Apple iMac vs. PC with Microsoft Vista

The PC costs less and generally when it has a quality chipset (north & southbridge) and other hardware, you shouldn't have to much in the way of reliability issues.

It sounds like it's a matter of education and the fact that vista is definitely more restrictive out of the box.

I have multi-tracked so much music on PC's without issue and that would be close to the most taxing of any digital creative persuits. So quite frankly 10 years ago the mac for creativity argument was feasable, now it simply means jack!

Their are obvious differences, but the rules still apply:

1. Provided the hardware is quality - reliability should not be an issue.
2. It doesn't make a difference which operating system you use, If you want the most out of it then you have to learn it.
3. Good Luck.

I have run PC's without issue in the most resource hungry tasks without problem and all for thousands of dollars less.
That being said if you want to give me a MAC as a present I'll happily accept it.

Funny about the audio because Mac OS X has very low latency (= good for audio) compared to Windows.

And out of the box, I could d.i. my guitar, record in GarageBand and have a song done in 10 minutes. That's what I wanted, that's what I got, a simple and easy way to scratchpad songs - OSX just does it so simply, compared to Windows, installing drivers, tweaking your soundcard and inputs to run with your audio software. Not a major hassle but...

I am sorry gents but garageband compared to protools, cubase and logic (MAC) is a child's toy.

And just quietly, latency is dependent upon the systems resources and the quality of the specifically designed soundcard.

Perhaps most people don't need all those fancy features that those programs provide. Perhaps they want something simple that "JUST WORKS" outta the box
And if the did they can still boot the MAC into Windows. So where's the problem..

the comments were in response to the mac for creativity post.

The rest of my previous comments are directed at the fact that it makes very little difference if the individual is willing to learn the operating system they are working with.

So the problem is non existent really.

yes indeed, but it's not targeted at the pro user. Just like all the bundled apps (iTunes, iPhoto, i(whatever))are not supposed to be professional solutions to music or image storage but just something that works from the get go, easy and fun.

True, it's no professional studio tool, but by Feck is it easy to use. But it's also a shining example of a near perfect user interface, uncomplicated and intuitive, the learning curve is a flatliner (IMO). It's also a great way to learn how the majority of studio software functions, and if you know your shizzle you can pull some pretty cool results out of it. My Oxygen8 plugged straight in and worked right away in GarageBand, no drivers, no mucking around, instantly ready to scratchpad ideas on the move. GarageBand files also open in Logic 7, so I can take the rough ideas and polish them in the professional environment of Logic.

I assumed the reason that Mac didn't get any viruses was because no-one had bothered targetting them. Fair enough if that's not the case. I also looked at the Windows on Mac idea (or, more specifically, Office for Mac), but apparently there are compatibility problems between the Mac and PC versions, which is no good for me.

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the idea of Macs (I'm ignoring the OS here and focusing purely on their very limited selection of hardware) if they didn't seem so obsessed with making sexy-looking machines. The two-year warranty does not placate me because I would expect a computer to last around five years, with a memory/hard drive upgrade after three years or so. The fact that upgrades or replacements of faulty items is difficult and expensive with Macs seriously shortens their life span - a hidden cost that will add 40% onto the price if it lasts only three years rather than five.

If you can get Windows on a Mac, maybe what we need is the Mac OS on a PC. But presumably Apple don't want that...

OSX on a PC is possible. But it's a hack from the MOD scene and not supported by Apple. Wanna copy

I don't think this is such a good reason to not be buying Mac. MS Office has enough problems recognising it's own documents across different versions of office on the same system anyway. I have never had any issues between office on Mac and PC, although I'm sure there are a few issues.

Who cares about that? It's just a bonus if your computer actually looks good

I think people make this an issue when it's really not. The tower systems are dead easy to upgrade, their laptops, admittedly not as easy to upgrade as a windows lappie, but in reality it's not that hard at all. I have done several upgrades to my Mac laptop successfully and I was surprised at how easy it is.

