I have both at home. A PC WinXP desktop box that I built myself and a shiny new MacBook. Both have advantages, both have disadvantages. At the end of the day, I'd prefer a Mac as a laptop and a PC as a desktop so I'm pretty much set.
My main gripe with my Mac is the mouse accelleration. Apparently with OX 10.2 they replaced the mouse driver that handles it with some new algorithm that was supposedly better. It's not. It's unnatural and frustrating to use. My first 4 hours with my new laptop were awful till I found a fix. Apple's arrogance definitely displayed right there.
Aside from that though, there are so many other things that just make sense. I go back to my Windows box and just wish it operated the same way. Application installation and management is one prime example.
When I was shopping around for a new laptop, I considered a few other products such as equivalent laptops from Dell and HP. Based on the components and price, the MacBook was a cheaper machine then every other vendor out there. The myth of an expensive Mac is no longer true. I spent 1400$ on my MacBook. The equivalent Dell costs 1600$. Go figure.
I never talked about the G5. I'm talking about their mainstream offerings like the iMac, and the MacBook. It's no better than crappy computers offered by Future shop or something, yet people drool over them because they're "shiny". Heck, this thread is started based on looks of a computer.
So what your saying is that 2 consumer products are comparable to other consumer products.
I see what you did there.
Vista is fine. Much better than XP. I use it all day long.
I used to say that the Apple vs PC argument was moot, because they target two different groups. Apples, out of the box, are far more suited toward media (music, movies, pictures, etc) and PCs are better for pretty much everything else. It depended on what you wanted. But now with the Apples' ability to run the Windows OS and software as well as any PC, there is no question left for me.
Apple nerds unite!
No.
Apple uses proprietary components, not allowing you to customize (or perform maintainence yourself). Their iMacs use Laptop RAM, which is much slower than the equivalent desktop RAM. Video cards top out with the 8600GTS for the 24" screen. Using that video card and attempting to run anything more than iLife at 1920x1200 will cause your computer to just die.
I'm talking about the iMac in my post first of all - since this whole thread is about how the Gateway looks like an iMac. But still, I'll address your article even though its relevance to my post is zero.
What that article is saying that if I pay $3000 for a MacBook Pro, I can run Vista exactly 1.1% better than if I paid $2050 for a Gateway E265-M. To address Barnes, your friend's G5 probably cost him over $3500. It's been discontinued, but a Mac Pro that will be able to run that runs at LEAST in the $3500 range. Again, I say I can get this same performance (running the 2 30" HD cinema screens), on a $1500 pre-built PC (and also preconfigured for those of you that are computer illiterate) from memory express or NCIX.
Compare the same price point for a computer, and you'll find that in terms of performance, whether it be from office applications or gaming, that the PC will come out ahead every time.
The reason to buy a Mac is because of the software. I think that Mac OS is a great piece of software. But I also don't htink it's worth the $1000-$2000 premium over a similiarly specced PC.
I'm talking about the iMac in my post first of all - since this whole thread is about how the Gateway looks like an iMac. But still, I'll address your article even though its relevance to my post is zero.
I was just being a jackass. :P
Like I said. As a laptop, the Apple products are probably the best on the market for their price point. This is for the time being. It wasn't the case two years ago, so it might not remain the case two years from now.
Desktops remain the IBM PC compatibles turf. Although building a part for part, spec for spec PC version of a Mac Pro will still cost a boat load of money (more then 1500$ as you claim).
edit:
As an experiment... I actually spec'd out a PC version of a 2700$ cnd Mac Pro at Memory Express. It came in at 2900$ without an OS. Specs included:
2x Intel Xeon 2.66gHz processors
1gB DDR2 ECC memory
250gB HDD, SATA
geForce 7600
I'm talking about the iMac in my post first of all - since this whole thread is about how the Gateway looks like an iMac. But still, I'll address your article even though its relevance to my post is zero.
What that article is saying that if I pay $3000 for a MacBook Pro, I can run Vista exactly 1.1% better than if I paid $2050 for a Gateway E265-M. To address Barnes, your friend's G5 probably cost him over $3500. It's been discontinued, but a Mac Pro that will be able to run that runs at LEAST in the $3500 range. Again, I say I can get this same performance (running the 2 30" HD cinema screens), on a $1500 pre-built PC (and also preconfigured for those of you that are computer illiterate) from memory express or NCIX.
