally an app crashes in windows and I need to restart, but on a Mac sometimes I get a crash that causes kernel panic and I have to pull the plug.

 

[SparkyJJO]

It comes down to OS preference, the hardware is really no different in a PC than in a mac. Even during the G3 days when people were touting "macs have higher quality hardware" it was the same basic stuff aside from the CPU architecture. I cracked open many a mac G3 that my school got and they all had WD, Maxtor, or IBM hard drives, and Samsung, Micron, Infineon, or Hynix RAM - which by the way despite "requiring" mac RAM the mac RAM worked fine in a PC and the much cheaper PC RAM worked fine in the mac

I would say a PC in the end though because I am a PC guy Part of it is you can do so much more with a PC hardware and software-wise as far as tweaks and changes, macs are too "idiot-proof" for my liking And that single button mouse is pathetic

 

[tatteredpotato]

The commercials tell me my home movies look better if i make them on a box with an apple on it

 

[benplaut]

If stability is really a concern, go for a *NIX... debian (one of the most stable linuxen), BSD, and mac (although not in the same level as the last two).

 

[pkme2]

PC of course.
85%+ of the world's population uses Windows, and PCs are universal.
The main reason is its versatility and costs.
eMachines systems start at $499 and iMac starts at $999.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure what the public will buy.
Economy and practical usage determines the market share.