Mac or PC?

[Vic Winters]

Herein lies the rub, I think. You're obviously someone who buys a computer the same way they might buy a TV or washing machine - as a utilitarian device, that has to do a certain job to a certain level of ability. They're not products you feel any passion towards - it's just a tool.

For some people, computers are things they feel passion for, and it goes way back, well before Mac vs. PC - there was VIC-20 vs TI-99, C64 vs Sinclair Spectrum, Atari ST vs Amiga, even SNES vs. Sega Megadrive/Genesis for the gamers out there. You were passionate about your choice of system, and almost thrived on defending your choice to owners of its rival. As a user of a particular system, you become a member of a club, and you become proud of that. Nowadays, outside the realm of gaming, you see it most amongst Mac and Linux users. In the gaming world, it's still very obvious - Xbox vs PS3, DS vs PSP and so on.

It's an inanimate object, you shouldn't feel passion for it. Preferences are all fine and dandy, but defining yourself by it is taking it a bit far. I enjoy my PS3, but I'm not about to put a Sony sticker on my car and buy every version that comes out.

 

[GregC]

Well, I'm assuming you priced out an HP tower versus an iMac. An iMac is an all-in-one, which is a totally different product than a tower. The fact that it is an all-in-one may be utterly worthless to you, but that's what it is, and therefore the price is going to reflect that.

Regardless, the fact is that if you need to use Windows for software reasons... then you need to use Windows, which negates a lot of the reasons for getting a Mac.

Your assumption is correct. And sure, they're different from an aesthetics/space standpoint, and I understand some people will pay a premium for that. However, Apple doesn't offer a tower alternative in that range, so iMac vs. Windows tower is the decision for a lot of folks who don't care whether their desktop is an all-in-one.

I'm genuinely still interested in hearing about the bells and whistles, though. I haven't checked PC all-in-ones too closely, but my guess it that even though they cost more than towers, they're generally still cheaper than similarly configured Macs. I could be wrong, though.

Which means that you don't have extensive experience with each OS, so that kind of defeats your own point.

How so? I'm not arguing that a Windows machine is as easy to use as a Mac. I'm just saying that the advice you (and others) gave about Windows machines being far more appropriate for those well-versed in working on their computers contrasts with my own experience.

 

[Rusty Chainsaw]

It's an inanimate object, you shouldn't feel passion for it. Preferences are all fine and dandy, but defining yourself by it is taking it a bit far. I enjoy my PS3, but I'm not about to put a Sony sticker on my car and buy every version that comes out.

Basses are inanimate objects, and we're all on this site because presumably we have passion for them. Cars and motorbikes are inanimate objects. Even guns are inanimate objects, and that doesn't stop them having their own enthusiast threads on here. Basically, we all have some degree of passion for one inanimate object or another.

I don't think Mac users define themselves by it (although I'm sure some do - the difference between an enthusiast and a fanatic, I guess), but they certainly enjoy being members of what amounts to a fairly exclusive club. I know I do.

 

[Ziltoid]

Do you like PC's more then icecream?

 

[L-A]

Do you like PC's more then icecream?

 

[NineSpine]

Your assumption is correct. And sure, they're different from an aesthetics/space standpoint, and I understand some people will pay a premium for that. However, Apple doesn't offer a tower alternative in that range, so iMac vs. Windows tower is the decision for a lot of folks who don't care whether their desktop is an all-in-one.

The problem is that that fundamentally sets up an unfair comparison. The parts for an all-in-one are more expensive. PC companies do make all-in-ones too and they are much more expensive than an equivalent desktop.

Remember, nobody ever makes the argument that Macs are for everyone, or that they compete in every sphere of the home computing market.

I'm genuinely still interested in hearing about the bells and whistles, though. I haven't checked PC all-in-ones too closely, but my guess it that even though they cost more than towers, they're generally still cheaper than similarly configured Macs. I could be wrong, though.