Compare the same price point for a computer, and you'll find that in terms of performance, whether it be from office applications or gaming, that the PC will come out ahead every time.
The reason to buy a Mac is because of the software. I think that Mac OS is a great piece of software. But I also don't htink it's worth the $1000-$2000 premium over a similiarly specced PC.
If you go back and read your own post, you'll find you never talked about price... Not that your prices are accurate anyways. Alienware notebooks are very pricy (start at 2499), and the macbook pro beat them out. You have no argument.
If you go back and read your own post, you'll find you never talked about price... Not that your prices are accurate anyways. Alienware notebooks are very pricy (start at 2499), and the macbook pro beat them out. You have no argument.
I'm using that EXACT same article. That article said the MacBook Pro got an 88 using their benchmark, beating out the Gateway E265M by 1 point. 87 vs 88 is a 1.1% increase. It's not my article nor my benchmark that I'm using. I noticed that while their MacBook Pro review showed the price to be $2949, the price of the laptop used in the test was only $2419 + $179 for Vista. The priciest Gateway E265M I found was $2050, while most places including the Gateway website list it for around $1300.
I already said that it has no relevance to my previous post. I know I never talked about price. I brought it up in this post as a rebuttal to that specific article. Which I reiterate, is NOT my article, nor does it have any relevance to my previous post (the one where I talked about how iMacs used laptop RAM, and how it can't run 1920x1200).
I'm using that EXACT same article. That article said the MacBook Pro got an 88 using their benchmark, beating out the Gateway E265M by 1 point. 87 vs 88 is a 1.1% increase. It's not my article nor my benchmark that I'm using. I noticed that while their MacBook Pro review showed the price to be $2949, the price of the laptop used in the test was only $2419 + $179 for Vista. The priciest Gateway E265M I found was $2050, while most places including the Gateway website list it for around $1300.
I already said that it has no relevance to my previous post. I know I never talked about price. I brought it up in this post as a rebuttal to that specific article. Which I reiterate, is NOT my article, nor does it have any relevance to my previous post (the one where I talked about how iMacs used laptop RAM, and how it can't run 1920x1200).
And why can it not run at that resolution? You say it can't handle anything more than iLife? Why do you think that is? Don't you think video editing and dvd authoring might be pretty processor and graphics card intensive? What is it you think iLife does?
Explain to me why Quartz Extreme, Core Image, Core Video, Core Animation don't work on a supported card at the panels native resolution.
Like I said. As a laptop, the Apple products are probably the best on the market for their price point. This is for the time being. It wasn't the case two years ago, so it might not remain the case two years from now.
Desktops remain the IBM PC compatibles turf. Although building a part for part, spec for spec PC version of a Mac Pro will still cost a boat load of money (more then 1500$ as you claim).
edit:
As an experiment... I actually spec'd out a PC version of a 2700$ cnd Mac Pro at Memory Express. It came in at 2900$ without an OS. Specs included:
2x Intel Xeon 2.66gHz processors
1gB DDR2 ECC memory
250gB HDD, SATA
geForce 7600
Colour me impressed.
I'd like to point that if you look at the cost to upgrade that MAC its ridiculous the base price is a good deal but if you want say 2 gigs of memory that alone is 359 dollars which is way more than double the cost to upgrade a PC. So if you need to make any upgrades than it becomes a lot cheaper to get the PC...
I'd like to point that if you look at the cost to upgrade that MAC its ridiculous the base price is a good deal but if you want say 2 gigs of memory that alone is 359 dollars which is way more than double the cost to upgrade a PC. So if you need to make any upgrades than it becomes a lot cheaper to get the PC...
You do realize that you don't have to buy ram from Apple right? It's like undercoating for them.
I'd like to point that if you look at the cost to upgrade that MAC its ridiculous the base price is a good deal but if you want say 2 gigs of memory that alone is 359 dollars which is way more than double the cost to upgrade a PC. So if you need to make any upgrades than it becomes a lot cheaper to get the PC...
True... but would you buy ram from Dell/HP for your IBM PC compatable? I doubt it.
You'd go to Memory Express and buy compatable ram for 1/5th the price. The same ram works in Macs.
