Mac vs. PC

tuned · 01-14-2007, 04:27 PM

I've always been a PC guy, and obviously, hated Mac's. But, my next computer will very likely be a Mac. My needs on the PC are getting more and more simple, and the Mac's seem to offer better long term reliability. Basically, time to move on. I've built pc's for years, repaired them, worked in a shop and built many different rigs. Although I'll be switching to Mac in the future, that will no way retire my PC use, I'll always have one of each ready for anything I need to do on a computer.

NateTheGreat · 01-14-2007, 04:32 PM

^Well said. While I love the mac, especially the intel variety, if I really want a gaming rig, I'm not spending the dough on a Mac Pro. While a MacBook Pro would probably be good enough for me, for games like Crysis, I'll build myself an AMD powered PC. The more options, the better. Wonder when Apple will ever switch over to AMD? I'm guessing it will take about the same amount of time it took them to switch from PPC to Intel.

Zakkorn · 01-14-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaz

Just gotta say this, Mac is the HARDWARE, which is equal to PC which is HARDWARE.. so comparing the two, with the hardware limiations of the OS taking into mind, Mac is 3000x better, first off, PC/IBM-Clone(windows) can handel up to 4GB of Ram, which is perthetic. Mac can handel way up of that, and you can currently get up to 16GB of Ram in a Mac Pro. much other things to take note as well, but that is one of the most important.

OS X is far better than Windows, often the case, Windows virus's are caused because microsoft has no envolvement with the hardware it's OS comes into contact with, and thus can't control certain things. Comparing that to OSX, apple has all authority over it's hardware, not only does it install it in it's own machines, but they build there OS around the hardware, which is often why the OS is much more stable, not only that it's easier on the eye, it's also alot easier to use.

Who told you that PCs can not use more than 4GBs of RAM?

From the moment they have a 64bit OS (xp64, Vista64 etc.) they can use up to 32GB (if I remember correctly).
And Macs they use more than 4GB because they have a 64bit OS.

Its up to the OS if it 32 or 64bits.

JoeTheZombie · 01-14-2007, 04:49 PM

I'm currently being a bad boy and running OSX on my PC. (OSx86 Project). I also run Ubuntu.

Now that may gaming has shifted to the Wii360, my next computer will most likely be a Mac, especially with all the draconian DRM/Activation/Monitoring that is placed in Vista.

NateTheGreat · 01-14-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeTheZombie

I'm currently being a bad boy and running OSX on my PC. (OSx86 Project).

Just had to say OSx86 Project is an awesome place. Now it's sort of been split up into a wiki (OSx86 Project) and a great news and forum (InsanelyMac). Really great community there. Wish I had more knowledge so I could post on that site.

Gaz · 01-14-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zakkorn

Who told you that PCs can not use more than 4GBs of RAM?

From the moment they have a 64bit OS (xp64, Vista64 etc.) they can use up to 32GB (if I remember correctly).
And Macs they use more than 4GB because they have a 64bit OS.

Its up to the OS if it 32 or 64bits.

Read what i said, taking into considerations of the hardware capabilites as well.. you have to take note of 64bit carefull, as many 64bit machines actually only have a 64bit bus, but use a 32bit processor. and thus can't use more than 4GB of ram. and good luck finding a motherboard that can take that much ram aswell haha

Zakkorn · 01-14-2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaz

Read what i said, taking into considerations of the hardware capabilites as well.. you have to take note of 64bit carefull, as many 64bit machines actually only have a 64bit bus, but use a 32bit processor. and thus can't use more than 4GB of ram. and good luck finding a motherboard that can take that much ram aswell haha

Whatever you say its just half truth. Because in PCs of course you can have whatever you need.
Why you take into account for example, only the 32bit PCs?
Why you say that its hard to find a m/b that takes more than 8GB of RAM?
In the same way there are macs that dont have even 2GBs of RAM. Or Macs that have only a single processor.
Are these the only macs available? Of course not. There very powerful macs at the market at the moment.

There is nothing that you cant do in PCs and you can do it in Macs, but on the contrary, there are a few things you can do in PCs than on Macs. Such us a lot more games, and much more applications and programs.

The only things that Macs have and I really really like and I miss it, is Design and a little more reliable OS than our XPs.