The Mac and PC versions of Office are compatible. There can be text re-flowing issues in Word, but that doesn't bother most people and you could always run Windows Office under Parallels Desktop or Crossover (which doesn't need a Windows licence).

Not sure why you think upgrading RAM or hard disks would be more expensive - Macs use standard PC components so replacing them will not cost more. The only issue might be opening the consumer machines, which Mac shops will do for you for a few Euros. The pro machines are easily upgradeable and they are well designed so you won't cut yourself like you will on the average PC.

Macs generally have a longer service life than PCs because Apple supports the machines for longer than Windows does - at least 5 years. Try running Vista on a five year old PC.

If anyone cares about the facts surrounding security on computer, here's the latest rankings from Symantec:


What?! Apple came in 3rd place -- it's only going to get worse for Apple as its market share rises.

Computers are a commodity and there are really only 3 valid reasons for insisting on a particular OS:

1. You need to do real work beyond word processing and email. In the majority of cases that means a Windows PC, but it depends on the particulars of your work.
2. You want to play games that are less than 3 years old. That always means a Windows PC.
3. You don't do much more than email, word processing, photo editing or downloading MP3s and you really like pretty things. Get a Mac.

No, I didn't forget Linux, but how many Linux users don't also have Windows installed?

Microsoft has the fewest number of patches, because they don't like to fix anything. They'ed rather just not tell you about all the bugs and problems
and force you into buying the next ver. to get the latest updates. This reports is totally useless as are all Sysmantec "Security" reports. coming from
a company who's antivirus and other products are super bloated resource hogs, and always fail to get into the top 3 virus scanning products..

Things are changing Darkknight -- the reality has changed.

As other experts quoted in the article stated:

OK, in practice how many successful attacks on Mac OS X machines have their been? What percentage of viruses target Mac OS X? What percentage of zombied machines are Mac OS X?

Answer to all the above: 0 or as near as dammit.

And what percent are Vista? Probably also "0% or as near as dammit" for the time being.

You said it.

There are already viruses and trojans out which have been made to get around all of vista's security. Don't you even read tech sites or reports?

That's a load of bull. In my office, where we definitely do more than internet and emailing, there is not a windows PC in sight.
You can play modern games on a Mac, but admittedly there isn't the same variety, but generally all the good games are available for Mac
Audio, video & image professionals more often than not go with Mac, that's certainly more than word processing, emailing and internet, innit?

This is not entirely true. when was xp released and how often do u change your PC? when did u pay for an update? even pirated versions can get security update for free

I said 'majority' of cases. Regarding audio, video, that's little more than stereotype -- the really high-end stuff is not done on Macs (nor PC).

The truth is that there is pretty much nothing that cannot be done on a PC, but a hell of a lot that can't be done on a Mac. Why limit yourself?

iMac...

Also this bull about Apple is super-duper straight out the box, and Windows needs patches is a bit flakey.

When I got my new Mac, brand spanking new, ordered from the Apple website, and straight out the box from China - the first thing it did was download the HUGEST software update I have ever seen. Hundreds of Meg it was and sat on the internet connection for an hour, before needing a reboot etc etc. I had problems with it and needed to reload the software 3 times.

Also the battery pretty much blew up and had to be replaced under warranty.

I like it, but it's not like they don't have their issues.

@Sharpe
Windows Hit Store Shelves on October 25, 2001. And has only had 2 Service packs since. The 3rd will be out next year. (If MS doesn't change its mind or the release time further)
Change it in what way? Add/remove//upgrade hardware? Software? I'd say every 3-4 months for HW, weekly for Software.
Paid for a windows update, when I was forced to go from win2000 to XP because all the games started to require it and the newer ver. of DirectX
Last time I checked Redhat updates were part of the price. If you don't want to pay for anything, the uses CentOS, which is a free, no DRM ver.
of Redhat Enterprise 4. Apple even gives small point releases away for free, and only charges for the bigger ones. But even these you can find
on the internet for free. So whats the point your trying to get at?
Umm, I take it you haven't heard of Windows Geniue Advantage, which block Pirate copies from being updated? or Product activation, or any of the other systems
microsoft has in place..