Same for Hard Drives and Mice. In fact, I plan on upgrading my MacBook's hard drive to a 250gB drive in the next couple months, and adding in at least 2gB of ram. Total cost... maybe 250$.
And why can it not run at that resolution? You say it can't handle anything more than iLife? Why do you think that is? Don't you think video editing and dvd authoring might be pretty processor and graphics card intensive? What is it you think iLife does?
Explain to me why Quartz Extreme, Core Image, Core Video, Core Animation don't work on a supported card at the panels native resolution.
To my understanding, all 4 of the things you've named are part of Mac OS and are the processes behind iPhoto and iVideo. I said that iMacs can run iLife. I'm not exactly sure what I have to explain.
I want to make a good rebuttal to this with data, but I'd rather not spend the time looking it up. So anyways, enjoy the Mac
Look it up yourself and prove me wrong. I've spent enough time looking up prices and stuff, reading other people's articles, and still have people say that I'm making up.
Look it up yourself and prove me wrong. I've spent enough time looking up prices and stuff, reading other people's articles, and still have people say that I'm making up.
Go for it if you care.
Sigh....
I don't have to look anything up. You are wrong and it's that simple. Your ridiculous, unsupported claims are based on nothing at all.
This thread, believe it or not was about Gateway's consumer all-in-one. A machine that is spec'd lower and priced higher than Apple's consumer all-in-one. AH CRAP...
Again, any person with zero computer knowledge can walk into mem express and ask them to build them a good PC. That is probably what they would get them. This PC costs just under $1000 at the time of the writing of the article.
We're going to ignore the gaming aspect of the article because as people pointed out, Macs aren't made for games.
One thing we can look at is the 3d Studio Max benchmark on page 9. Notice that rendering in 1280x720 is about twice as fast as rendering in 1920x1080. This shows that higher resolutions require more power to run. The article is comparing a low cost PC from a year ago or something, which is why we're going to be looking at the "new system" bars.
It is extremely extremely hard for me to find iMac equivalent benchmarks. This is because most iMac benchmarks make use of Leopard applications. There is rarely a direct comparison. So, in order to put this debate to end once and for all, I'd like to invite iMac owners to download PCMark05 and run it.
The low cost optimized PC got an assumed value of 7080 PCMarks - which as the article states, could be higher due to a bug in the software, they had to assign a much lower value to the bugged benchmark to show objectivity.
Beat that score, and I will completely agree that iMacs are better performance-wise. There are a million reasons to buy an iMac. Performance just is not one of them.
Again, any person with zero computer knowledge can walk into mem express and ask them to build them a good PC. That is probably what they would get them. This PC costs just under $1000 at the time of the writing of the article.
We're going to ignore the gaming aspect of the article because as people pointed out, Macs aren't made for games.
One thing we can look at is the 3d Studio Max benchmark on page 9. Notice that rendering in 1280x720 is about twice as fast as rendering in 1920x1080. This shows that higher resolutions require more power to run. The article is comparing a low cost PC from a year ago or something, which is why we're going to be looking at the "new system" bars.
It is extremely extremely hard for me to find iMac equivalent benchmarks. This is because most iMac benchmarks make use of Leopard applications. There is rarely a direct comparison. So, in order to put this debate to end once and for all, I'd like to invite iMac owners to download PCMark05 and run it.
The low cost optimized PC got an assumed value of 7080 PCMarks - which as the article states, could be higher due to a bug in the software, they had to assign a much lower value to the bugged benchmark to show objectivity.
Beat that score, and I will completely agree that iMacs are better performance-wise. There are a million reasons to buy an iMac. Performance just is not one of them.
Can that low end optimized PC run Leopard? Can an iMac run WinXP/Vista? The point is moot. People don't buy iMac's for speed or performance. They buy them for general usability. Gateway is trying to repeat Apple's success but hasn't found the right formula (imo).
Gateway's all in one is a more expensive and less impressive iMac knockoff. The reality that I can walk into a computer store and buy a full DESKTOP for 500$ less then an iMac that gets some more points in a PC based benchmarking utility is beside the point.
Fanboi'ism of any sort is lame. Buy a Mac if it makes sense to you or buy a PC if it makes more sense. All I know is that for me, the MacBook is a far superior machine then any others at it's current price point. And until Microsoft starts packaging a built in SSH utility into it's core operating system, I doubt I'll be moving back.
