Mac and a PC

[Merlyn]

The argument will always be depended on the user, but how can you (Dirgle) say that Mac can't do what linux can. Linux was derived from Unix. Linux was created as a free version of Unix, where as Unix is on the servers, Linux is on the Home Computers.

I don't think those that don't use macs understand that there is a Console, not a command prompt, a console.. 2 pictures...

My Router (Running Gentoo)

My G3 PowerMac (Running OSX 10.4.11)

Sure as hell look very similar...

I figured the Windows screen shot was not needed as none of the shown commands even work on a Windows based machine...

 

[Dirgle]

No shit, OSX is based on Unix, I rejoiced when that happened, I had had a dealing with macs Since I picked up my first apple IIe. For the first Time I could finally do what i wanted from a shell. But it still isn't perfect. No OS is. But OSX is so locked down it annoys the hell out of me. With Linux I can cahange what ever the hell I want. I don't have to deal with hidden or encrypthed config files, just because some corperation dosn't want me to see thier secrets. So your pictures are wasted on something I already know.


And to poodles, I find most people tend to bash Vista or XP because they hate Microsoft, or some other reason. If someone actually took the time to customize XP or vista like i do with linux, it proves to be a decent OS. Will microsoft ever reach the same level of coding proficiency as linux, hell no. But for what Microsoft set out to do with Vista I believe they are reaching their goals. Want to know why Microsoft has a bad name, because they use consumers to beta test, a bad habit appel picked up with their latest release. But from a bussiness stand piont, it no longer becomes feasable to pay your programes to find every single bug in the system, and still turn a profit on the OS. Your talking about sifting through millions of lines of code just to find a bug or two. That is why Vista is so expensive, they spent more time debuging the code than any os before it, and it was the biggest reason for the delays. And they succeeded. Vista managed to have less bug per month than OSX. Is Vist perfect, no, they really need to do away with the DRM. Some of the fat could be trimmed of of the code. Maybe a lite version that isn't all pretty and shiny, for those of us that arn't impressed by that stuff. But I see a lot of biased opinions about Operating Systems, I'm biased toward Linux. Take it as you will.

P.S. I really liked 2003 server, but it still didn't compare to a decient Gentoo build.

 

[iwannadie]

I love my macs, Ill never use windows ever lol.

For the people STILL moaning about the mouse. You can buy any mouse you want and plug it in for Gods sake. How many Serious computer users still use the mouse that came with their computer? Just go buy which ever usb mouse you want and plug the thing in and ebay the apple mouse.

 

[suprarx7nut]

I have a PowerBook G4 from 2002...and it still works amazingly well...

With the exception of the overheating....


I've never had a problem with my Toshiba laptop. I use it everyday for a few hours and it has frozen maybe twice in the last year. All that is required is to hold down the power button, then it resets and all is well.

I've had it 3 years and I plan on getting another Toshiba.

 

[Poodles]

Dirgle: Well, I never did bash on the Mac enough in that post. Same old garbage about not being able to turn stuff off like Vista, but at least it's a bit faster. I got out of the Mac game because it was too expensive to buy another Mac at the time.

The reason I don't like XP/Vista is that you can't cut it down into a streamlined system without throwing off errors and alarms. Windows Server 2003 I have personally gotten down to only FOUR processes running without any errors.

It's fast as hell on a system that's limited (AMD Duron 1.4Ghz OCed to 2.0, 512DDR RAM, Nvidia Geforce 6800), with far better frame rates in games than I could get with XP.

 

[Clueless]

Drunk Medic, you read into my statement the wrong way... Well, I also stated it wrong.

PC's are better for gaming because the gaming industry gears games towards PC's.

There are games out there for Mac but the demand is much lower

Any easy way to see the use of a mac vs a PC is my old Technology School I went to during Highschool

You had your Data Communications Section, for people wishing to get into the Networking, the Building of PCs, the trouble shooting, ect ect

and the Visual Communications, which was geared around photo design, photo editing, photo restoration, 3d animation, video editing etc etc...

Data Comm Used PCs
Vis Comm - Used Macs

Btw, if you wish to talk about Benchmarks, I can promise you the Mac on Average is a better machine then a PC...

Using this fair logic...

Take the lowest grade PC and the Highest Grade PC, in todays market comparing

Hard Drive Size
Processor Cores
Processor Speed
Processor FSB
Total Memory

and the lowest grade Mac and the highest grade Mac comparing the above and the Mac will be a stronger machine...

simply because Mac doesn't make pieces of shit with Celeron Processors...

So if you want to say PC's are better built machines, tell that to the 1000's of people everyday buying $399 laptops at Best Buy...

and your comparison about "comparing" a better computer...

That is like saying a Honda Civic is a piece of a shit because it has less horsepower then a Bugatti Veyron...

or like saying...

