By the way... I used to use an Amiga. Better than both back in the day for creative stuff!

ufoclub said:

By the way... I used to use an Amiga. Better than both back in the day for creative stuff!

What exactly is it that makes some computers better suited for doing creative stuff than other computers?

nd33 said:

NDRU said:

I use both, I slightly prefer Mac at this point, but I am still using Windows XP, so it's a bit outdated.

They're both fine, though. The thing is, I notice at work our Macs seem to have to be replaced more often than our PCs.

I'm not sure why your work Macs seem to get replaced so often as one of Macs string points is lastability. I'm still using a 2005 G5 at work from for high end audio work and a 2002 G4 at home for iTunes/Internet/music recording/whatever... My sister has my 2002 PowerBook and age still uses for work everyday. This is unheard of in PC land.

It seems that certain models are more reliable than others. One computer, a G4, is still around since 2002 (as is my Dell at home), but later G4's & Mac Minis failed really quickly. iMacs, as well, though many have also been reliable.

Part of the difference (and this could be our tech at work) is that there seems to be greater reluctance to fix Macs than there is with PCs.

missfee said:

From what I've heard, Mac is way better than using a PC as a personal computer. Though there are others who wouldn't even touch a Mac and are die hard PC users. So I'm here to ask the opinion of the orgers on here what their personal preference is. The advantages and disadvantages. Let's discuss.

I've had a PC (laptop) over many year and I use a PC at work. The PC at work never gives me any problems but my laptop updates never download like their supposed to which ticks me off to high heaven but, it still works. I'd have to give a Mac a run for it. I have a iPhone and the technology isn't too far off, right?

Computers have come so far in the past few years, I don't see how either platform could fail to meet the needs of the average person.

My home PC has a virus that lame-ass Norton didn't detect, so we bought a laptop recently. I'm taking it to the repair shop, but if it's cost prohibitive to repair it, I might visit the local Mac store in my Neighborhood.

SilverlakePhil said:

My home PC has a virus that lame-ass Norton didn't detect, so we bought a laptop recently. I'm taking it to the repair shop, but if it's cost prohibitive to repair it, I might visit the local Mac store in my Neighborhood.

Why waste money on that? Just buy a new hard drive and install it yourself. Hard drives are $40 to $100.

KoolEaze said:

ufoclub said:

By the way... I used to use an Amiga. Better than both back in the day for creative stuff!

What exactly is it that makes some computers better suited for doing creative stuff than other computers?

Basically some computers come ready out of the box, and it used to be that macs came that way out of the box and PC needed add ons and installations. I specifically mean the ability to plug and play cameras, audio decks, and other audio/video devices, run graphics, process HD video, but in the Mac's case now (since the PC has copied all of it's functionality and abilities) it's simply the fact that I use Final Cut Studio in addition to Adobe stuff. Final Cut Studio (a bundle of programs to make movies and dvd's) is great and only works on a Mac because it's put out by Apple.

But in the past the amiga let me run full screen video off of a diskette, and let me sequence music and output it right to a recording device. you cold edit boradcast quality video on it. Back then you could not do that on a mac or PC.

The first time I saw an HD type resolution on a pic was on the Amiga back in 1988. Just wikipedia Amiga by Commodore...

Legendary!

The Mac os is also designed to seem more natural and friendly, whereas the windows environment used to be much more technical and non user friendly. But that's alway been Apple's style, (user friendly), and their latest product the iphone has ushered in the smart phone craze with the easy use of a touchscreen.

uPtoWnNY said:

I use both, MAC at work, PC at home. MACs are better for doing graphic work, PCs are better gaming machines.

You just said it. MAC is great for graphic artists but PC's are more user intensive

especially in a networking or active directory environment.

phunkdaddy said:

uPtoWnNY said:

I use both, MAC at work, PC at home. MACs are better for doing graphic work, PCs are better gaming machines.

You just said it. MAC is great for graphic artists but PC's are more user intensive

especially in a networking or active directory environment.

Never thought about the "gaming" angle as I've never played a game on a computer.

The Batcomputer is still better than Mac or PC.

kpowers said:

The Batcomputer is still better than Mac or PC.

I watched the phantasm movie last night, I can't believe you had a bat computer even back in the 1950s!!!!

If I want to do a school art project, give me a mac.

If I want to game, bring on the PC.

I do more gaming than computer related art, so I got a PC.

My computer (the one I'm typing on as we speak) is a DELL Dimension4400 from 2002.

