Posted on 01/30/2008 8:29:57 AM PST by Scoutmaster
Please excuse the vanity, but I know many of you have very definite (and often informed) opinions about PC v. MAC.
I have an opportunity to upgrade my home desktop and laptop with designated funds from work. In other words, somebody else’s money, enough to seriously soup up a Mac Pro desktop and a MacBook Pro or MacBook Air. If I choose PC, then I'll upgrade only my laptop. No need to upgrade my PC desktop - the drudgery of re-installing software far outweighs the little jump I'd make in PC desktop technology.
If knowing about my PC use is helpful, read on. If not, then just skip to the asterisks below.
Me? PC user since I bought my first desktop in 1991 but have since built about a dozen PCs for my family, the last couple with fairly high-end Core 2 Duo-type specs. I have a better working knowledge of the Windows XP Pro OS and PC hardware than most computer users, but in a room of IT people I’m a lightweight. My kids can call from college with a Windows OS or software problem and I can usually talk them through the fix or the installation of new or replacement hardware. No real Windows OS problems, perhaps because I’m finicky about regular maintenance of the OS, cleaning unnecessary files, fixing minor registry errors, defragging, optimizing the start-up processes, removing all remnants of programs I no longer use, etc. Feel as though I would be starting from knowledge point zero if I switch to a Mac.
Job involves lots of writing, so for work purposes my PC is a basically a word processor/research tool which I use for hours each day.
At play, I’m a heavy Internet user, a moderately heavy web design/video/graphics/Flash animation user, with a developing knowledge of 3d graphics/3d animation.
Often use my laptop for graphics, video, and animation play when on the road.
When I start to think Mac, my practical side reminds me that I have a metric Peruvian buttload of Windows software to support my graphics/animation addiction (software acquired at educational prices, a minor blessing) – such as most of Adobe’s current web design, graphics, photo, and video/DVD production software; and Maxon, Maya, SoftImage, and Z-Brush 3d graphics/3d animation software. I’m a sucker for 'superior' after-market (Open Source, if possible) administrative/maintenance software alternatives to the standard Windows programs - Diskeeper Pro, Firefox, Opera, GetRight downloader, etc.
Our family operates on a pass-down hierarchy of computer technology, so my switching to Mac would eventually result in Macs for three PC-savvy kids and for a please-just-do-it-and-don’t-make-me-learn-that-computer-stuff spousal unit whose computer use is frequent but involves little more than Office Word, Quicken, and the Internet.
* * * * *
I’ve read what I can find from technical pros and everyday geeks who tried and documented a test-run switch to Mac – some of whom drank the Mac Kool-Aid and some of whom stayed with a PC.
Spoke with several of our IT people. Mac would be compatible to network with work, but they warn that they are notably unsuited to assist with any Mac-related compatibility issues.
* * * *
I realize I could acquire the Mac versions of the video production, animation, and graphics software I use most often. I realize a Mac would run Final Cut Pro and other respected Mac-specific software titles. I also realize that in a pinch I can set up the Mac for dual OS and keep running the Windows version of that software.
What practical advice would you give to help me make an informed PC v. Mac decision?
Actually, most Windows programs are multithreaded, otherwise the UI would freeze up anytime you told it to do something, like check mail or render a web page.
Why are you talking about servers in response to a quoted question that says non-servers?
I'm talking about a development desktop.
Assuming that the application you're running will generate sufficient cache hits. For some applications this performance gain is minimal.
Now you're talking the minority.
I'm just saying that in many applications, a system with with a slightly faster dual core will beat out a quad core or two quad cores.
I'm sure that is true. A single-threaded application that crunches small chunks of data in a 2K window would probably fit that. To make it true you have to keep as much as possible on the CPU, getting most of your data and instructions from the cache. Thus more cores, more cache and a faster bus wouldn't matter much.
But I certainly don't think it's at all reasonable to say they compete in the 'bang for the buck' region in purely terms of hardware.
Horses for courses as always. Blanket statements in computers usually don't work well. I do simple video editing, barely amateur, and video conversion in backing up the DVDs before the kids can destroy them. I wish I had that 8-core monster, as my little $23 shareware video converter can use them. It would also be nice to run Windows in a VM and give it two cores while leaving two for the host OS.
You know, I do a compile of a huge application and it's not the compile that takes most of the time, it's the build I/O.
Having a lot of fast RAM should help a bit due to the operating system's disk cache. It would be cool to set up a system to compile off a RAM disk. When converting video the hard drive just blips every few seconds.
Actually, I just checked, RAM is really cheap now. Maybe that RAMDisk isn’t so unreasonable...
What you say is so true, Swordmaker.
My sister has switched to Mac, (retired HP software engineer), and finds that when she is having trouble with the Mac, it is because she is overthinking things.
My guess is that this tendency to “overthink” is problematic for some long-time PC users. They just do not understand how Macs work, and try to do things the PC way on them.
You misunderstood. I started using PCs in 2001. I have used Macs from 1988 until this very day, and my very credible experience tells me that this propaganda about Macs being grossly more reliable than PCs is simply not the case. Now I do have my complaints. For instance, I will never upgrade to Vista. XP is the most stable O/S I have ever experienced.
The main thread of a Windows program is the UI thread. If, on the main thread, you stop to count to a billion, the whole program will become unresponsive, moving another window over the program will leave it a white hole on the desktop. You spawn other threads from the main UI thread to do the background work, leaving the UI responsive to input.
I would probably only see a real speedup with an 8 core if I wasn't connecting to a remote DB.