You'd have to compare model to model, but some of the general features (some of these are laptop only) that people tend to overlook are:

High quality webcam
High quality screen
Metal chassis as opposed to plastic
Large glass multitouch trackpad
Built in sound that is as good as the highest end PC soundcards
Thunderbolt ports
Firewire 800
Displayport
Autodimming screen
Autobacklit keyboard
Very high quality chicklet style keyboard with *exceptional* backlighting
Magsafe power adapter
Magnet closing mechanism as opposed to clips (on laptops)

I'm not saying that you can't get any of these features on a PC. The vast majority of them can definitely come on a PC. However, when you do price comparisons, you need to factor these things in. A lot of people will design a barebones desktop tower and try to compare it to a feature-rich all-in-one iMac. It's just not a fair or valid comparison. If you don't need/want any of those features, then that's fine and maybe a Mac isn't for you. However, I don't need any extra power and I have the money to spend more on my machine, so I'd rather have all those features, many of which I find invaluable. On top of that, I greatly greatly greatly prefer OSX to Windows.

How so? I'm not arguing that a Windows machine is as easy to use as a Mac. I'm just saying that the advice you (and others) gave about Windows machines being far more appropriate for those well-versed in working on their computers contrasts with my own experience.

I didn't say that. I think you misunderstood my point. I'm extremely well versed in computers and I still prefer OSX. It's not a matter of being "well-versed" or "experienced". It's a matter of what you enjoy doing with your computer, or what your overall goal with your computer is. Nobody said that Windows was unusable for the average user.

 

[warnergt]

...Mac users are probably disproportionately emphatic about their love of the Mac. It's not a huge leap to think they may also be less inclined to report problems or to complain.

You think someone who pays more for a computer is less
inclined to report a problem or complain when they encounter
a problem?

I don't buy that rationalization for one second.

Survey after survey show that Mac users have the best owner experience.
Macs have been top in customer satisfaction for the last
seven years in a row. The closest competition is well behind.

 

[aborgman]

Not only have I never had a virus on any of the 5 or so Macs we have, I have never personally heard of anyone else getting one. Have you?

Yep. Lots of them.

As someone who has worked in IT supporting Apple, MS, *nix, and various other flavors of fun - there are virii for all of them, and I've seen virii on all of them.

 

[NineSpine]

Yep. Lots of them.

As someone who has worked in IT supporting Apple, MS, *nix, and various other flavors of fun - there are virii for all of them, and I've seen virii on all of them.

Of course you can get viruses on everything, but the reality is that it is significantly less common for the average Mac user to get a virus than the average PC user.

 

[GBassNorth]

It's an inanimate object, you shouldn't feel passion for it. Preferences are all fine and dandy, but defining yourself by it is taking it a bit far. I enjoy my PS3, but I'm not about to put a Sony sticker on my car and buy every version that comes out.

Hmmmm....
Mansion vs house, BMW vs Hyundai, Sadowsky vs Squire, Beretta vs Mossberg, 24k Gold vs Sterling Silver, Nikon vs Casio, Ampeg vs Beringer, Rolex vs Timex, Craftsman vs Husky, Schwinn vs Raleigh, Diamonds vs Swaroffsky, Saks vs Kmart - you get the picture.

Maybe the issue IS the passion that many of these objects create in individuals, and maybe a large piece of that passion comes from overwhelmingly positive experiences and the exclusivity and enjoyment that comes with the ownership of them.

I have PCs and a Mac and both get the job done, but the Mac is my go to machine when I have a choice - elegant, simple, reliable, painless, cool and fun are all descriptors that come to mind when I use a Mac. Using it creates a "passion". Those same descriptors don't come to mind when I use a PC - it's more along the lines of functional, complex, utilitarian and inexpensive - none of which creates any passion in me.

So is a 30% to 40% upcharge in a Mac vs a PC worth it to me? Yes, in fact I wish there were only a 30% upcharge in the other examples I gave above. How many BMWs do you think they could sell if they only cost 30% more than a Hyundai, or Diamonds vs cut glass or Saks vs Kmart or gold vs silver. Comparitively the Mac seems like a bargain!

 

[aborgman]

Yes, they do cost a little more,

A LOT more.

When we bought our last Dell laptop it was $600.

The cheapest Macbook with the same level of hardware (processor, memory, HD, etc.) was ~$2500.