Still going strong. Slow in comparison to today's PC's...but still going strong.

ufoclub said:

KoolEaze said:

What exactly is it that makes some computers better suited for doing creative stuff than other computers?

Basically some computers come ready out of the box, and it used to be that macs came that way out of the box and PC needed add ons and installations. I specifically mean the ability to plug and play cameras, audio decks, and other audio/video devices, run graphics, process HD video, but in the Mac's case now (since the PC has copied all of it's functionality and abilities) it's simply the fact that I use Final Cut Studio in addition to Adobe stuff. Final Cut Studio (a bundle of programs to make movies and dvd's) is great and only works on a Mac because it's put out by Apple.

But in the past the amiga let me run full screen video off of a diskette, and let me sequence music and output it right to a recording device. you cold edit boradcast quality video on it. Back then you could not do that on a mac or PC.

The first time I saw an HD type resolution on a pic was on the Amiga back in 1988. Just wikipedia Amiga by Commodore...

Legendary!

The Mac os is also designed to seem more natural and friendly, whereas the windows environment used to be much more technical and non user friendly. But that's alway been Apple's style, (user friendly), and their latest product the iphone has ushered in the smart phone craze with the easy use of a touchscreen.

I used to have an atari 800. Loved the sound on that. When I got a PC, I was shocked that all I could hear was bleeps and bloops when I played a game on it. Then I learned I needed a soundcard. It felt like technology had gone backwards...

PurpleJedi said:

My computer (the one I'm typing on as we speak) is a DELL Dimension4400 from 2002.

Still going strong. Slow in comparison to today's PC's...but still going strong.

My ex-girlfriend´s Dell Latitude 600 was waaaaaay better, louder, faster and more reliable (with XP) than my crappy, slow ass HP Pavillion that I bought YEARS later.

crazydoctor said:

ufoclub said:

Basically some computers come ready out of the box, and it used to be that macs came that way out of the box and PC needed add ons and installations. I specifically mean the ability to plug and play cameras, audio decks, and other audio/video devices, run graphics, process HD video, but in the Mac's case now (since the PC has copied all of it's functionality and abilities) it's simply the fact that I use Final Cut Studio in addition to Adobe stuff. Final Cut Studio (a bundle of programs to make movies and dvd's) is great and only works on a Mac because it's put out by Apple.

But in the past the amiga let me run full screen video off of a diskette, and let me sequence music and output it right to a recording device. you cold edit boradcast quality video on it. Back then you could not do that on a mac or PC.

The first time I saw an HD type resolution on a pic was on the Amiga back in 1988. Just wikipedia Amiga by Commodore...

Legendary!

The Mac os is also designed to seem more natural and friendly, whereas the windows environment used to be much more technical and non user friendly. But that's alway been Apple's style, (user friendly), and their latest product the iphone has ushered in the smart phone craze with the easy use of a touchscreen.

I used to have an atari 800. Loved the sound on that. When I got a PC, I was shocked that all I could hear was bleeps and bloops when I played a game on it. Then I learned I needed a soundcard. It felt like technology had gone backwards...

I still have my Atari 800 and the one after that, up in my closet...

ZombieKitten said:

kpowers said:

The Batcomputer is still better than Mac or PC.

I watched the phantasm movie last night, I can't believe you had a bat computer even back in the 1950s!!!!

it helps when you also have the bat-time machine

Graycap23 said:

KoolEaze said:

I would consider myself a computer illiterate and I only know the most basic stuff when it comes to computers.

Anyway....last week a good friend of mine came to my town and we met with some other guys and all of a sudden they started talking about PC versus Mac ( and both friends are musicians ) and that boring computer conversation lasted for like three or four hours....they even continued when we arrived at the club and had a few drinks.

And the Mac enthusiasts always come up with almost the same story as the one that you posted above. Easy to use, no maintenance, real fast etc. etc. , won´t ever go back to PC and so on.

Could you explain the advantages that a Mac has over a PC in a few simple words because I really don´t know much about computers.

Think........ BMW vs Hyundai

Hyundai is wiping the floor with BMW right now.

RodeoSchro said:

Graycap23 said:

Think........ BMW vs Hyundai

Hyundai is wiping the floor with BMW right now.

Kool. U take the Hyundai and I'll stick 2 the BMW.

I bought my first Mac 9 years ago and I've been a Mac user ever since. I'm glad to be Windows-free (except at work, unfortunately).

As far as games go, IMO they should be played on a console.

None of y'all know what you're talking about!!