Now I need a few Windows VMs to test. A while ago in another job I had a need for four simultaneous virtual machines on my system. Running that on a one-core machine is NOT fun. I'm thinking of writing a program that will need eight to properly test. I will not do that unless I have a Mac Pro.
In your case, the testing network is out there and actually exists on other hardware. In my case the network is on my development machine. The question is what's cheaper? Do we buy moderate boxes for development, LDAP server, database server, file server, web front-ends, etc., with the space and electricity they require? Or do we just buy one really fast development machine and run all that virtual? Six VMs means each gets a core and your dev box keeps two for itself. 8 gigabytes means each gets a gig (well, LDAP can run in much less) and your dev environment gets over two.
Like a reboot as the first troubleshooting measure. That is seriously a Windows thing. Some UNIX systems, especially ones that have been up for years, you do not want to just reboot.
Strange. I have never had such a looping problem on either my G5 Tower or my Intel Macbook Pro nor on any of several G4s the rest of the family uses. I recall when F4M first came out that it would only play the first half of a file until you paid to register it... now it's free in its basic mode. Glad the problem seems to have disappeared.
For the record we have Word for Windows 2002 and Words for Mac 2004. As for the tool bar we go to View/Tool Bars click format and turn it on every time we go into Word and every time we go back into Word we have to do it again. On our PC’s it’s automatically there when you start Word, what a concept, cool huh?
“Gee... mine defaults to Documents” good for you, ours doesn’t. It defaults to finder/photos. Then you scroll up to Docs, click on Docs and find your document, click and attach. On the PCs you click on attach and it defaults to documents. You find your document and click to attach. Not a big deal just another extra step that shouldn’t be necessary. Over the course of a day all these little extra steps become very annoying. Again the PC just works, what a concept, huh?
” It is obvious that you want the Mac to work just like Windows.”
You are finally starting to get it. After 14 years of using a computer I do not want nor do I see the need to start over with a “new paradigm” which I find cumbersome and non-intuitive. To quote my wife as she leaves the room fuming yet again, “I just want a computer that works.” I want to have full features on my music services so I can listen to my play lists while I work, I want my attachments from friends to open in my email like a PC, I want Word centered on the screen not off to the side, I want the format tool bar to automatically be there when I start new documents, when I open Word I want it to go directly to a blank doc not a box asking me if I want a blank doc, I don’t want my computer deciding which mail service it wants to use when I send files to people(defaults to Mac Mail and then decides which name the mail will go out under unlike Yahoo that use the email of the person signed in on the computer). Get the picture? I glad you guys all love your Macs, I don’t share your slavish dedication to the “new paradigm”
Thankfully we have two other computers that do work. As I said as soon as I can find someone to take the Mac off my hands for a reasonable price it will be gone and will be replaced by a third that also works. Nuff said.
No, I didn't. Your starting to use PCs in 2001 I got... If anything you did not make yourself clear.
Perhaps you still have that old Mac sitting around but you would have us believe that you not only bought a new Windows PC in 2001 but also bought OSX and kept updating your Mac hardware? Frankly, I doubt it. People usually say what they intend to say in their first statement. You said:
I used Macs from the first release until 2001...
That's pretty clear. I think you are backtracking to try and repair that "credibility" you claim.
Does, doesn’t it... that little Apple logo at the bottom of the page is priceless...
I would imagine if you wanted you could wipe off OS X and install just Windows on your Mac. I don’t know about iMacs, but the MacBook Pros were the fastest Windows computers released last year. So you already have a pretty good one to use.
I am sorry... but that just does NOT match with my many years of experience working with MS Word on the Mac platform... you click the Formatting under View/Toolbars and it puts a check mark next to it and it will appear everytime you start your Word up again without further user intervention. It is not a Mac problem... it might be a problem with your Office installation. I suspect you have a corrupted preference file.
...when I open Word I want it to go directly to a blank doc not a box asking me if I want a blank doc...
You don't know how to configure your computer. Sheesh. Start up MS Word and look at the bottom of the Project Gallery window... do you see that little check box that says "Show Project Gallery at startup"? Uncheck the box and click OK... you'll never see it again unless you ask for it under "File." When you start Word... it starts with a blank document. Where the new document opens is a choice that Microsoft made... not Apple.
Then you scroll up to Docs, click on Docs and find your document, click and attach.
Scroll up? Why not just click the "Documents" icon on your sidebar in Finder? You've apparently never let the Mac know which folder you want to default to. The Mac will default to the last one you used.
Are you using Mail or are you using MS Entourage? If you are using the latter, then, again your problem is with Microsoft.
I want my attachments from friends to open in my email like a PC...
They do... double click on them in the email body and they WILL open.
Ding! I'd say minimum three front-ends, two file servers, domain controller and database. Plus I need a client within the VM's network.
Even without clustering it's not hard to imagine with a distributed n-tier system. For example a web front-end, business object server, authentication server, image server, ad front-end, content DB, ad DB, LDAP server.
Do ALL those things really need a dedicated CPU though, unless you’re doing load testing? Which if you’re doing that, you ought to be doing it on a production quality system, not your development box. I mean, if two file servers and a domain controller on three different VMs *share* a physical CPU, I doubt you’re going to see performance degradation, because those things won’t even come close to peaking out a single core. I mean, the VMs for those shouldn’t even really need that much RAM (unless these are Windows servers.).
I really suggest you spend some time in the Preferences areas, both for your program and your system prefs. I think a lot of your problems could be taken care of there.
Is TF2 on Macs?
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.