Mac Pro or Dell XP: All things being equal, does it just come down to preference? (VANITY)

We're still shopping for the right laptop. It is quite an investment, and with so many choices and options, where does one begin. Naturally, the first questions is one of function. What will we be using the laptop for. Gaming? Small business? There is also the price tag to consider.

Our interest lies in two main functions which involve academic studies as well as recording music. With so many brands/models to choose from, it appears that the most widely used laptops are the Mac Pro and the XP. Between these two choices, which would you recommend and why?

MrsEmmaPeel states:"Oh, I have TimeMachine- but its useless with virtual machine backups."

Now that is sheer b.s. I spend all day using virtual machines on my Mac, somehow without rebooting every few hours as Windows required in the same usage before I switched. And many's the time I've screwed something up and wanted to return to a moment in time for the virtual machine. Time Machine has let me do that, not a problem. It's saved me arse many times.

I suspect you're thinking of Boot Camp. Time Machine does not back up Boot Camp partitions. (It doesn't back up my ThinkPad laptop either! That dastardly Steve Jobs!)

The only other possible explanation for such a misstatement is that you do use virtual machines but are so inexpert that you consolidate their virtual disks into one humungous file. Even then, Time Machine and other backup utilities will still back it up when it changes, but it will take a while. Much better to segment the virtual disk. Which is the default setting for VMWare and Parallels, unless the user is so foolish or unschooled as to change it.

Oh, wait, there's another possibility: you have your virtual machines on an external drive, as I do, but have not figured out the two-click sequence to tell Time Machine to back up that drive.

...Whatever it is, these are the sort of fundamental errors that lead me to suspect, as RachelFaith does, that you're some sort of wintard fanboi living in your mom's basement, with zero actual technical experience but a vocabulary that's splitting its seams after countless fevered hours of scanning the cramped little ads from the back pages of PC World.

Thank you for reminding us of the Macs' great resale value, though.

"A properly maintained WinXP (or later) box should be invisible on the Internet and pretty secure."

I wish this were true. First, you mention "shady download sites," but reputable sites are also sources of malware-infested downloads. My wife, for example, was a sucker for cute animated cursors, pretty filigrees and gewgaws for her emails, and useful browser-bar enhancements. So I'd be cleansing her XP laptop of malware that brought it to its knees every couple of months.

We fixed that by switching her to a Mac. But even today, I have an XP machine which sits in a corner doing nothing but serve our VOIP. No emails, no browsing, no nothing, just VOIP. Its OS is fully patched, it runs up-to-date antivirus and anti-malware utilities, it has two software firewalls, and it sits behind an industrial-strength router with an SPI firewall of its own plus NAT-based routing. And one fine day a couple months ago, I turned on the PC's screen to find a Trojan chewing away at it. I have no living idea how that could have happened. But it did.

Many folks on this thread are saying "I've used Windows for years and have never had a virus." They might be correct, or they might just not know how badly they've been compromised. Much depends on usage, what kind of connection you have, etc. etc. But there is no denying that Windows, through its single-user legacy architecture, remains vulnerable to bad stuff. I truly have no dog in the fight, moving as I do between machines of all types all day, every day: Windows XP, Windows 7, OS X, Linux, Solaris... yet only Windows has gotten infected on my watch.

I have to laugh. How does the MacPro get backed up? The 16TB of data is on the server. A RAID recovery would take close to a week. Work Stations have 1 TB. New data comes in at the rate of 1 GB a day. The server is using RAID, because it can't be backed up.