Just playing. But, let's be clear here.

An Apple Mac IS a PC. A PC is a Personal Computer. The real crux of this debate, and what the title should have been, is Windows VS Mac OSX.

And it's a pointless argument. Because Windows is a versatile operating system that has been designed to run on tens of thousands of different hardware configurations. OSX is an operating system that has been designed to only run on the hardware configurations that Apple wants it to.

But crack open the two machines and the insides are exactly the same. Intel processors. Samsung optical drives. etc. But you'll pay 3 or 4 times more for the Apple machine just for the "benefit" of being able to run OSX on it.

Honestly - in 2010 - Windows 7 and Mac OSX Snow Leopard are virtually identical. There's no real way one of them wins over the other. They have both ripped off ideas from the other, and the gap is non-existent at this point.

I would NEVER buy Apple hardware. Never. You're buying the exact same hardware but getting charged a ton more because it has an Apple logo etched on it.

However, I would run an OSX machine. But I'd get a Hackintosh. Let me explain what that means to some of you who are less technically-inclined.

Because the internals are so similar, it's very possible to choose a machine with a configuration of hardware, that with a few simple tweaks, can be made to run Mac OSX.

My cousins are both multi-platinum music producers, and after years of running of buying premium Apple hardware, both just bought/built Hackintosh machines.

What does this mean? Well - for £700 in parts, and a few hours building them... they have machines running Mac OSX that are MORE POWERFUL THAN ANY APPLE COMPUTER ON THE MARKET.

We calculated, that if a Mac with such high specifications as their machines have did actually exist at this point, it would have cost well over £4,000. How cool is that?

And - my 11 year old nephew runs Mac OSX on his £200 Dell netbook too

Another point to this argument is that just because you own what's commonly referred to as a "PC" doesn't mean you have to run Windows on it either.

I run Ubuntu Linux on my laptop, personally. I have a dualboot of Windows 7 that I never use, because Ubuntu is just a more enjoyable environment.

I think my ideal setup would be a powerful Hackintosh Desktop machine with a dualboot or Virtual Machine of Windows 7 for certain tasks (There are more than a few things that I do regularly that you simply need Windows for), and keep a dualboot of Ubuntu and Windows 7 on my laptop.

[Edited 9/18/10 15:57pm]

With the exception of one office I worked in for about 1 1/2, I use a PC at work... but I have always owned Macs for the home.

I prefer Mac... no contest.

Militant said:

None of y'all know what you're talking about!!

Just playing. But, let's be clear here.

An Apple Mac IS a PC. A PC is a Personal Computer. The real crux of this debate, and what the title should have been, is Windows VS Mac OSX.

And it's a pointless argument. Because Windows is a versatile operating system that has been designed to run on tens of thousands of different hardware configurations. OSX is an operating system that has been designed to only run on the hardware configurations that Apple wants it to.

But crack open the two machines and the insides are exactly the same. Intel processors. Samsung optical drives. etc. But you'll pay 3 or 4 times more for the Apple machine just for the "benefit" of being able to run OSX on it.

Honestly - in 2010 - Windows 7 and Mac OSX Snow Leopard are virtually identical. There's no real way one of them wins over the other. They have both ripped off ideas from the other, and the gap is non-existent at this point.

I would NEVER buy Apple hardware. Never. You're buying the exact same hardware but getting charged a ton more because it has an Apple logo etched on it.

However, I would run an OSX machine. But I'd get a Hackintosh. Let me explain what that means to some of you who are less technically-inclined.

Because the internals are so similar, it's very possible to choose a machine with a configuration of hardware, that with a few simple tweaks, can be made to run Mac OSX.

My cousins are both multi-platinum music producers, and after years of running of buying premium Apple hardware, both just bought/built Hackintosh machines.

What does this mean? Well - for £700 in parts, and a few hours building them... they have machines running Mac OSX that are MORE POWERFUL THAN ANY APPLE COMPUTER ON THE MARKET.

We calculated, that if a Mac with such high specifications as their machines have did actually exist at this point, it would have cost well over £4,000. How cool is that?

And - my 11 year old nephew runs Mac OSX on his £200 Dell netbook too

Another point to this argument is that just because you own what's commonly referred to as a "PC" doesn't mean you have to run Windows on it either.

I run Ubuntu Linux on my laptop, personally. I have a dualboot of Windows 7 that I never use, because Ubuntu is just a more enjoyable environment.

