Mac vs. PC

[xhunterjx]

As I am going off to school next year I have to buy a new computer.  I am so torn between buying a MacBook or buying an HP Laptop....

Does anyone have opinions?

[jlh]

What have you had in the past?  What do you want to use it for?  What are you comfortable with? 

[xhunterjx]

I like Macs better, but they are way more expensive, thats why I am not sure whether it is worth the extra money.  Currently I have an HP laptop.

[jlh]

See that's the thing, since that's what you already have, you probably already have a lot invested in software?  The downside is that they're all running the first version of Vista, and so you'll probably run into compatability issues and bugs anyway.

Macs are better at multimedia, PC's are cheaper.  You decide. lol

Josh

[rach n bach]

Macs can run Vista or XP.  Get a dual core.

[quantum]

The Mac book Pro's are sweet, although I still run PC's at home myself. 

I like that you even have a scroll feature if you use 2 fingers instead of 1 on the mouse-touch-thingy. 

[jakev2.0]

Mac Notebooks tend to be rated higher on respected sites such as Consumer Reports, but imo they are still far too expensive to justify their purchase -- the product you get really isn't commensurate with the amount of dough you have to fork out to get it.

[Bob]

You might ask at the school and see if there is any advantage at the school for either one.  Can you plug into an internet connection in any classroom or in your residence hall?  Do they have wi-fi?

[pianolearner]

As I am going off to school next year I have to buy a new computer.  I am so torn between buying a MacBook or buying an HP Laptop....

Does anyone have opinions?

Yes, I have an opinion.

Macs are an overpriced, overrated appliance designed for girls and pretentious people.

[Bob]

I heard something about a Mac using an Intel chip which would allow it to do either Mac stuff or Windows.  I didn't hear that PC's were doing that.  One of those Intel Macs might be a way to go.

Although it's new technology, so it would have bugs of course....  Unlike the old technology which has no bugs at all.  (rolls eyes)

[pianolearner]

I heard something about a Mac using an Intel chip which would allow it to do either Mac stuff or Windows.  I didn't hear that PC's were doing that. 

Well that says it all doesn't it? PC's have no reason to do Mac stuff because not many people want to do it.

[rach n bach]

Bob's right.

The dual-cores can run both windows and Mac OS.  Yes, they are more expensive.  If you are planning on doing anything with graphics or media of any type though, it pays off.  The Mac's just handle that stuff better.  Another bonus is that you won't catch a virus... nobody makes ones for them.  And so who cares if the only reason for that is because there aren't that many around?  Same effect to you: less viruses. 

Oh, and with the new dual cores, you get to have great compatibility with anybody you're gonna work with.  Wanna game? Use the windows, that's about all it's good for.  Wanna do media, or graphics?  Use the Mac. 

So do the benifits outweigh the cost?  That's up to you, and your budget.  For me, yes. 

Well that says it all doesn't it? PC's have no reason to do Mac stuff because not many people want to do it.

Eh, not that many people want to play piano either.  We should all switch to drums and bass gutars.   

[pianolearner]

 

Bob's right.

The dual-cores can run both windows and Mac OS.  Yes, they are more expensive.  If you are planning on doing anything with graphics or media of any type though, it pays off.  The Mac's just handle that stuff better.  Another bonus is that you won't catch a virus... nobody makes ones for them.  And so who cares if the only reason for that is because there aren't that many around?  Same effect to you: less viruses. 

Oh, and with the new dual cores, you get to have great compatibility with anybody you're gonna work with.  Wanna game? Use the windows, that's about all it's good for.  Wanna do media, or graphics?  Use the Mac. 

So do the benifits outweigh the cost?  That's up to you, and your budget.  For me, yes. 

Eh, not that many people want to play piano either.  We should all switch to drums and bass gutars.   

Here we go...another unqualified response from a Mac lover. What exactly makes a Mac better for graphics? Show me some benchmark tests. Why is it that people think graphics 'bits' are different to any other 'bit'? Bit is short for binary digit....did you know that? Do you know about FLOPS or do you just talk in terms of "Stuff"? 

