The Mac Versus PC Debate Rages On

Tech News World ^ | 8/27/2006 | By Dwight Silverman

[Swordmaker]

Some interesting comments offering advice to a columnist on switching or not switching to a Mac...

The first, ignoring the latest price comparisons, says "I can get more power for the $ with PCs than with Macs." Another says "Mac sell only because they look good in the living room... coolness is why Macs sell..." The next, noting the latest price comparisons, says "I'm switching, big time!" One poor lost soul, probably a PC user masquerading as a Mac user, thinks that OS 9 was an OS with "beauty and grace" which is now completely lacking and that "... with each successive OS (X) update ... the platforms become less stable (especially Tiger)..." Then there is the Apple II fanatic that just can't let go of the fact that Apple discontinued his baby... 20 years ago... and has developed a "hate Apple" fixation. The last user compares a Mac to a Toyota... ;^)>

PING!

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

[quidnunc]

Quote:

One of the most interesting responses came from Charles Burt, who said that as a longtime Mac user, he has not been happy with the evolution of OS X . "Since the advent of OS X for the Mac, much of the 'beauty and grace,' if you will, that was the essence of Macintosh computers is gone. Yes, they are still beautiful to look at, and yes, they are very fast. But with each successive OS update ... the platforms become less stable (especially Tiger), and I'm sorry to say, more like a PC Windows machine. I used to be Steve Jobs' best salesman. All things being equal, I would tell anyone who was in the market for a new computer to spend a little more and get the best computer available ... a Mac. I no longer make that recommendation. I still work on them every day, all day. But the fun in my job has nothing whatsoever to do with the computer I use any longer. And that makes me a bit sad, to be honest."

What the devil is this person nattering on about?

Is he trying to run Tiger on a 300MHz G3 or something?

I started with Jaguar on my G5 and Panther was more stable than Jaguar and Tiger is more stable than Panther.

[Swordmaker]

What the devil is this person nattering on about?

I think it is another PC user pretending to be a Mac user... the Steve Jobs crack is a dead give-away...

[CFC__VRWC]

I've had my Mac Mini for almost a year and a half, and have yet to crash the OS (Tiger). I've occasionally had applications bomb, but never the OS.

[martin_fierro]

[ikka]

I have a Mac G4, which is almost exactly 5 years old, running 10.3.9 (haven't got Tiger yet). It is rock solid stable - on hardware that is 5 years old!

One of my clients is going to be testing the use of a MacBook that will have 2GB RAM - with Parallels, which lets you run OSX and also WinXP inside a window on the Mac desktop. if it works well, it will be an ideal solution.

[ThomasThomas]

You make really fish nice fish tanks out of the old macs. Much better than Intel based machine.

[TheBattman]

"Since the advent of OS X for the Mac, much of the 'beauty and grace,' if you will, that was the essence of Macintosh computers is gone. Yes, they are still beautiful to look at, and yes, they are very fast. But with each successive OS update ... the platforms become less stable (especially Tiger), and I'm sorry to say, more like a PC Windows machine.

Funny... I have found the exact opposite to be true. The Mac OS has become much more stable in the last few years. And all versions of x but the original release have been far more stable than any "Legacy" MacOS.

[Publius6961]

"Rages" on?

Yeah right. Like I'm going to debate a weenie who is part of 5% of the total computer market? I got better things to do

And what's this constant BS about "high end" Macs are cheaper than "High end" PCs? I have worked with computers every day of the last 20 years and literally don't know anyone who has a MAC at all, or a "high end" PC, for that matter...

Now about the "low end" real world market...

[Swordmaker]

And what's this constant BS about "high end" Macs are cheaper than "High end" PCs?

They are. Read this article.

I have worked with computers every day of the last 20 years and literally don't know anyone who has a MAC at all, or a "high end" PC, for that matter...

I work with professionals... and I have client users with both high end PCs and high end Macs... and who upgrade them regularly because their productivity is important to them. None of them would think of buying even a mid-level machine because competition is important and deadlines are even more important.

Yeah right. Like I'm going to debate a weenie who is part of 5% of the total computer market?

Insulting those who disagree with you is not a good way to start a comment. We have not insulted you.

[Tribune7]

I can see the OS 9 guy's point albeit not about th "beauty and grace."