I think my ideal setup would be a powerful Hackintosh Desktop machine with a dualboot or Virtual Machine of Windows 7 for certain tasks (There are more than a few things that I do regularly that you simply need Windows for), and keep a dualboot of Ubuntu and Windows 7 on my laptop.

[Edited 9/18/10 15:57pm]

Amen I couldn't use half the shit Iv'e stolen on a mac.

Militant said:

None of y'all know what you're talking about!!

Just playing. But, let's be clear here.

An Apple Mac IS a PC. A PC is a Personal Computer. The real crux of this debate, and what the title should have been, is Windows VS Mac OSX.

And it's a pointless argument. Because Windows is a versatile operating system that has been designed to run on tens of thousands of different hardware configurations. OSX is an operating system that has been designed to only run on the hardware configurations that Apple wants it to.

But crack open the two machines and the insides are exactly the same. Intel processors. Samsung optical drives. etc. But you'll pay 3 or 4 times more for the Apple machine just for the "benefit" of being able to run OSX on it.

Honestly - in 2010 - Windows 7 and Mac OSX Snow Leopard are virtually identical. There's no real way one of them wins over the other. They have both ripped off ideas from the other, and the gap is non-existent at this point.

I would NEVER buy Apple hardware. Never. You're buying the exact same hardware but getting charged a ton more because it has an Apple logo etched on it.

However, I would run an OSX machine. But I'd get a Hackintosh. Let me explain what that means to some of you who are less technically-inclined.

Because the internals are so similar, it's very possible to choose a machine with a configuration of hardware, that with a few simple tweaks, can be made to run Mac OSX.

My cousins are both multi-platinum music producers, and after years of running of buying premium Apple hardware, both just bought/built Hackintosh machines.

What does this mean? Well - for £700 in parts, and a few hours building them... they have machines running Mac OSX that are MORE POWERFUL THAN ANY APPLE COMPUTER ON THE MARKET.

We calculated, that if a Mac with such high specifications as their machines have did actually exist at this point, it would have cost well over £4,000. How cool is that?

And - my 11 year old nephew runs Mac OSX on his £200 Dell netbook too

Another point to this argument is that just because you own what's commonly referred to as a "PC" doesn't mean you have to run Windows on it either.

I run Ubuntu Linux on my laptop, personally. I have a dualboot of Windows 7 that I never use, because Ubuntu is just a more enjoyable environment.

I think my ideal setup would be a powerful Hackintosh Desktop machine with a dualboot or Virtual Machine of Windows 7 for certain tasks (There are more than a few things that I do regularly that you simply need Windows for), and keep a dualboot of Ubuntu and Windows 7 on my laptop.

[Edited 9/18/10 15:57pm]

But isn't that like saying a Porche is the same thing as a Kia because they are both cars... take away the style, engineering, and innovation of the interface and you have the same thing as far as functionality? We used to use hackintoshes as experimental work horses years ago, but they are unreliable as OS and software updates happen. We used to joke that it was punishent to get a hackintosh at the office instead of a new mac. But it's great to make a hackintosh f you can't afford a mac.

And PC had become the slang for Windows, or any microsoft based system. That's simply a fact. Just like Kleenex means tissue in the U.S.

And again by comparing Windows to OS X in terms of functionality, you miss the crucial point... the design and user experience.The aesthetic of the mac, the colors, the shapes, the icons, have always been better... that is obviously clear. The hardware,ports, accessories on the mac look better, feel better. And it leads to a better user experience. Of course you can try to take the trouble to recreate the same thing in an inferior casing with bad styling. But the value of design is a true value to some people. It extends to their other products like music players and phones as well.

This video is an example of why microsoft comes off a bit pathetic as if they are the conceptual followers... Just the copycat styling of this store, and then the desperate attempt to seem like a cool corporate culture are questionable. In my opinion.

there are a lot of naysayers to the ipad (who wants a big iphone that can't make calls?)... but I see and hear about it winning over people who didn't want it, but somehow came to own one, and use it all the time to read material, check sites, and simply watch netflix on the go. I forsee a copycat product from microsoft.... or google....

ufoclub said:

But isn't that like saying a Porche is the same thing as a Kia because they are both cars... take away the style, engineering, and innovation of the interface and you have the same thing as far as functionality? We used to use hackintoshes as experimental work horses years ago, but they are unreliable as OS and software updates happen. We used to joke that it was punishent to get a hackintosh at the office instead of a new mac. But it's great to make a hackintosh f you can't afford a mac.

No - it is not the same thing, at all. A Kia simply has inferior parts to a Porsche.