We have fiber channel. The iMac can't use fiber channel. (The MacPro can use fiber channel, but the card costs about the same as a low end iMac).
The entire HP Server (8 core) cost less (including disk drives) than a MacPro.
I haven't said what operating system its running - why are you assuming Windows?
RAID is great - except do you know how long it takes to rebuild after a drive failure?
I'm not a bigot - I understand that different people have different needs - at one time I tried to make the Mac meet my needs - I guess it was after the 3rd time iTunes screwed up my video and music library that I started looking for alternatives. There are other options out there. The UIs may not be as sleek, but the two alternatives have meet my needs quite nicely.
You yourself have admitted that TimeMachine doesn't meet everyone's needs, which was exactly the point I was trying to make.
Why the attacks on me personally? How does this advance the discussion? Go back to the list of deficiencies that I've sited with Apple products (I can still add to it) – if I were mistaken, you could have pointed my mistakes out, but name calling is rather a silly way to advance a technical argument. It leaves one assuming that the deficiencies are there, and the name calling is simply a distraction.
Why on earth would I show you my eBay page after your personal attacks on me? Do you think I'm going to trust you (after what you have so far written) to be reasonable, level headed and able to discuss a topic on the merits without the name calling?
If a Mac meets your needs – that's great. For me, the deficiencies that I've experienced (and listed above) are "show stoppers". I don't hate Apple, and I certainly don't hate Steve Jobs; neither do I worship at the alter of Bill Gates. Apple products (for me) these days are high on form and low on function.
I NEVER user used the word stupid in describing Mac people – I said "God bless the Mac fanatics." You seem to saying to saying a Mac fanatic won't buy my iMac – the only way I can test that is to ask them when they buy it.

Now that is sheer b.s.

No, I am speaking from my experience. I have several virtual machines with DIFFERENT operating systems (not Windows) each one being several gigabytes in size. Time Machine can't reach inside these virtual volumes. It knows nothing about them,. All it can do it backup the whole virtual volume if it changes, and every time I use one of these virtual volumes (even just loading it), it changes. So, every hour TM is going to try backup the entire virtual volume because one or two bytes have changed. It is possible in some cases to make the virtual volume store in 2K increments, but that is not possible for me in this case.

that you're some sort of wintard fanboi living in your mom's basement, with zero actual technical experience

You write like a liberal. Don't answer the points, just attack. So calling me a wintard fanboi means the following statements are false, or they true? Or, are they just going to be ignored, and those people who need these features in a product are only worthy of contempt?

Apple TV can't do 1080p.
Apple computers don't have Blu-Ray Drives - Why? Steve Jobs is on the board of Pixar and Apple was one of the companies pushing the Blu Ray format
The original iPhone couldn't even do simple voice recognition (You couldn't say: "Dial Mom"). I believe the new iPhone has it, but why buy a new phone just to get a feature that should have been there?
Apple still doesn't have touch capability on the iMac - Why not? HP does (The "TouchSmart")
The latest iPad - no USB
The latest iPad - no handwriting recognition - why? Apple did handwriting recognition with the early Newton.
The latest iPad - no Camera - why?
The latest iPad - can't run normal applications - why not? Its running the same OS.
Apple doesn't believe in user replaceable batteries
ETC

So are you suggesting that there is some marked difference in the performance and functionality of the two operating systems?

Yes. Using either OS for even a minimal period of time--say, an hour--confirms this to be true. There are serious philosophical differences between the two, and similarities are limited mainly to a few UI concepts. Even then, the UI concepts are implemented differently. For example, Apple put the Spotlight search button in the upper right corner of the screen; Microsoft responded by putting system search in the Start Menu in the bottom left of the screen. On OS X, window controls are located on the left side of the title bar; on Windows, they're on the right side.

But yes, the two are quite different in terms of their approach to getting things done, how they organize and present applications and system concepts, things like that. Under the hood, they are RADICALLY different.

I made the comment about talking points because the things that are brought up (plug and play, viruses, etc.) have not been true for years. This isn’t 2001 anymore.

Plug and play complaints no longer hold water; virus, malware, and general security complaints ring truer today than ever before. Microsoft's response has been to offer their own anti-malware utilities, rather than to revise Windows' user space structure, privileges, that sort of thing. The one decision Microsoft could make that would instantly solve the majority of their problems would be to cease the practice of making every new user account an administrator by default, and revising UAC to act as a form of temporary privilege escalation rather than as an annoying warning to the user that they're about to copy their family photos to another directory. But this would mean change, and Microsoft's customers seem notoriously resistent to anything different, particularly on the corporate side.

What virtual machine software are you using? I mostly use VMWare, have used Parallels, VirtualBox and Xen. In each case the virtual disk is split into 2GB (not kB) segments by default. Typically only one or two of the segments will change in even extensive usage. Time Machine has no trouble keeping up with that on my machine. From your description, your virtual disks are monolithic. That's unusual, and unfortunate that you can't change it.