As was your entire post

Windows XP takes at least three hours to install and patch fully. Doesn't matter how fast the machine is, most of the time is spent doing the downloads. Last time I checked there were 60+ patches to install after SP2, many requiring reboots. By contrast you can install and patch Mac OS X in about an hour, maximum of three reboots I think.

Steve Jobs Launches The iRack
(Invading your home soon)

What crack are you smoking?

Perhaps you should look at autopatcher. It can bring any Windows XP PC with SP2 upto current patch level in less than 30min.
This also includes extra programs, and drivers not on MS's download site and a few 100 different system tweaks. I can use an Unattended setup CD and Autopatcher
and have a fully installed and patched XP PC in about an hour. Perhaps you should try it, cause obviously your doing something completly wrong.

Mac, mac and more mac.

You can also slipstream or image. 90% of people don't do that. Having to buy a separate program to get the install times down to something reasonable is rubbish.

Slipstreaming Is Free
Autopatcher is Free
N-Lite is Free

You don't have to buy a single thing..

The current situation is somewhat of a golden age for PC and OS development. You have one big player that allows for markets of scale (more important for software devs than MS) and you have a couple smaller players who keep the big guy in check and help drive innovation, keep prices in line, etc.

We're very lucky that MS has a large market share, that Apple has a big enough one to pay for innovation, and that Linux has enough devotees to keep it from getting left behind.

Who cares what you buy, compared to just a few years ago, any computer is going to be a dream to use.

With Mac OS X you don't need separate patch management software. Why should you? The OS should do that stuff.

Here's a question. Lots of different manufacturers produce computers and install Windows onto them, but only Apple make computers with OSX on them. Is this purely to maximise their own market share, or is there some other reason why Apple won't sell their OS to other manufacturers? Wouldn't being a bit more open-minded with the distribution of their OS open up a whole new market for them?

I think WGA does not block critical updates, only extra features like Windows Defender or IE 7

@ STB

If you could install Mac OS X on a Packard Bell, how many Macs would Apple sell? There would still be a market for the top end because they are competitive in that segment, but the majority of people want really cheap computers. That's a cut-throat market and almost no-one makes any money. Plus they'd start running into issues with having to support crappy hardware so the OS development and support costs would go up. They did license the previous OS in 1996 or so and nearly went out of business. Once bitten etc.. Apple is a hardware company, the OS is their differentiator.

You actually can install OS X on a regular PC now. Up until recently though mac's used a different type of processor than PC's so the operating systems couldn't work back and forth without having some sort of shell that emulated the other system. Now that OS X has been rewritten to work on both PowerPC and Intel based systems it's not a problem.

Apple actually did allow other manufacturers to make Mac computers for a few years. But, there were quality issues and the clone producers were sometimes making crap computers. So, Apple, quit licensing their architecture to anyone else. Part of it I am sure is to sell more mac products themselves, but in reality very little of their income comes from computer sales. It's mostly iPods and such. I think nowadays it's really just to maintain the quality and dependability associated with the mac/apple names.

Really? I thought it was the other way round, that you could install windows on a Mac.

Both now that they're written for the same processor. But I don't think any of the manufacturers are pushing it because then they'd have to invest in the cost of training support staff, and in making sure their devices have mac/linux drivers. Some do, some don't.

I'm sure there is some tech play involved, but it is techinically possible. The real question is, if you wanted to run both, why a PC. The design of the system and the way it works is slower. A Mac with the same processor as a PC gives you about twice the performance. I don't know how much of that is hardware based and how much of it is software based, but the difference is extreme.

Interesting. I used to find Mac's rather boring, no blue screens to fight with etc. , but now that I'm getting old it might be just what I need.

I have to admit, I avoided them like the plague for years, now I'd never go back. When I have to use a Windows system now at work (even a brand new, really nice one) it's almost painful. They're so slow, and I get tired of hearing the freakin hard drive clicking away all the time. Things go so much more smoothly with a mac. There's no daily windows update or mandatory virus and spyware scans. It's just nice to be able to open your computer and work.

