Mac vs PC

[PGPfan]

Originally Posted by mayamaniac

I disagree, there is some truth to it. I think the Xbox360 development team uses the old G5 Macs to develop for the Xbox360 since they share the same processors from IBM and the same graphics card from ATI. Here are some pics of the dev kit.
And pics of the Mac G5s running Xbox 360 games.

Notice I 'did' say "excepting Mac/Office". Xbox would be a possibility as well, since I don't game I don't know. I think in general, the 'mac fanatic' as described by the OP implied that Microsoft devs use Mac's for sofware developement which excepting the mentioned items (Xbox really isn't comparable "software developement" as you can't buy it as "software") they just don't. I know this first hand, but if you personally witnessed otherwise, I'd love hear it.

-PGPfan

[GKusnick]

Another ex-Microsoftie here. Obviously there are some Macs on the Microsoft campus for specialized uses such as have already been mentioned. But as PGPfan says, the idea that MS programmers in general prefer Macs or are required to use them in their daily work is just plain silly.

On the larger question of PCs vs Macs, I use PCs because I can build my own using exactly the parts I want. You can't do that with Macs. (I do have an Apple Cinema HD monitor connected to my homebuilt Windows PC, for what that's worth.)

[gplasky]

This is the preferred development platform for Xbox 360 (as well as Zune and/or Windows)

XNA Game Studio 3.1

Microsoft® XNA® Game Studio 3.1 enables hobbyists, academics, and independent game developers to easily create video games for Xbox 360, Windows, and Zune by using optimized cross-platform gaming libraries based on the .NET Framework in the C# programming language.

XNA Game Studio 3.0 or 3.1 is required to create games for Xbox LIVE Indie Games.

using optimized cross-platform gaming libraries based on the .NET Framework in the C# programming language.

I'm not quite sure how this translates to the Mac platform.

That Xbox/Mac development story was back in 2005. It's certainly not true today.

And some more info on that:

Actually, the OS running on the G5s that MS uses as Xbox 360 development kits is a special version of WindowsNT.
WindowsNT actualy was available for other CPUs than Intel/AMD, including the PowerPC and DEC Alpha CPUs.

That means:
Xbox 360 games are not developped on OS X (thus will NOT run natively on a Mac).
The Xbox 360 is not a stripped down PowerMac G5, and eventhough it's CPU might be of the same family and architecture it is NOT the same thing.
A computer (and a gaming console) is made of more than just the CPU...using the same CPU (which it's not anyway) doesn't make it the same device.

Gerry

[mayamaniac]

Originally Posted by gplasky

Looking at the latest Dell Z600 laptop really surpasses the Apple notebook features. And it costs slightly less than that $2,200 macbook pro.

Dell Z600

Gerry

That Dell is more comparable to a Macbook Air, than a Macbook Pro. And he Air is priced less than that Dell.

Originally Posted by PGPfan

Notice I 'did' say "excepting Mac/Office". Xbox would be a possibility as well, since I don't game I don't know. I think in general, the 'mac fanatic' as described by the OP implied that Microsoft devs use Mac's for sofware developement which excepting the mentioned items (Xbox really isn't comparable "software developement" as you can't buy it as "software") they just don't. I know this first hand, but if you personally witnessed otherwise, I'd love hear it.

-PGPfan

Originally Posted by gplasky

This is the preferred development platform for Xbox 360 (as well as Zune and/or Windows)

I'm not quite sure how this translates to the Mac platform.

That Xbox/Mac development story was back in 2005. It's certainly not true today.


Gerry

I was merely referencing to the original question of a situation of when Microsoft did use a Mac for development, and that it could be where the rumor came from and there is some truth to that. I'm not saying anything beyond that.

I'm not trying to be a mac fanboy in this thread by defending the Apple products, but I think Apple product do have their values and not just totally overpriced products like some people claimed. I do defend the Windows/PC when Mac people who thinks PCs are just virus plaque cheap junks.

[PGPfan]

Funny you mention NT for the PowerPC. When I got my start professionally in the computer industry, I worked for IBM where in a small lab in the Redmond, WA area we actually had Windows 98 running on the PPC in addition to the special version of NT. That brings back some memories...., thanks Gerry!

GKusnick, just curious which area at MS did you work? I was with CoreOS, specifically Win2K and XP in the mobile labs.

-PGPfan

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by PGPfan

GKusnick, just curious which area at MS did you work? I was with CoreOS, specifically Win2K and XP in the mobile labs.