Of course, Time Machine is certainly worse than the fabulous always-active backup utility that comes standard in Windows... oh, wait, there's no such thing.

As to your points:

# Apple TV can't do 1080p.
It does 720p for $230. What are you comparing it to?

# Apple computers don't have Blu-Ray Drives - Why? Steve Jobs is on the board of Pixar and Apple was one of the companies pushing the Blu Ray format
Dunno. Maybe because its customers are happy with DVD? That gives plenty of resolution for something that sits on my lap, IMHO, on those very-rare occasions I'm not using my machine to do actual work. Or browse FR...

# The original iPhone couldn't even do simple voice recognition (You couldn't say: "Dial Mom").
Hey, you could just shout up the basement stairwell... sorry, couldn't resist...

I believe the new iPhone has it, but why buy a new phone just to get a feature that should have been there?
If you're going to beat up Apple for a product it made three years ago, can I beat up Microsoft for, oh, I dunno, Windows ME? Microsoft Bob? Clippy? ...You are pounding Apple's very first phone. They prioritized certain things to the best of their ability, then listened to what their customers told them, and updated briskly. Hard to fault that. Besides, there was an app for that (Say Who Lite, free).

# Apple still doesn't have touch capability on the iMac - Why not? HP does (The "TouchSmart")
Maybe because thundering stampedes of customers aren't exactly wearing a rut to the TouchSmart's door? Apple is clearly reserving touch capability for tablet formats with specific content targets, and pocketable formats too small to merit a physical keyboard. Meanwhile, I don't know about you, but I feel no compulsion to interact with my computer by touching its screen. A phone or a tablet, different story.

# The latest iPad - no USB
It's on the dock, IIRC, and/or one of the optional dongles. But since neither of us have seen the production iPad, it's a shade premature to state with certainty what goes where. And again, it's a different sort of machine, aimed at different uses than our laptops and desktop computers. USB may or may not make sense once this very content-centric machine actually emerges.

# The latest iPad - no handwriting recognition - why? Apple did handwriting recognition with the early Newton.
You just answered your own question! Handwriting recognition sucks. Steve Jobs, whatever his faults, doesn't do sucks.

# The latest iPad - no Camera - why?
Dunno. Let's see what it ends up being targeted for, then we can talk about whether a camera makes sense or not. My laptop has a camera; I frankly wish it didn't.

# The latest iPad - can't run normal applications - why not? Its running the same OS.
Well, it's not a "normal" computer. It's something new, intended for new applications. My toaster oven doesn't have a rotisserie like "real" kitchen ovens do; same thinking.

# Apple doesn't believe in user replaceable batteries
They don't believe in the usual crap batteries that die after a year, either. Between their longevity of charge and their long life, I'd take a non-user-replaceable Mac (or iPhone) battery over a lesser battery any day.

backup utility that comes standard in Windows... oh, wait, there's no such thing.

Yes there is. Why do you assume that my OS has to be Windows?

Re your other points ... I mention that Apple TV can't do 1080p, you respond by telling me that it can do 720p. So? 720p is worse than 1080p. Why would I be satisfied a lousy 720p, if I'm complaining that it can't handle 1080p? A $119.00 box from Western Digital does 1080p over the network. I don't like the WD UI. So, for me I have to decide which is better: Apple UI or WD UI with 1080p. I chose WD.

Your other points have the logic errors ... why bring Microsoft into this? No where was I ever talking about Microsoft ME.

None of your answers met my needs - you don't feel the need for touch capability, so those that do I guess have to be insulted. My husband, who is disabled, does need touch. Apple can do touch - they proved it with the iPhone, they simply have chosen not to. At one time I begged them to come out with a touch iMac

Your answers read more like a tired old script lacking technical detail than items that address my needs. The lack of logic is rather interesting, as is the deflective style -- You mention that the iPad is intended for new applications – except that these new applications must be approved by Apple! It s pretty closed environment. Not being able to support Flash (yeah, I know the arguments), I see as a super big negative. Others may not agree, that's fine, but for me, it yet another reason not to buy.