That isn't "a little".

but they also tend to last longer than their PC counterparts

Depends on which PC company.

and have a higher resell value.

Yep.

So are they really more expensive in the long run? I think not.

For me - yes.

If you have the ability to do basic debugging and repair and keep your computer until the wheels fall off (negating resale), then it is a good bit cheaper to avoid Apple.

It's not unheard of to get 6 or more years out of a Mac, can you say that of a Dell, Acer or the like?

I've got two computers at home in regular use - a 4 year old Dell laptop, and a 12 year old no-name cheapest available parts desktop. They both work fine.

That said, I would have to agree with James and find out what system will be being used primarily at the college for her work and go from there.

Yep.

Pretty much all the software I used while in college wouldn't run on either a Mac or a Windows box. Pure Unix.

 

[Ziltoid]

Macs make your penis grow 1 gigabyte of length per pixel and glow in the bright.

Gotta bring something new to this thread because obviously people arguing the MAC vs PC thing will not.

 

[aborgman]

You are trying to argue a point about which you know absolutely nothing.

I've only been able to keep one PC running at all for six years before, and it was a dog after one.

Given that statement, I'd say it seems you are the one who doesn't know much.

Anyone with basic computer knowledge should be able to keep ANY machine running passably for that time period.

 

[aborgman]

Also, take note that Apple, as proprietary and expensive as it is, does not invest in failures.

Ever hear of the Apple Lisa? Mac portable? Apple Newton? the Performa series? Apple eWorld? Apple Pippin? the Apple USB hockey-puck mouse?

Apple has invested in LOTS of failures.

 

[Relic]

Luckily enough, I have both a MAC and a PC. Frankly, I don't understand the goofy rivalry... They're both very good at what they do with a lot of overlap in between. What's the big deal if you use one or the other?

 

[NineSpine]

A LOT more.

When we bought our last Dell laptop it was $600.

The cheapest Macbook with the same level of hardware (processor, memory, HD, etc.) was ~$2500.

That isn't "a little".



Depends on which PC company.



Yep.



For me - yes.

If you have the ability to do basic debugging and repair and keep your computer until the wheels fall off (negating resale), then it is a good bit cheaper to avoid Apple.



I've got two computers at home in regular use - a 4 year old Dell laptop, and a 12 year old no-name cheapest available parts desktop. They both work fine.





Yep.

Pretty much all the software I used while in college wouldn't run on either a Mac or a Windows box. Pure Unix.

The prices are not dramatically different if you factor in the features on the actual Mac. If you value power over those features, then that's good for you, but I do not.

What you don't seem to understand is that YOU are not the average computer user. You are the same as my friends who like working on cars and get up my ass for getting a faster car and spending time working on it and crap. I don't want to do that. I want it to go from point A to point B as comfortably as possible. The end. I don't want to lift the hood ever if I can avoid it, and the same goes for computers for the vast majority of people.

 

[aborgman]

As for the unreliable information about "thunderbolt" going on here, you should check the site again. Thunderbolt does more than just "data" for drives and devices, it can supply video out as well.

Ummm.. video IS just "data" for a device.

Firewire was argued as it is standard, but then argued as old tech... Not sure which story you PC guys want to hang on to, but I use Firewire 800 for lots of things...

Firewire (or more appropriately IEEE 1394) is a very nice interface - but it was NEVER a standard.

 

[aborgman]

You think someone who pays more for a computer is less
inclined to report a problem or complain when they encounter
a problem?

Absolutely.

...and it applies to all purchases. Confirmation bias is just as real for Mac users as for BMW owners.

 

[aborgman]

Of course you can get viruses on everything, but the reality is that it is significantly less common for the average Mac user to get a virus than the average PC user.

Actually I'd argue that as a percentage of population it isn't much different.

Sure - I'd see 8x as many virii on Windows boxes... but I was also supporting 8x as many Windows boxes.

 

[NineSpine]

Absolutely.

...and it applies to all purchases. Confirmation bias is just as real for Mac users as for BMW owners.

That's not the question. The question is why confirmation bias would seem to only apply to Mac users as Windows users like to argue.