I worked in Research for seven years from '91-'98.

[gtallan]

Originally Posted by paulbeers

I recently picked up an entry level Macbook Pro (13" w/ 2.26ghz core2duo) and have round the quality amazing compared to my dell and lenovo laptops. The all aluminum uni-body design makes for a super sturdy laptop that I feel like I could drop and still have a working laptop (exaggeration). Obviously I could have gotten a lot more laptop if I went PC for $1100 (but I did get a free iPod Touch with mine so that did help ease the pain), but I do not feel like the build quality would be on par with the Macbook.

But, you have to remember you can get also high quality PC gear if you are prepared to pay for it. For example two people in our office have Lenovo and Thinkpad laptops - essentially the same model in terms of specs, and made by the same company at the same time, but the Thinkpad is SO much nicer than the Lenovo-branded one... there is a huge difference.

[mcbrems]

I've been running SageMC on my Mac mini connected DVI>HDMI to my fiddy for a couple years now, and it's been great fun. Nothing beats the look on my friends' faces when I power up to a 50" desktop. I like the mini because of its form factor - small footprint, great design and looks, and very quiet. Fast as hell with the new Intel Core 2 Duo and 2GB SDRAM, and it cost me under a grand for everything, including the memory. Bottom of the line minis that will work with SageTV are under $600 right now. Don't forget, it's linux under the hood.

[bcjenkins]

I think it depends on what you intend to use the computer for. Will you be doing any web or software dev?

B

[lewiston2009]

Fifteen years ago while working for MS supporting their network OS I would have asked what you were smoking if you suggested that I would later become a Mac owner.

I am as far from the stereotypical Mac user profile as one can get. There are many Mac nuts out there that claim it's the only way to go - they're wrong. I do feel they make a better product and have better support. I've yet to have a client who has switched to Mac express any regrets. As an investor I'm impressed that 25% of Apple's proceeds are routed into their R&D department.

I switched my IT company to Macs (running Parallels) when it was clear our business clients were not purchasing Vista, and in some cases switching to Macs, of which I received a great deal of heckling from fellow business owners. Later when it was apparent Apple was not going to aggressively market corporate users we began switching back to PCs in preparation for v7.

That switch back was the first time in my life that I seriously regretted letting a computer go. My staff voiced the same opinion. The end result is we run dual networks - Windows to support our clients, Mac/XServe to run our business. Using Macs we are able to run OS X, Linux, XP, v7, Server 2008, etc. seamlessly side-by-side - very slick.

I still love PCs - they keep us in business. ;-)

[paulbeers]

Originally Posted by lewiston2009

Fifteen years ago while working for MS supporting their network OS I would have asked what you were smoking if you suggested that I would later become a Mac owner.

I am as far from the stereotypical Mac user profile as one can get. There are many Mac nuts out there that claim it's the only way to go - they're wrong. I do feel they make a better product and have better support. I've yet to have a client who has switched to Mac express any regrets.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by mcbrems

Don't forget, it's linux under the hood.

No it's not. Mac OS X is based on the Mach Kernel and takes its implementation of UNIX from FreeBSD and NetBSD. BSD is not Linux. Linux is a kernel, nothing more.

[canuck88]

This debate rages on, and IMO boils down to this:

If you have the money but not the time, go Mac; if you have lots of time but little money, then stick with PC. If you have lots of money and lots of time, you are a rare and lucky SOB.

I personally have more money than free time, so I recently (about 8 months ago) went Mac (Mac Pro and Macbook Aluminum). I used to love PCs - I built probably 7 or 8 from scratch - when I had the time to constantly 'tinker'. But now i just don't have the time and want something that works flawlessly.

So far, OSX has lived up to my expectations. Frankly, Plex is probably the slickest HTPC software out there (with the Aeon skin)... but DVR functionality on a Mac is not so good (not a big deal for me since I'm in Canada - and it sucks whether you're on Mac or PC. Stupid CRTC/Cable companies).

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by canuck88

This debate rages on, and IMO boils down to this:

If you have the money but not the time, go Mac; if you have lots of time but little money, then stick with PC. If you have lots of money and lots of time, you are a rare and lucky SOB.

That implies there's a significant or inherent difference in the amount of work involved with the two OS's, and frankly I don't believe that a bit. My Dell laptop has been trouble free, as have my home-built desktops, though home built does take a bit more to get going (obviously).

