Macintosh vs PC/Vista

Well I must say as a die hard PC user I feel a warm and fuzzy feeling everytime I pass by those huge white Macintosh monitors when out shopping. I have not heard one bad thing about Apple and I sit here about to reboot my Vista PC (which is only about 8 months old btw) once again because it's acting wierd.

Is anyone here a Mac user? Has anyone happily switched from PC to Mac? Does anyone use both? Will SL run smoothly on a Mac? Is there anything I should heavily consider before I even "think" of switching?

I'm torn between Bill and Steve.
Bill or Steve?
Steve or Bill?

Help.

Hi Maddie, I think we've got a few Mac users here.

I'm a Mac person at home, and it's all I use for SL. It runs fine but slow on my old graphically-underpowered Mini. But before you run out and buy one, go read the Mac forum way down near the bottom of the list (in the Technical section). I know that the current Minis have a card that isn't supposed to do SL well, but I believe most of the other desktops have the option for a better graphics card.

I think the biggest problem is that any new Mac you buy will come with the new OS "Leopard". From what I've read, it's got problems with SL as bad or worse than Vista does.

I've used an apple before and I really didn't like it but then again this was about almost five or six years ago so they could have improved since then. I’ll take a PC any day though and I’ve had my best luck with HP computers.

Steve.

It is true that PCs come in a lot more configurations than Macs, and the corporate world is standardized on them. You can get them a lot more powerful OR a lot cheaper than Macs, but not both.

BUT

Macs are just too damn reliable to ignore, and muchh more user friendly. They now use Intel chips and so you can buy and install the Microsoft OS of your choice on one, so you can have access to any software not written for Macs. Peoole who have both installed generally use the Mac OS whenever they possibly can. And as for cost, you get what you pay for. Some PCs are a lot cheaper, but nowadays there isn't much price difference between COMPARABLY EQUIPPED AND CONFIGURED Macs and PCs.

As for SL, some people using Mac Powerbooks report compatibility problems but still manage to function quite well. I use desktops, and I have had absolutely zero problems using it for SL or anything else, just as it came from the factory except for the obligatory extra RAM a person should get in any new computer.

Mainly, people who own Macs just plain like them. How many PC users do you know that LIKE their computers?

Must confess I haven't used Leopard yet, so can't comment on that, except the old truism that you should never buy a version of software whose name ends in a zero - it is brand new, after all.

I have to agree with what's been said (still Tiger for me), no problems in SL. I guess it might be a little frustrating at 1st if your used to PC way, but you'll quickly adapt and join us - the few, the proud, the annoying MAC people...

(Intel Core 2 Duo Desktop) I've also heard about some laptop and Leopard problems.

There is a third option:
Linux on Intel x86 and x86_64
I use Fedora Core 7.
You will definitely want to get a powerful graphics adapter.

I use both Windows and Macintosh OS. I only run SL on my Mac though.

Switching operating systems is never easy, but there are many websites out there that can ease the pain. If you google "mac switchers" you will find a wealth of info.

Also, new Macs can run both operating systems, so you can buy a Mac for the reliability and wicked user interface, and still run Windows if you need to.

I must admit that even though I am a die-hard Mac user (does anyone know of an SL Mac tattoo vendor?), there are some things about Windows that I like. But don't tell any of my Mac friends I said that. They would lynch me.

Mimmi

ME!!!

Ok, LOVE, not Like.

But seriously, watch the threads on Windlight & see how it goes for Mac. Some of them are having problems with it.

I'm Not. But then I also built my baby & have it tuned like a fine violin. None of that store bought system stuff for me!!! BLEH!!!

The cheaper way would be try out a Mac Mini. Not the most powerful in their line up, but worth a try without breaking the bank.

I also hear good reviews on HP's Blackbird series. Also not cheap, but quite a beefy PC, nicely done, the interior is well done, and if you got the $$ the high end version is quite nice.

I've been a Mac user since they first came out, way back in 1984. I also use Windows and UNIX systems, and am a professional Computer Scientist in RL. (Yes, that is my actual job title!)