The only thing I would say PC's win with is games. If you're more of a gamer than anything else stick with the PC's, but if you want a dependable, lightweight computer that's easy to use, versatile, and doesn't require constant defraging, device driver downloading and all that other crap, buy a mac.

It's like comparing a Jag and a Ford Truck. The Ford may have the more powerful engine and you may be able to find more aftermarket parts and accessories for the Ford, but you'll always enjoy the smooth ride in your Jag and you'll know that when you start it up with will always do what you want it to.

Because of the vastly -- vastly -- greater choice of PCs on the market. It still amazes me how little choice Apple offer, especially considering they are the only hardware manufacturer offering OSX. They basically have just three lines to choose from: MacPro, which is beyond most people's budgets, MacMini, where everything is crammed into a little box, and the iMac, where everything is crammed into the screen, which is great until just one thing stops working. Far from being "individual" and "different", as Apple's adverts want us to believe, Mac users are forced to all own the same machines as each other. As I mentioned earlier, it wasn't the OS that put me off Macs, it was the hardware.

It is possible, with a lot of technical savvy, to install OSX on some non-Apple PCs. It is, however, not legal under the licensing terms from Apple.

Apple's product lines are:

1. consumer - iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook
2. pro - Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, Xserve

The consumer designs are meant to offer reasonable performance in a form factor which means they can go in the living room. Upgradeability isn't an issue - laptops are taking over in both Mac and PC markets and they can't usually be upgraded, and Macs already have a longer service life than PCs, even the consumer models.

The pro models are high end machines meant for people for whom time is money.

Hobbyists want bargain basement stuff they can fiddle with and are a nightmare market which Apple has chosen to keep out of.

The main omission at the moment is an ultra-portable IMO. No-one buys tablets. What do you think is missing from the line-up?

Me too. I 'll never go back unless windows can up their game massively. I also had the joy of setting up a brand new windows laptop, I am amazed at how slow they are, how unstable and all the hoops you have to jump through just to do something basic like connect it to a network. Mac: plug in cable, done. Windows on the other hand...got a spare hour?
Also the little things which I am used to now which really do make a difference such as hot corners or being able to rename a folder or move it whilst you are transferring data into it. I do this a lot in my job and when I have to use a windows machine it really hinders my work.

I agree whole heartedly.

As for wheel's comment abotu an ultra-portable, I don't really think they need to go too much more portable.

I have a 12 inch iBook and it goes everywhere with me. 5 hours of battery life, is smaller than most actual books I carry, and weighs less than many of them too. It's totally different from the brick-in-a-bag effect you get with a PC laptop.

It still has a full keyboard and full-sized keys. I think if you went any smaller, you'd actually be trading off a little too much. I tried one of the ultra-portables from Sony and one from Toshiba once. They were a bit smaller, although not much lighter but the screen and keyboard were just too constricting. That and the performance was much less.

I guess if you really just want a tiny screen and a full keyboard you can go with the new iPhone. It can double as a suped up PDA. For me though, this off-the-shelf iBook is perfect.

I agree with regards to the ultra portables. My boss just got one from Fuji and it's not that much smaller or lighter than a 12" Powebook but has a small keyboard, no CD drive and is so slow it can hardly run windows xp

Apple aren't doing a 12" MacBook Pro at the moment which I think is a mistake. They used to do 12" iBooks and PowerBooks.

A computer that is practical not stylish - one where I can easily and cheaply replace individual components (DVD burner for example). Sure, Mac products look great but, as we all know, things that look great are usually pretty hopeless in other areas. Er, anyway, back to computers... If they were to manufacture a standard, tower computer then I would consider buying a Mac, but of course practical isn't in fashion at the moment. And they don't make their money from selling long-lasting, easily upgradeable products. They want their customers to buy a new computer every 2-3 years, which the hidden cost of buying a Mac.