A Hackintosh doesn't have inferior parts to a Mac. It has exactly the same parts.

They aren't unreliable anymore for OS and software updates. Not since Apple themselves made the switch to Intel processors. For Hackintoshes now, you actually have to install OSX from a legitimate OSX disc with a real key. You're not using cracked/pirated versions of the software anymore. The tweaks are all in the BIOS.

And - it's not about "not being able to afford a Mac" - I could buy 10 Mac Pro's right this second if I wanted to. My cousins who I mentioned in my previous post are multi-platinum selling music producers who co-produced one of the 5 biggest selling albums of the last decade, that sold 20 million records. They both own multi-million pound recording studios and they are both running Hackintosh machines with Pro Tools HD which itself costs a few grand.

A better analogy would be, would you buy a loaf of bread for £1, or would you buy the exact same loaf of bread for £10 because it came in a shiny silver bag with a particular branding on it?

Also, you can buy luxury high-end tower cases and put your Hackintosh inside them. There are cases out there that are better than the ones Apple make, these days.

And PC had become the slang for Windows, or any microsoft based system. That's simply a fact. Just like Kleenex means tissue in the U.S.

I know - it's just something I like to bring up, lol.

And again by comparing Windows to OS X in terms of functionality, you miss the crucial point... the design and user experience.The aesthetic of the mac, the colors, the shapes, the icons, have always been better... that is obviously clear. The hardware,ports, accessories on the mac look better, feel better. And it leads to a better user experience. Of course you can try to take the trouble to recreate the same thing in an inferior casing with bad styling. But the value of design is a true value to some people. It extends to their other products like music players and phones as well.

Up until Windows 7, I would agree. Win7 is absolutely gorgeous with a great interface. In the past, OSX definitely had a better UI. These days, it's neck and neck.

As far as accessories go, again it's not a valid comparison because MS don't make that many accessories compared to third party companies. And again - if you take the time to look - there are gorgeous, high-end, third party accessories. You can get hardware that looks as good as ANY Mac hardware. But typically it's not coming from the bigger companies like Logitech that push their products all over the place. You have to look harder and pay a bit more for it. But it is out there.

I agree that design is a true value but I tend to have an issue when design is the focus at the expense of functionality. I tend to veer away from Apple products even if they have a better design, simply because the functionality is not there. I chose to buy a G1 rather than an iPhone because it was obviously a superior OS. Now, it's blatantly a superior OS, and the design aesthetic is there as well (on certain devices like the Droid and Galaxy S, which admittedly has taken a few cues from Apple).

there are a lot of naysayers to the ipad (who wants a big iphone that can't make calls?)... but I see and hear about it winning over people who didn't want it, but somehow came to own one, and use it all the time to read material, check sites, and simply watch netflix on the go. I forsee a copycat product from microsoft.... or google....

I don't have anything to say about the Microsoft video because I agree with you. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, I just call it how I see it. As mentioned, I'm running Ubuntu on my laptop.

But I will say this much - SOME departments at Microsoft are doing things very right indeed. I think Microsoft as a corporation suffers from that - too many different things going on all the time and not much cohesion.

But the team behind the Xbox 360 are geniuses, everywhere from design to functionality to everything in between. The team behind Zune HD are amazing (They launched too late to be an iPod competitor, but frankly in my opinion it's a superior device both in UI and hardware).

And the Windows team are on the right track again after the colossal fail of Vista.

Then, on the other hand you have complete abject failures like the KIN. And a few other departments where people don't seem to know what they are doing.... Both Microsoft AND Apple have completely failed at the cloud-computing arena, where Google have and will continue to dominate. I literally would not use Microsoft's LIVE services, or any web service Apple offered, if you paid me. They are terrible!

As for iPad, two of my cousins have one, one loves it, one likes it but found himself using it less and less over time. Eventually, he stashed it under his bed to read news and email in bed first thing in the morning and last thing at night, after all his systems had been shut down.

My other cousin, we were just in Canada for a month on tour (I'm the songwriter/vocalist in a band with him, he's the producer/guitarist).....and we found that we pretty much were FORCED to jailbreak the iPad just to get the functionality we needed from it. But it still proved useful on the tour, especially in the car. I don't really think it's any superior to other tablets though. The Samsung Galaxy Tab is looking great and I'm sure Motorola are cooking something up. It's a new and still relatively unproven market for most people, so I don't really have strong opinions either way on this point, although I do think Apple should have included at least one camera on the original iPad.