A supra is a piece of a shit because it doesn't get 40 MPG...

And even within your Comparison... You can still run Video Benchmarks on a Mac... hell...

Apple's Desktop... The mac pro...

starts at $2499... and well... hmm....

Comes with either a Quad Core, or 8 cores... no more dual core even... I have to say Macs are better machines...

Macs are to Porsche as PC is Toyota...

from Macs Website on the Mac Pro

Quad-core or 8-core, all Xeon
Up to 3TB storage
Up to 16GB RAM
Ready to RAID

Lowest Graphics card is a NVidia 7300GT up to an NVidia Quadro FX 4500 (which is a $1600~ video card)

so to just mess around on their site,

there Desktops start at $2499 and go all the way up to... $13078, with no software and no unneeded stuff (that I personally would never use)

i am sorry, but I have to say that...

# Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
# 16GB (8 x 2GB)
# Mac Pro RAID Card
# 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)
# One 16x SuperDrive
# Both Bluetooth 2.0+EDR and AirPort Extreme
# Apple Wireless Keyboard and Apple wireless Mighty Mouse - Western Spanish
# Mac OS X - U.S. English

That Machine OWNS any PC I have ever seen...

Again, Mac is in a whole other League from PC...

Porsche vs Honda...

And before you say that the above is a server...

I am constantly connected through SSH, hosting some form of files from my computer to the internet, constantly remote desktoping, or doing some for of administration, constantly turning old computers into routers at my house, constantly storing back-ups of all my systems remotely on some for of media, and constantly doing just about everything that the above computer would do for me ABOVE any of the common setups of Windows...

i.e...

go download all the files from a set directory on a webpage in Windows...

in Mac you simply can use curl or easily for free download wget and use that command

enable SSH on your PC, very easy on Mac, go to sharing then enable SSH

Ditto for FTP...

Oh and I forgot to mention I also in my spare time do a lot of web development, 3d design, adobe work ect... I do play counter-strike from time to time, thank god for my old p4...

simply put, a Mac is a HELL of a better computer for my needs then a PC could ever be, if it wasn't for mac I would be using linux... so maybe for your ease of building PC's you think it is a better computer, but in the long run of things in this world, if you aren't gaming, I still hold to my argument, a Mac is better on all counts, even speed.

My computer will pour gas all over your Mac and light it up....only thing holding me back is Bill Gates' Microshaft stupid software that needs to be scraped and rewritten from scratch.

 

[ILikeCarsYesIDo]

Macs are for the lulz.

 

[iwannadie]

My computer will pour gas all over your Mac and light it up....only thing holding me back is Bill Gates' Microshaft stupid software that needs to be scraped and rewritten from scratch.

Yea, thats like saying 'oh I just got my supra up to 1000rwhp but I dont have any gas to use it. plus when i try to start it the airbag deploys and i have to have have the ac, heat, wipers, defrost, turn signals all on or i get an error.'

You can have all the hardware you want, we all know its cheap enough these days but without an Os to back it your just holding the desk down with it.

 

[Poodles]

hence why I run the server OS's that are designed to be stable instead of being a testing ground for new (useless) features...

 

[Dirgle]

hence why I run the server OS's that are designed to be stable instead of being a testing ground for new (useless) features...

So True.

 

[johnathan1]

LMAO @ this thread!

HARDGAY FTW!

 

[foreverpsycotic]

hence why I run the server OS's that are designed to be stable instead of being a testing ground for new (useless) features...

Server 2003 is a version of xp, it just has less processes that start up. You can make xp pro go just as smooth with as little processes.

From a gaming standpoint, anything over a constant say 30fps is worthless. Your eye can see no more than ~24. I have all my valve games set so that there is no more or less than 60fps, in any circumstance. I need no more, nor do I want more.

To the origional argument, both are great. Its a personal prefference thing. If you are that concerned about playing CounterStrike, you can STILL play it on a mac. Parallels desktop FTW. (BTW, blizzard releases most of their games for MacOS as well)

 

[Poodles]

wrong, it's a totally different kernel... and NO, you can NOT get XP down to that few processes without throwing tons of errors

anything over the refresh rate of the monitor is useless (as it's not displayed), and you CAN see the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS in a fast moving game easily...

 

[Dirgle]

The other kernal thing is true,basicly. Xp runs on kernal version 5.1, where as 2003 runs on 5.2. Both of which are mearly subsets of the 5.0 kernal. But yes 2003 is far more stable, than XP.

However I have run XP, stably, on as few as 2 processes(not including the system idle process), but the system didn't have a GUI, or audio.

Also like poodles says, the frame rates as low as 30fps are noticeable, 60 fps is ideal. This is why the magic number Sony shoots for on all their games on the PS3 are set for 60fps.