All my personal systems are Macs. Much more reliable, much less prone to attack by viruses and trojan horses and hackers.

Macs have a higher up-front cost because Apple never sells a "stripped down bare chassis model". For most Windows systems, by the time you add on all the additional hardware and software to make it comparable to a Mac, you've spent just as much - but you had to buy stuff from a dozen different vendors and figure out how to get it all to work together.

A good Mac right now is the 20" or 24" iMac. Fairly reasonable on price, and has a 256 MB VRAM ATI card that doesn't have any serious issues with SL. The Leopard OS is reportedly a problem, but there are work-arounds, like adjusting the amount of VRAM that SL is allowed to reserve for itself.

I'm buying a new computer this month. I can afford to buy a top of the line Mac Pro tower with a 512 MB VRAM ATI video card and 2 GB of RAM. I may, later, install Win XP on it as well, for those rare instances when Mac OS won't run some obscure app that I would like to run. Or to tide me over until Linden Lab figures out why their app doesn't perform well yet on the Leopard OS.

I could just as easily buy a killer Win XP gaming rig with that money... 640 MB screaming-fast Nvidia video card, 2 GB RAM... But then I would have to spend thousands more to purchase Windows versions of all the apps that I use every day. And deal with being the poster child for hacker attack targets. No thanks.

I'm not the best person to ask Computer questions of, but I've never used a MAC, for my uses as PC has always been fine. MAC's are cool looking though, one would be a nice decoration to my room.

To attach an emotional attachment to a machine is Highly Illogical....*raises eyebrow*

Just a quick note: The "official" Apple ram is currently *insanely* overpriced, as are some of their hard disks. You may consider buying a minimum with the machine, and install 3rd party yourself. (The "official" ram is 3rd party brands anyway; Apple has no special brand in their machines).

Not much to add to the general answers. I use both and switch freely. Leopard is a very nice OS with a lot of nice touches which just pragmatically *works*. Not much of it is rocket science, and users of other OS'es are quick to point to all the tools you can install in *their* system to get the same (or better) functionality, but OS X just does a lot of that out of the box. You have to accept doing some things "the Apple way", and may get frustrated if you think that it's not a good system unless you have tweaked and compiled the kernel yourself, but on the other hand, if your frustration comes from having to match the right combination of BIOS and drivers, there's certainly less of that in OS X.

I think the big question is really which programs you expect to run. Although many programs now exist in both Windows and OS X versions, there's no denying that Apple is strong in graphics and music (and presentation in general), from professional software to things like the iLife series. On the other hand, the Windows side brims over with utilities, tweaks and games.

If you want to buy a Mac to install Windows, you can do that on the new Intel-based Macs, but you can get more power from a similarly priced PC. -Though whether you want to pay extra for the sheer form factor of the Macs is a matter of taste

Pc user here...buy yourself a 30 inch apple monitor..like i did and you will feel better.

A computer scientist who cant even fend off the simplest things??

Altho- you have a point- if you used a Mac, stick with it. The cost of replacing software can get expensive...... unless you Linux.

How about the fact that Apples cost twice as much as PCs and at the moment you cannot upgrade the hardware - meaning when you're needs change you have to buy a new computer.

The old arguement that Macs are less susceptible to viral attacks is technically true, but misleading. The reason Macs do not have any viruses (viri?) is simply that no one has bothered to write any - Macs only account for about 4% of home computers, so it's not worth anyones while. This will eventually change, as Windows based pcs and OS based Macs become closer and closer until evetually they are indistinguishable (which is not just probable - it's inevitable). There is nothing inherent in a Mac's, or OS', makeup that makes them more resistent to virus attacks.

In truth though, it's not a PC vs Mac debate - it's a Windows vs OS debate. And the winner is;

A PC with Linux. Anything else is just foolhardy.

I work on my PC, have weird crashes sometimes, need constant cleanups of windows to keep things running smoothly etc. etc.

Then i switch to my mac, have weird connection issues, curse on the limited powers of the finder for file manipulations and the weird 3d graphics issues.

Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages. It all depsnds on what frustrates you the least.