There's nothing in the iPad that makes me want to throw away my Kindle.

Things like a camera in a portable device are extremely important for me – for video conferencing. In fact, I've often found that the camera on the iPhone was mounted on the wrong side. If it was reversed, the iPhone could be paired beautifully with Skype for video calls. Just image how cool an iPad would be if it had a camera on the users side of the machine and could be used for video conferencing anywhere in the world. iPad is meant to be a netbook killer, but it won't kill mine. Its not Kindle killer, as it can't be read in bright sunlight.

From my experience, Apple comes up with some amazing ideas – then falls short. There's the whole handicapped market it could be tapping into, or those that need an appliance that can handle video conference calls, or a device that can handle 1080p, or the return of handwriting recognition. I loved my Newton when it came out. But these days, I look elsewhere for another company to meet my needs.

No, they aren’t different. I’m a software developer by trade, and while they have different interfaces they are extraordinarily similar in the functionality they provide to the user. It’s expected that the interface will be different. Obviously, the basis of the operating system is totally different. That’s of no concern to the average user. I make the statement much like 3DS Max and Maya provide essentially identical functionality. I can’t think of anything major that either operating system provides that the other doesn’t. A Honda Accord and a Toyota Camry are different cars, but they serve the same market and provide almost identical functionality. That’s the sort of comparison I was making.

As for malware, Microsoft took a major step with UAC in the *nix direction. UAC as an annoyance is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard - once your computer is set up, you will almost never see it. If you look at the actual frequency and severity of vulnerabilities patched, they are again very similar. If you compare them over their lives - OS X is very mature at this point while Windows 7 is new - Microsoft’s numbers are way ahead of Apple’s. These aren’t ideal metrics, but once can easily come to the conclusion that the security of each is similar. You can say that these concerns are truer now than ever before, but it doesn’t make it so.

I’m a software developer by trade, and while they have different interfaces they are extraordinarily similar in the functionality they provide to the user.

Not really. The out of the box experiences are completely different, the available software is different, the way applications are presented and managed is completely different. You can go on down the line and create a long list of dissimilarities with a little bit of intellectual honesty.

A Honda Accord and a Toyota Camry are different cars, but they serve the same market and provide almost identical functionality. That’s the sort of comparison I was making.

This makes no sense, because the Accord and Camry are very different mechanically and stylistically. This would be sort of like saying that an Aston Martin Vantage and a Toyota Camry are similar: despite the fact that both have four wheels, doors, and a steering wheel, there are fundamental differences between them that are unreconcilable. Same thing with OS X and Windows: they are fundamentally different despite sharing some basic concepts.

You're going to have to be a little more specific if you wish me to understand where you're coming from on this.

UAC as an annoyance is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard - once your computer is set up, you will almost never see it.

There is nothing *nix like about UAC. It is an imitation of the *nix privilege escalation concept, except that UAC does nothing of the sort. It asks for permission to perform an activity that may or may not be system-critical... such as copying a file from one directory to another. Doesn't matter if the file is a system DLL or your porn collection, UAC will ask if you really want to execute that mundane task. UAC is a very, very superficial feature that does more to annoy and scare users than to keep them safe.

In contrast, the temporary privilege escalation of *nix-based OSes like OS X prompt the user for permission only when making some alteration to the system itself. Installing an application? Password, please. Altering an OS file? Password please. Copying your vacation photos to your Pictures directory? Go right on through. This setup keeps users safe while staying out of their way: it's one of the primary reasons why OS X exploits, what few there are, rely entirely on social engineering--getting users to enter their password out of the ether--rather than forcibly compromising the OS.

These aren’t ideal metrics, but once can easily come to the conclusion that the security of each is similar.