I hear you and might seriously consider putting together a more powerful hackintosh soon, but... you do realize you are still forming a mutant Apple product right? The OS is an Apple product as well.

In the case of the KIA vs the Porche I'm saying the core function of transportation is the same, and everything else is styling and engineering. You can trick a simpler car to race ghetto style can't you?

I believe that there might be good casing out there, but do you have a link? I want to check it out.

Also, I thought Pro Tools HD does not cost a few thousand, it costs much more because Digidesign, like Apple, links their (not Pro Tools LE) pro product to proprietary hardware. http://www.avid.com/US/Pr...Tools-HD-1

As far as the G1, I don't have one, but it has a keyboard doesn't it? That's a minus for me. Also the screen resolution doesn't compare and neither does the movement of the graphics in response to touch. Compared to the new iphone. it also doesn't have a standard headphone jack which has come in very handy with people's iphones to play music, or simply plug in better quality headphones. Of course maybe this was an old G1 I'm going on about.

As far as bread, it's almost always a better experience going into an buying a fancy multigrain bread from a fancy store then the run of the mill grocery store. Even if it's technically the same thing. The packaging, the details, the experience around it all shape the reality or perception. But it boils down to practicality or affordability.

But I respect your opinion, and you do know what you're talking about. Probably more than me! Send me a Hackintosh that matches the 20grand type mac you can put together! It's taking me 24 hours to process some HD video of an 8 minute video (a frame rate conversion) on myh 4 year old mac tower. I wouldn't mind doing that part of the process on a faster work horse. Maybe even a PC...!

Militant said:

No - it is not the same thing, at all. A Kia simply has inferior parts to a Porsche.

A Hackintosh doesn't have inferior parts to a Mac. It has exactly the same parts.

They aren't unreliable anymore for OS and software updates. Not since Apple themselves made the switch to Intel processors. For Hackintoshes now, you actually have to install OSX from a legitimate OSX disc with a real key. You're not using cracked/pirated versions of the software anymore. The tweaks are all in the BIOS.

And - it's not about "not being able to afford a Mac" - I could buy 10 Mac Pro's right this second if I wanted to. My cousins who I mentioned in my previous post are multi-platinum selling music producers who co-produced one of the 5 biggest selling albums of the last decade, that sold 20 million records. They both own multi-million pound recording studios and they are both running Hackintosh machines with Pro Tools HD which itself costs a few grand.

A better analogy would be, would you buy a loaf of bread for £1, or would you buy the exact same loaf of bread for £10 because it came in a shiny silver bag with a particular branding on it?

Also, you can buy luxury high-end tower cases and put your Hackintosh inside them. There are cases out there that are better than the ones Apple make, these days.

Up until Windows 7, I would agree. Win7 is absolutely gorgeous with a great interface. In the past, OSX definitely had a better UI. These days, it's neck and neck.

As far as accessories go, again it's not a valid comparison because MS don't make that many accessories compared to third party companies. And again - if you take the time to look - there are gorgeous, high-end, third party accessories. You can get hardware that looks as good as ANY Mac hardware. But typically it's not coming from the bigger companies like Logitech that push their products all over the place. You have to look harder and pay a bit more for it. But it is out there.

I agree that design is a true value but I tend to have an issue when design is the focus at the expense of functionality. I tend to veer away from Apple products even if they have a better design, simply because the functionality is not there. I chose to buy a G1 rather than an iPhone because it was obviously a superior OS. Now, it's blatantly a superior OS, and the design aesthetic is there as well (on certain devices like the Droid and Galaxy S, which admittedly has taken a few cues from Apple).

there are a lot of naysayers to the ipad (who wants a big iphone that can't make calls?)... but I see and hear about it winning over people who didn't want it, but somehow came to own one, and use it all the time to read material, check sites, and simply watch netflix on the go. I forsee a copycat product from microsoft.... or google....

I don't have anything to say about the Microsoft video because I agree with you. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, I just call it how I see it. As mentioned, I'm running Ubuntu on my laptop.

But I will say this much - SOME departments at Microsoft are doing things very right indeed. I think Microsoft as a corporation suffers from that - too many different things going on all the time and not much cohesion.

But the team behind the Xbox 360 are geniuses, everywhere from design to functionality to everything in between. The team behind Zune HD are amazing (They launched too late to be an iPod competitor, but frankly in my opinion it's a superior device both in UI and hardware).

And the Windows team are on the right track again after the colossal fail of Vista.