Comparing Piano's and Drums is a ridiculous analogy to support your view. Compatability and software availability is essential in computing. What's the point of having a supercomputer if the only application available for it is FreeCell? 

[oscarr111111]

Cue maddox link.

And I play bass guitar .

[rach n bach]

Eh.... one of my points was that you are more compatable with a dual core mac... seeing as you can run both Windows and Mac.  So no matter what you are wanting to use, you can run it.

By graphics and media I mean editing.  The mac software is just more userfriendly and better to actually do things with.

And dude, calm down.  It's just a stupid computer debate... be like that in the religion debates....

[pianolearner]

Eh.... one of my points was that you are more compatable with a dual core mac... seeing as you can run both Windows and Mac.  So no matter what you are wanting to use, you can run it.

By graphics and media I mean editing.  The mac software is just more userfriendly and better to actually do things with.

And dude, calm down.  It's just a stupid computer debate... be like that in the religion debates....

It's the stupid eye roll you ended your post with that warranted the reply you got. My point was, why pay extra money to get an overrated computer with a dual core technology just so you can run the few MAC applications that you are unlikely to ever use?

As for the MACS are better for graphics/media. That is a myth that is most likely attributable to the history of how the PC and MAC  were born.

You see, in the early days, computers were solely the domain of geeks and nerds. Unlike artsy fartsy pretentious people, geeks and nerds don't care about pretty pictures, they care about MIPS and FLOPS. Unlike artsy fartsy pretentious people, geeks and nerds do scientific type calculations so all they need to display is numbers,words and symbols or probably anything from the ASCII set. So, early PC's graphics cards used an 8 bit ISA bus, thats all you need to display a prompt and a flashing cursor (These things terrify artsy fartsy pretentious people). Now, Steve Jobs, who was working on the early MAC got the idea of a Windows type GUI from Xerox (Yes, the photocopier company) and knew that if he wanted to sell millions of MACS he would need to make it easier to use for artsy fartsy pretentious people and ordinary mums and dads who need a computer to work like an appliance rather than a scientific instrument, hence the pretty GUI was born. Bill Gates, who around that time was working for Apple,  left that company and focused on working with PC's and his own company Microsoft. A few years later Windows was born. But at the time, graphics on PC's was still failry limited and the standard windows drivers were only 8 bit meaning they could only display 256 colours (Hardly photographic quality) and most of the graphics functions were still being handled by the CPU. As a result, graphics designers and publishing companies opted for the MAC as that is what the the majority of good publishing applications were written for.

Over time, PC's evolved and moved from 8 bit ISA to 16 BIT extended ISA to PCI and various other technolgies and Graphics cards evolved along with it. It wasn't long before most of the complex graphics operations in the PC were being handled by the graphics cards and 16Bit, 24Bit and 32Bit graphics capablities were available on the PC.

But, you see, artsy fartsy pretentious people who are stuck in an old paradigm, still think that MACS do graphics "better" than a PC? 

Now, I do video editing on my PC, so I want to ask you a question.

How long does it take a MAC to encode a 1 minute DV clip into an Mpeg 1 clip assuming the following parameters:

DV is captured with a resolution of 720x576 and Audio 48Khz/16Bit Data Rate approx 3.6Mb/s

The Mpeg clip must adhere to constrained parameters and end up with a frame size of 352x288. The bit rate can vary between 800-8000 Kbit/sec.

Motion vectors must be 32x32 for P frames and 16x16 for B frames

GOP is 3/2

Audio should be encoded at 128Kb/sec

Now, the final MPEG clip must retain it's original aspect ratio...so make sure you do what is necessary to achieve this.

[jlh]

And dude, calm down.  It's just a stupid computer debate... be like that in the religion debates....

Computer debate is as serious as religion debate for some people, more serious for others.  Loyalties run thicker than blood, and belief in abilities of a certain type of computer can be unfounded or outdated, but nevertheless their faith in those computers will always remain.