One thing though, better go 'all mac' or 'all pc', as the file/network incompatibilities, and the constant typing of the 'wrong shortcuts' when switching platforms will finally drive you crazy.

Torvald trounces both of them. Unless you want to play half decent games; then your stuck with Bill for Directx related reasons.

Or want to run photoshop natively. Sadly mostly an essential requirement for a lot of SL designers/creators.

True. Plus www.b3ta.com members like me.

Oh, I can easily defend against the viruses and hacker attacks that plague Windows systems. I do it all the time at work. But why should I, for my home system? If I have the choice of using a system that no one wants to attack, or a system that may as well be in the middle of an Army firing range for all the viral bullets flying its way, why choose to be the target?

Windows is FULL of security holes that make it idiot simple to write viruses and other malware for that OS. Which is why so many idiots do just that. The Mac OS has its flaws, but like UNIX it is much more secure at the lowest levels of the code, and it is much harder to write malicious software for either Macs or UNIX. (The Mac OS X code is based on a UNIX variant now, called Darwin, so essentially Mac is a fancy front end on UNIX these days.)

I have a Mac, and am hoping to get a new Mac Pro (when they eventually update, should be any day now). I like my Mac because it just works; I don't have to worry about anything because it is fundamentally difficult for a virus to run on a Mac. All you have to do to keep your system secure is to leave e-mail attachments closed (unless you know who they're from and trust them) and don't download anything from a source I don't trust.

Programs are just so much more consistent and easier to use because of the overall Apple design standards. I don't worry about drivers, I don't worry about much, I just start it up and get to work doing whatever I want to do.

That's fine for the average layman. I like to compare them to cars - Macs are like volvos; they just work and you don't have to know how. Whereas PCs are like classic hotrods - most people can't make them work no matter how they try. But when you have the know how, they go like the devil himself. Both cars in my analogy have their merits.

EDIT: Oh, but to take my analogy further. A pc running windows is like the aforementionned hotrod being run on diesel when it takes petrol. Using windows vista specifically though is like trying to run your hotrod on Crisp'n'Dry cooking oil. Seriously, Vista is so not finished.

Hmm, I'm not a car person, but I see very little of PCs that make me feel my Mac bears any similarity to a Volvo. It performs extremely well for most tasks, indeed my PowerMac G5 is doing extraordinarily well for itself considering it's now over 3 years old.

If you have to tune and tune and tune just to get slightly more performance on a machine that will have a warranty and support of around 1 year tops (due to multiple parts having individual warranties) then I don't see it being worth it when you could just buy a well-built Mac whose hardware is rock-solid and just works.

I'm by no means an "average layman", I'm a 21 year old computer scientist who prefers C/C++ for the performance and "cleanness" it can get (code does only what you want it to, no background bounds checking, garbage collection etc. when you don't need it).
When I say "it just works", I mean "I can just develop", I don't have to deal with any rubbish, the hardware works, the operating system works, the software works. I just switch it on and develop, no fuss. Even then, there are features abounding that make development faster, never mind just being able to get on with it, I can get on with it BETTER than I can on Windows.

From a development perspective the Mac is absolutely fantastic as well, there are some excellent frameworks (libraries) bundled with OS X that Vista/C#/.NET has no comparison to. I've not been able to delve as much into Mac development as I would like due to the dependency of IT departments on crappy Dells running Windows, but now that I am able to I'm starting to explore the SL source-code in the hopes I can gain enough familiarity that I can start getting the SL OS X client to run on par with the Windows one.

Much like a Volvo. Both are also dull, uninspiring beasts. However, where my analogy falls down is that it would only take place in a parallel universe where everyone drove round in hotrods and people thought Volvos were sexy and hip.

Ah, a self-made computer person. That figures. I ran across a survey article in PC World last year (it was in a dentist's office) that measured satisfaction with their computers among PC World subscribers. The two clear winners, running neck-and-neck were - Macs! and computers the responders had made themselves. And this was in PC World. (I am certain the article is archived; check their website.)

For those interested, running a pretty close third was SONY. Everybody else was way back in the pack.