Then, on the other hand you have complete abject failures like the KIN. And a few other departments where people don't seem to know what they are doing.... Both Microsoft AND Apple have completely failed at the cloud-computing arena, where Google have and will continue to dominate. I literally would not use Microsoft's LIVE services, or any web service Apple offered, if you paid me. They are terrible!

As for iPad, two of my cousins have one, one loves it, one likes it but found himself using it less and less over time. Eventually, he stashed it under his bed to read news and email in bed first thing in the morning and last thing at night, after all his systems had been shut down.

My other cousin, we were just in Canada for a month on tour (I'm the songwriter/vocalist in a band with him, he's the producer/guitarist).....and we found that we pretty much were FORCED to jailbreak the iPad just to get the functionality we needed from it. But it still proved useful on the tour, especially in the car. I don't really think it's any superior to other tablets though. The Samsung Galaxy Tab is looking great and I'm sure Motorola are cooking something up. It's a new and still relatively unproven market for most people, so I don't really have strong opinions either way on this point, although I do think Apple should have included at least one camera on the original iPad.

I like knowing where the preferences are in every application. In Windows, they can be under almost any drop-down menu (File, Edit, Tools, Options, etc.). In Mac OS, they're always under the application menu. That's just one example of the attention to detail I prefer on a Mac.

ufoclub said:

I hear you and might seriously consider putting together a more powerful hackintosh soon, but... you do realize you are still forming a mutant Apple product right? The OS is an Apple product as well.

I don't have and have never had an issue with OSX. It's a great OS, no question. My issue is with the exorbitant price of the hardware for no reason other than profit. It's daylight robbery. Hardware is hardware, no matter how many aluminum-cases-with-fruit-etched-on-them you pay for. Essentially you're paying hundreds, or thousands, of dollars for a shiny case when you buy a Mac, because the hardware cost is just a fraction of it.

In the case of the KIA vs the Porche I'm saying the core function of transportation is the same, and everything else is styling and engineering. You can trick a simpler car to race ghetto style can't you?

Right, but that's beside the point. Not only is the core function of a Hackintosh the same as a Mac, but the parts used to build it are the same as well, which isn't the case with KIA vs Porsche. Kia's use lower quality parts. You can't build a better quality Porsche yourself than the machines Porsche sell for a fraction of the price.

I believe that there might be good casing out there, but do you have a link? I want to check it out.

Also, I thought Pro Tools HD does not cost a few thousand, it costs much more because Digidesign, like Apple, links their (not Pro Tools LE) pro product to proprietary hardware. http://www.avid.com/US/Pr...Tools-HD-1

Sure.

I like the Thermal Take cases, brushed aluminium:

or the Lian Li cases:

Lian Li also make designer cases like this one:

My cousin actually got a rack-mounted case which means the computer can sit inside the 9" pro audio rack that houses his pro tools interface, guitar pods, preamps, etc. So there's also custom options to suit the needs of your business.

As far as the G1, I don't have one, but it has a keyboard doesn't it? That's a minus for me. Also the screen resolution doesn't compare and neither does the movement of the graphics in response to touch. Compared to the new iphone. it also doesn't have a standard headphone jack which has come in very handy with people's iphones to play music, or simply plug in better quality headphones. Of course maybe this was an old G1 I'm going on about.

Yeah, the G1 is 2 years old now. So the comparison to be made with that would be with the iPhone 3G. I only mentioned it because I still use it. I'm due an upgrade now but have been waiting for the G2 which is coming out next month.

There are loads of high-end Android phones that don't have keyboards AND have better spec, better resolution, and standard headphone jacks. Like the new Samsung Galaxy S for example. This has the best screen available on the market as far as smartphones. LG actually manufacture the iPhone 4 display, but Samsung's new Super AMOLED screens are the best screens on the market. This is the Galaxy S - 4" high definition Super AMOLED screen, a faster processor than what's in the iPhone 4 (the Apple A4 processor in there is actually a rebranded inferior Samsung processor), and a standard headphone jack. And it's just getting the upgrade the latest version of Android - 2.2 FroYo which is a vastly superior OS to iOS 4.

Here's it is side-by-side with an iPhone 4:

As you can, quite clearly a superior display. I actually flew back to the UK from Canada where I was touring with my band in July, and on the flight back was sat next to a couple where the husband had the new Galaxy S and the wife had the iPhone 4. They both preferred the Galaxy S, and Android to iOS 4, and that was Android 2.1! With 2.2, the gap is even bigger because there are numerous enhancements including use of a JIT compiler which speeds up apps by up to 200%!