One would be wrong, especially about Windows 7 being "new" from a software standpoint: 7 builds on the Vista codebase. A Windows machine is still easily compromised, to the point where merely activating a network connection is a dicey security proposition. Infection by malware of all types is a virtually automatic event for a stock Windows install. Microsoft has come a decent way from the Blaster days of 2003, but not far enough that OEMs can ship a Windows-based computer without first loading it to the gills with CPU cycle-sucking defensive software that shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

A relative of mine recently purchased an MSI notebook with Windows 7 to replace an old all-in-one Gateway PC that was running Windows XP. This particular person had absolutely no idea whatsoever how to join their own wireless network, and made it sound as if the connection was broken (when in reality they simply didn't know their own SSID and password.) So I ventured over to assist, and discovered that the Gateway took about 15 minutes from boot to semi-usability thanks to the prevalence of malware and useless third party programs that insisted they needed to start up on log in or else the world would end. The MSI notebook was nearly as bad, loaded to the brim with a variety of crapware and anti-malware products that offered nothing but a nearly-full desktop of shortcut links and stolen CPU cycles.

Not only is there a fundamental difference between OS X and Windows, there is a fundamental difference between the experience of buying and owning a Macintosh and buying and struggling with a Windows-based PC. It is absolutely criminal what Microsoft and the big boxes have done to computing.

First, we can disagree about whether the software is similar or not. You are stating to me things that are completely obvious - of course certain things are different between the operaing systems. The point remains that both operating systems serve the same market and do the same things (even if they do them differently).

There is nothing *nix like about UAC. It is an imitation of the *nix privilege escalation concept, except that UAC does nothing of the sort. It asks for permission to perform an activity that may or may not be system-critical... such as copying a file from one directory to another. Doesn't matter if the file is a system DLL or your porn collection, UAC will ask if you really want to execute that mundane task. UAC is a very, very superficial feature that does more to annoy and scare users than to keep them safe.

This is totally false. UAC does not ask for permission for any copy. As far as I can tell, UAC will let you copy files to your heart's content within a given user's home directory. When you attempt to copy to system directories, you may have problems. This is a very simple matter to determine - each folder has a security setting which I assume translates to the *nix permission concept. If you don't need permission, it doesn't ask. If you don't like the way Windows does it, change it. You have that freedom. Also, UAC has demonstrated benefits with regards to security. You would do well to actually educate yourself on what UAC is and does before talking about it.

One would be wrong, especially about Windows 7 being "new" from a software standpoint: 7 builds on the Vista codebase. A Windows machine is still easily compromised, to the point where merely activating a network connection is a dicey security proposition. Infection by malware of all types is a virtually automatic event for a stock Windows install. Microsoft has come a decent way from the Blaster days of 2003, but not far enough that OEMs can ship a Windows-based computer without first loading it to the gills with CPU cycle-sucking defensive software that shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

The only thing accurate about that above paragraph is the idea that Windows 7 is built largely on Vista. Everything else you said is devoid of any truth. Had you written this paragraph first, I would have been saved from responding to the rest of it because your grasp on reality is clearly a bit loose.

This is totally false. UAC does not ask for permission for any copy.

It was true on Vista, and it continues to be true on 7.

This is a very simple matter to determine - each folder has a security setting which I assume translates to the *nix permission concept.

No, not really. While *nix has per-file and per-folder permissions, *nix's security is conceived around the notion of tiered user privileges and temporary JIT escalation. A user cannot affect a file or folder they have no permission to access unless they can authenticate as someone who has permission. UAC does nothing like this. It asks for a confirmation of an action that the user is already allowed to perform: it does not reference account credentials to determine if the user is allowed to perform that action in the first place.

You would do well to actually educate yourself on what UAC is and does before talking about it.

You would do well to educate yourself about *nix and OS X before talking about them.

The only thing accurate about that above paragraph is the idea that Windows 7 is built largely on Vista. Everything else you said is devoid of any truth.

Tell it to the OEMs.

"backup utility that comes standard in Windows... oh, wait, there's no such thing." --Yes there is. Why do you assume that my OS has to be Windows?"
You excised what prefaced the words "backup utility." Time Machine is always-active; nothing of the sort comes with any version of Windows that I've experienced.

And if you're not using Windows, good for you.

Re your other points ... I mention that Apple TV can't do 1080p, you respond by telling me that it can do 720p.
Yes, and I pointed out that that's what you get for a very low price.