JoeTheZombie · 01-14-2007, 06:48 PM

What you are missing is that current production Macs (ie, Intel based Macs) can run windows natively, or concurrently through parallels. This means that the Mac can run every single application ever developed for Windows, plus what is available on the Mac. Windows users can not run OSX, (unless you are willing to hack).

Zakkorn · 01-14-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeTheZombie

What you are missing is that current production Macs (ie, Intel based Macs) can run windows natively, or concurrently through parallels. This means that the Mac can run every single application ever developed for Windows, plus what is available on the Mac. Windows users can not run OSX, (unless you are willing to hack).

I accept that.
But is not far away that the PCs will not be able to have MacOS.
But at the end why a PC to put a Mac OS and not put a Linux OS?

Anyway I leave that.

My posts had to do with "Gaz" saying half truth about PCs. Thats all.
At the same time I said a half truth about Macs but you correct me.
And I accepted it.

So I am not missing any point that he said.

kissoff182 · 01-14-2007, 07:30 PM

I have no use for a PC other than for gaming. I used to be a real OS nazi... on PC's side... but I got over it. =) I LOVE MACS. I wish I had one. =(

Master Wii · 01-14-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zakkorn

But is not far away that the PCs will not be able to have MacOS.

Knowing Apple, I doubt this will ever happen.

Macs FTW

Gaz · 01-14-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zakkorn

I accept that.
But is not far away that the PCs will not be able to have MacOS.
But at the end why a PC to put a Mac OS and not put a Linux OS?

Anyway I leave that.

My posts had to do with "Gaz" saying half truth about PCs. Thats all.
At the same time I said a half truth about Macs but you correct me.
And I accepted it.

So I am not missing any point that he said.

as you said i stand corrected, did a bit or research and found the stuff you pointed out was incorrect.

and you won't ever be ALLOWED to run OSX on an IBM-clone, it's againts the licence agreement.

blueradio · 01-14-2007, 08:19 PM

I love my PC.
But I wouldn't mind having a Macbook Pro or something along those lines.
They do everything and the interface is incredible.
I would love to have a Mac. I'm sure I'll get one eventually.

Zakkorn · 01-14-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaz

as you said i stand corrected, did a bit or research and found the stuff you pointed out was incorrect.

and you won't ever be ALLOWED to run OSX on an IBM-clone, it's againts the licence agreement.

So you are saying that you are right and you found after a bit of research that PCs cannot have more than 4GBS of RAM right?
Because that was the 1st thing I pointed out from your post.
I dont understand where you are corrected.

JoeTheZombie · 01-14-2007, 08:42 PM

Well, Windows 2000/XP can utilize up to 64GB RAM using address windowing... I think you are confusing the 4GB limitation as it applies to kernel/application addressing where the system can only access 2GB of kernel space + 2GB of application space at a time.

Essentially, the computer swaps 2GB sections of RAM from a maximum available 64MB into the application area as needed. The real limitation is the 2GB kernel area, as it can not be swapped, and is really limited to 2GB across all applications. Terminal services on XP can support about 200 users until the 2GB kernel area is filled.

Hardly a concern on a home desktop.

Gaz · 01-15-2007, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zakkorn

So you are saying that you are right and you found after a bit of research that PCs cannot have more than 4GBS of RAM right?
Because that was the 1st thing I pointed out from your post.
I dont understand where you are corrected.

i stand corrected over saying that PC's cannot have more than 4GBs of ram, but i don't stand corrected over talking about the hardware limitations of having more than 4GBs of ram in a pc.

Zakkorn · 01-15-2007, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaz

i stand corrected over saying that PC's cannot have more than 4GBs of ram, but i don't stand corrected over talking about the hardware limitations of having more than 4GBs of ram in a pc.

I still dont understand what do you mean by PC's cannot have more than 4GBs, when its not true.

Really, could you please explain it.

csiguy4u · 01-15-2007, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaz

i stand corrected over saying that PC's cannot have more than 4GBs of ram, but i don't stand corrected over talking about the hardware limitations of having more than 4GBs of ram in a pc.

This motherboard can have more than 4GB of ram so I am not sure what hardware limitation you are talking about:

http://www.pcconnection.com/ProductD...=10-34342919-2