And of course, the Galaxy S has the best GPU available too. It pushes 90 million triangles a second. For comparison, the iPhone 4 can push up to 28 million triangles a second.

The Playstation 2 pushed around 75 million triangles a second, so the Galaxy S has better graphics than a PS2 which is amazing! A PSP can push around 33 million triangles per second.

As far as bread, it's almost always a better experience going into an buying a fancy multigrain bread from a fancy store then the run of the mill grocery store. Even if it's technically the same thing. The packaging, the details, the experience around it all shape the reality or perception. But it boils down to practicality or affordability.

I'm not talking about "technically the same thing", I'm talking about the exact same loaf of bread or better, in a different bag.

But I respect your opinion, and you do know what you're talking about. Probably more than me! Send me a Hackintosh that matches the 20grand type mac you can put together! It's taking me 24 hours to process some HD video of an 8 minute video (a frame rate conversion) on myh 4 year old mac tower. I wouldn't mind doing that part of the process on a faster work horse. Maybe even a PC...!

The highest configuration I could find on Apple.com was:

Two 2.93GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” (12 cores)

32GB RAM

ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB

27" Apple display

for $11,000

That processor appears to be the X5670.

Check the benchmark score of that (3rd one down):

http://www.cpubenchmark.n..._cpus.html

Compared to the top 1, the Intel i7, which you can buy two of for less than $2,000.

32GB RAM will cost you around $1200.

Even with a high-end case like the ones posted, a super-fast graphics card, and some real nice monitors and accessories, there's simply no way this machine would cost you more than $6k at the MOST. Probably closer to $5k actually, so that's less than HALF the price of the Mac.

And if you go a little lower spec, the gap increases. So, for a Mac configuration that would cost about $5k, you could build the Hackintosh for less than $1k.

Militant said:

None of y'all know what you're talking about!!

Just playing. But, let's be clear here.

An Apple Mac IS a PC. A PC is a Personal Computer. The real crux of this debate, and what the title should have been, is Windows VS Mac OSX.

And it's a pointless argument. Because Windows is a versatile operating system that has been designed to run on tens of thousands of different hardware configurations. OSX is an operating system that has been designed to only run on the hardware configurations that Apple wants it to.

But crack open the two machines and the insides are exactly the same. Intel processors. Samsung optical drives. etc. But you'll pay 3 or 4 times more for the Apple machine just for the "benefit" of being able to run OSX on it.

Honestly - in 2010 - Windows 7 and Mac OSX Snow Leopard are virtually identical. There's no real way one of them wins over the other. They have both ripped off ideas from the other, and the gap is non-existent at this point.

I would NEVER buy Apple hardware. Never. You're buying the exact same hardware but getting charged a ton more because it has an Apple logo etched on it.

However, I would run an OSX machine. But I'd get a Hackintosh. Let me explain what that means to some of you who are less technically-inclined.

Because the internals are so similar, it's very possible to choose a machine with a configuration of hardware, that with a few simple tweaks, can be made to run Mac OSX.

My cousins are both multi-platinum music producers, and after years of running of buying premium Apple hardware, both just bought/built Hackintosh machines.

What does this mean? Well - for £700 in parts, and a few hours building them... they have machines running Mac OSX that are MORE POWERFUL THAN ANY APPLE COMPUTER ON THE MARKET.

We calculated, that if a Mac with such high specifications as their machines have did actually exist at this point, it would have cost well over £4,000. How cool is that?

And - my 11 year old nephew runs Mac OSX on his £200 Dell netbook too

Another point to this argument is that just because you own what's commonly referred to as a "PC" doesn't mean you have to run Windows on it either.

I run Ubuntu Linux on my laptop, personally. I have a dualboot of Windows 7 that I never use, because Ubuntu is just a more enjoyable environment.

I think my ideal setup would be a powerful Hackintosh Desktop machine with a dualboot or Virtual Machine of Windows 7 for certain tasks (There are more than a few things that I do regularly that you simply need Windows for), and keep a dualboot of Ubuntu and Windows 7 on my laptop.

[Edited 9/18/10 15:57pm]

Well if it was your thread then it would have been titled as such, but since it isn't and since lots of orgers replied to this thread long before your discussion of "what this thread should had been titled" it really doesn't matter. I'm not a computer geek, just a person who asked a question. Yeesh, people take things a little too seriously.

[Edited 9/20/10 4:56am]