IMO the real distinction isn't which OS is better, it's which OS runs the apps you want to run best. For me, that's Windows. In many ways I'd rather run OSX or Linux, but whenever I look at either, the only thing they buy me is taking more time/effort as I have to relearn/research everything I already know how to do on Windows.

I'm sure there are Mac and Linux users who feel the same way about Windows.

I personally have more money than free time, so I recently (about 8 months ago) went Mac (Mac Pro and Macbook Aluminum). I used to love PCs - I built probably 7 or 8 from scratch - when I had the time to constantly 'tinker'. But now i just don't have the time and want something that works flawlessly.

Sounds like what you're really comparing is the experience of buying a prebuilt, pretested, and officially supported device vs a DIY "project", of course the purchased one is going to be less work.

[flavius]

This morning I couldn't help but think of this thread when on my office XP laptop some trojan started poping up windows.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by flavius

This morning I couldn't help but think of this thread when on my office XP laptop some trojan started poping up windows.

Why in the world would you download a trojan?

[flavius]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Why in the world would you download a trojan?

I'm not sure I know all possible ways you can catch a trojan these days, but, yeah, I may have downloaded it. Go figure.

[SWKerr]

I have helped more friends with Trojan problems in the last 2 months than I have in the last 3 years. They must be getting better.

Windows7 will probably help with these problems but the Mac and Linux are not immune from these problems it is just their installed base doesn't make it worth the hackers time. That will change over time if they gain market share.

[reggie14]

The days of only getting viruses from downloading files or opening attachments are long gone. And, before people pick on Microsoft, the days of getting viruses from Windows vulnerabilities are mostly gone. Now, even moderately careful people can get malware from vulnerabilities in Flash, Adobe Acrobat, and Java just by browsing around the Internet. There's a fair number of 0-day exploits too.

A few months ago I spent hours cleaning my girlfriend's computer after she got the Vundo trojan. I'm not completely sure, but I'm pretty sure she got it when visiting less-than-legitimate sites to watch TV shows online. I think it was from a vulnerability in a old version of Java 1.6.

I work somewhere with very good IT staff when it comes to computer security, and very saavy users when it comes to security. Yet, several people at work got a virus when they bought tickets to an Eric Clapton concert due to a vulnerability in Adobe Acrobat when they printed out the tickets. It wasn't quite a 0-day exploit, since Adobe knew about the flaw, but Adobe hadn't released a security patch yet (they're really bad about that).

I'm not convinced Windows 7 will have a huge impact. The vulnerabilities themselves tend to be in applications, not the OS. UAC would have provided a good layer of protection, except that Microsoft dumbed it down so people didn't get as many UAC warnings. The end result was that it's not that hard for malware to escalate privileges without forcing a UAC warning (with the default UAC setting). What might help quite a bit is if Microsoft gets more serious about pushing Microsoft Security Essentials on people that don't have up-to-date antivirus software.

[panteragstk]

Some very good points have been made here.

I'm a pc user for the same reason as stanger. Windows supports the applications I use. Plus I build my own. I don't like any store-bought computers because to me the quality is awful. Mac build quality of the laptops is great, but to me laptops suck in general because when certain parts break you get to buy a new one. Mac pro desktops are nice, but they do odd things with their hardware that I don't particularly like. I like being able to replace parts as I please. Mac's simply don't allow you to do this. If you want to upgrade your motherboard to something that supports new processors you get to buy a new tower.

Hardware aside the real argument is for the software. Mac's seem to be more stable because apple has complete control over the hardware and os that goes into their computers. Microsoft makes software and then gives it to the pc manufacturers and hopes for the best. Most of the time this isn't a problem. If pc manufacturers would stop putting their dell, sony, hp and toshiba software on their pc's things would be much easier for people.

That being said. Windows and MacOS are both good os's. If you use windows correctly it can be rock stable. The average pc user screws up their pc more than the os that is on it. Macs aren't as easy to do that to because most if not all viruses/spyware is written for the pc because of the market share microsoft has.

It boils down to this as stated above. If your apps run on one or the other that is the one you will use. If it runs on both chances are you will be happy with either. The one area where I've seen mac kick the crap out of pc's is music production. I work at a place that sells mac's for this reason. Most of the software we sell runs on both pc's and macs, but runs well on macs and is horribly unstable on pc's. That doesn't mean pc's are unstable, the vast amount of software on most people's pcs just isn't compatible with DAW software.

So, you could say they both suck, and you could say they are both great. IMHO they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I will never be a mac user at home because what I do with computers isn't possible with macs.

Make your own informed decisions and never look back.