OS X is a much better system but making the switch can be a headache.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I've had a G4 running Jaguar and now Panther for a few years. The OS is of course quite stable, the sys mostly just runs. I don't do much with it but FReep, but of course you feel so much more comfortable with the exposure to the 'net when your 'puter doesn't have a history of vulnerability to nasty programs. Firefox runs fine, generally, but crashes every month or two without bringing Panther down with it.

I bought a sys for someone who needed speech recognition and Dragon didn't advertise Mac compatibility, so I had to go with Windows. But since the web is the killer app, I worry about the possibility of bad stuff coming in. If I were buying now I might be investigating to see if the Mac is cost-effective enough to be used to run Dragon in a Windows frame, hoping that Dragon would be ported to the Intel Mac reasonably soon.

My son-in-law is a researcher and uses Windows (tho not I think high-end), and he remarked on his last visit on the virus issue comfort factor when using my Mac. And mused about the possibility of switching . . .

Now that price isn't such an issue, worst thing I know about Apple is Steve Jobs' politics. Think what they could do advertising their new line on Rush's show . . .

[Lil'freeper]

One of my clients is going to be testing the use of a MacBook that will have 2GB RAM - with Parallels, which lets you run OSX and also WinXP inside a window on the Mac desktop. if it works well, it will be an ideal solution.

I have it, use it, love it.

[TenthLegion]

We need Microsoft or else there would be a lot of unemployed folks out there. When in doubt, reboot :p

[avg_freeper]

After upgrading a 500Mhz G4 from OS9 to OS X 10.2 I could say the following:

OS 9 - very stable and fast provided you ran regular maintenance procedures and set the virtual memory correctly for most apps. Finder was blazingly fast compared to any OS X finder even on todays hardware. Apple's and oranges, I know, finder does a lot more rendering now and the whole architecture is different.

OS X free demonstration disk - Less stable apps, finder much slower (window movement, resizing, app switching). Crashing app doesn't bring down finder and other apps. Very nice. I still used 9 for most everything.

OS 10.1 - Apps more stable, finder still fairly slow. Using OS 9 50% of the time.

OS 10.2 - Finder speeding up, still quite a bit slower than OS 9 but improvements to OS interface help with this. Purchased OS X equivalents of most of my software now. xWindows a definite plus using that a lot with vi,grep,awk,sed like on a regular 'nix. Also getting better at Apple scripting with the new Apple script for xTools. Over all productivity increase from OS 9 days. Using OS X almost all of the time now.

Now I have a G5 iMac with OS 10.4 and the speed of the finder is approaching that of OS 9. User switching was the biggest benefit allowing my wife and I to just switch and not shut down what we were doing.

[antiRepublicrat]

I have worked with computers every day of the last 20 years and literally don't know anyone who has a MAC at all, or a "high end" PC, for that matter...

You need a different crowd of people. For an engineer with his own company, time equals money. It may sound backwards, but he can't afford to buy an average computer.

AutoCAD hungry, must be fed memory and processing power.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I like how, in your comment, what are more or less pro-Mac comments from the article are presented without your own interjections and spin, but the ones opposed are from a "poor lost soul, probably a PC user masquerading as a Mac user" and a "fanatic" with a "'Hate-Apple' fixation". Do the folks on your list think for themselves when you bring them something, or do they expect you to pre-chew all their food for them? Or is this less of a discussion and really more of a sermon?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Yeah right. Like I'm going to debate a weenie who is part of 5% of the total computer market? I got better things to do

He says as he joins the debate. :-)

And what's this constant BS about "high end" Macs are cheaper than "High end" PCs? I have worked with computers every day of the last 20 years and literally don't know anyone who has a MAC at all, or a "high end" PC, for that matter...

I am reminded of the liberal woman who was astonished that Bush was elected, saying "I don't know anyone who voted for him!" Naturally, she wouldn't in the circles she traveled.

[Swordmaker]

Do the folks on your list think for themselves when you bring them something, or do they expect you to pre-chew all their food for them? Or is this less of a discussion and really more of a sermon?

You know, Senator, this is the first time I have made such comments in a PING to the list... and I did so because I found the comments the writer of the article "selected" to include both ironic and amusing... and because it might attract more Ping listees to read another "switch v. not-switching" article. I thought they might find the comments also ironic and amusing, especially since some of them are so contrary to our experiences on OS X.