So? 720p is worse than 1080p. Why would I be satisfied a lousy 720p, if I'm complaining that it can't handle 1080p? A $119.00 box from Western Digital does 1080p over the network. I don't like the WD UI. So, for me I have to decide which is better: Apple UI or WD UI with 1080p. I chose WD.
Fair enough. Again, I'd assumed you were on a Windows riff, and after a bit of googling I found nothing in the Apple TV's price range. What is the model of your WD thingie?

Your other points have the logic errors ... why bring Microsoft into this? No where was I ever talking about Microsoft ME.
No, but you were whacking Apple for a product from three years ago, so it seemed fair game.

None of your answers met my needs - you don't feel the need for touch capability, so those that do I guess have to be insulted. My husband, who is disabled, does need touch.
I have a disability too, so sympathies to you and your husband on that point. But Apple is in the business of making a profit. No tablet has massively succeeded in the marketplace yet, nor has a touchscreen PC. As much as we'd like Apple and other companies to meet our needs, they have different priorities.

Apple can do touch - they proved it with the iPhone, they simply have chosen not to. At one time I begged them to come out with a touch iMac
They've chosen not to because the tech landscape is littered with tablet computers that fizzled as products. What will make the iPad different is content... bank on that... just as there were MP3 players before the iPod, but it took Steve Jobs' vision for iTunes to make that market click.

Your answers read more like a tired old script lacking technical detail than items that address my needs. The lack of logic is rather interesting, as is the deflective style -- You mention that the iPad is intended for new applications – except that these new applications must be approved by Apple!
Ad hominem aside, yes: iPad will be aimed at (non-personal-computer) applications, just as iPod was. Many of your complaints about iPad could have been levied at iPod too. In fact, they were. But just as iPod succeeded because of content, so will iPad. And that's the point you seem to be missing: it would make no sense to view the iPod against a PC checklist; why do you presume it makes any more sense to do that with the iPad? It is not a personal computer.

It s pretty closed environment.
So? So is iPod.

Not being able to support Flash (yeah, I know the arguments), I see as a super big negative. Others may not agree, that's fine, but for me, it yet another reason not to buy.
I'm actually with you on this. So much web content is, regrettably, Flash-based, and widespread HTML5 adoption is still a couple years away. All in all, I'd like to see something that can run Flash on the iPhone and iPad. It doesn't need to be Adobe's Flash, y'know. Already, there's an open-source javascript-based interpreter which manages to handle a subset of Flash tags, http://www.tuaw.com/2010/01/13/flash-on-the-iphone-in-demo-form/.

There's nothing in the iPad that makes me want to throw away my Kindle.
The color screen alone would do it for me. And talk about a closed environment!! But, to each their own. I must confess puzzlement that you could own a Kindle after all you've said about the iPad.

Things like a camera in a portable device are extremely important for me – for video conferencing.
Good. If there's a critical mass of people like you, then Apple will eventually accommodate this. Or if they don't, someone else will. That's the free market at work.

In fact, I've often found that the camera on the iPhone was mounted on the wrong side. If it was reversed, the iPhone could be paired beautifully with Skype for video calls. Just image how cool an iPad would be if it had a camera on the users side of the machine and could be used for video conferencing anywhere in the world.
Yeah, that'd be cool. It'll happen.

iPad is meant to be a netbook killer...
What makes you say this? It's completely different IMHO.

...but it won't kill mine. Its not Kindle killer, as it can't be read in bright sunlight.
I've seen a lot more Kindles on airplanes than on beaches, but it's a valid point. On the other hand, the iPad's brilliant color screen offers functionality that the Kindle can't match, including video playback.

From my experience, Apple comes up with some amazing ideas – then falls short. There's the whole handicapped market it could be tapping into...
Please. There aren't that many of us.

...or those that need an appliance that can handle video conference calls
Again, not a ginormous market.

...or a device that can handle 1080p...
On a 10" screen? Or are you back to the Apple TV thing?

...or the return of handwriting recognition.
Non-sucking handwriting recognition technology doesn't exist. Sorry.

I loved my Newton when it came out. But these days, I look elsewhere for another company to meet my needs.
Nothing wrong with that. Your needs represent a small sliver of the market, is the issue.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.