Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

Apple vs. Microsoft, an objective 'debate'...mostly objective

What OS(es) do you use and why?

  • Mac for graphics

    Votes: 8 13.8%

  • Windows for graphics

    Votes: 22 37.9%

  • Windows for server(s)

    Votes: 12 20.7%

  • Windows for games

    Votes: 32 55.2%

  • Mac for general computing (shopping, movies, etc)

    Votes: 8 13.8%

  • Windows for general computing

    Votes: 45 77.6%

  • Linux or UNIX for server(s)

    Votes: 11 19.0%

  • Linux or UNIX for general computing

    Votes: 14 24.1%
  • Total voters
    58
iskor12 said:
Tell your brother to help Symantec to make an anti-virus software that works.


Also, in case Mac fanboys hasn't noticed....you can buy a pc for $400 to $500 that has the same specs as a $1,300 Mac.

Also....I honestly don't remebmber the last time I got a virus or had my PC crash.

Also....I have had Macs crash on me many times.
Click to expand...

Oh, we've noticed!

We've also noticed how we don't need to buy additional productivity software once the mace is purchased. We've noticed how OSX is not a RAM sucker like Windows has been.

A macbook normally comes with 2GB because thats all it needs to run 10 programs a once, without locking up.

Windows PCs need the higher numbers in the specs because thats what Windows requires of the computer. Having 4GB on my Vista PC still doesn't compare to the performance of a 2GB mac when running multiple programs.

No doubt, its a vague comparision since there are many other different things between my Dell Latitude E5400 and my Macbook.

They say that Windows 7 runs with less now, comparable to OSX.

In terms of interface, Microsoft did its best to emulate the simplicity and ease of use of OSX. Even graphically, OSX is being copied into Window's new OS design.

So while a typical PC may cost hundreds less while having similar hardware as a Mac, it doesn't mean that the PC will be as fast, or productive as the mac.

You get what you pay for.

-Tyler
 





iskor12, do not provoke Meatball.

Meatball, I must remind you:
dont-feed-the-troll.jpg
 
I think the most important point of interest for me throughout all of this is that people are mistaking these so-called speed and productivity boosts as something that Apple builds into their machines. Not true.

A Macintosh computer is just a computer. OSX is a UNIX/LINUX clone. You can take any computer, put any UNIX/LINUX clone or distro on there and see these same performance boosts. Since Apple began using Intel-based hardware, there is NO difference in hardware between a Mac and a PC. NONE. ZERO. So obviously the edge is in the OS, right? Right. BUT the OS wasn't written by Apple.. UNIX has been around a LONG time and was an excellent platform for OSX to be built from, but it was not written by Apple. These "performance and productivity" boosts are inherent to any computer running UNIX, whether it is a PC, a Mac, a SparcStation, a blade server, a mainframe, or whatever.

These are the things you begin to understand when you have technical knowledge of computers of all kinds. It's not so much that Apple and Macintosh are so great as it is that UNIX and the right hardware combination are so great. The fact that the computer in question happens to be an Apple Macintosh is merely an afterthought. THAT's what bothers me the most. People (and Apple) tout these computers as being MUCH more than what they really are, but it is all deception fueled by a misunderstanding of just what is going on here.. It's up to the public to be knowledgeable enough to see that...
 
^You are correct. UNIX and OSX are not identical, but many of the features that Apple and Apple fans claim are due to the superior brains at Apple are in fact inherent to ANY UNIX-based system.

Also, the thread title is a tiny bit misleading. I can easily understand why such a debate sprang up here..
 
Last edited:
I have not had time to read the entire thread, but I'll get around to it.

I am currently triple booting Vista, Windows 7, and OSX on my Dell M1330. Before the Windows 7 install, I used OSX primarily, but now I switch back and forth a lot (different programs on different OS's and stuff).

On my desktop, although I do have OSX installed also, I primarily run windows for gaming and stuff.
 
We weren't before, Electro Freak? You said it was their business practices that made you not want to deal with them.
 
^Definitely reading too deeply into a joke post, I was just being silly. My fault for not adding smilies.. Check that post now..
 
Last edited:
well, a macbook have battery for up to 9 hours, while my 9 cells battery lasts 4 or 5 at the most!
 
Meatball said:
Oh, we've noticed!

We've also noticed how we don't need to buy additional productivity software once the mace is purchased. We've noticed how OSX is not a RAM sucker like Windows has been.

A macbook normally comes with 2GB because thats all it needs to run 10 programs a once, without locking up.

Windows PCs need the higher numbers in the specs because thats what Windows requires of the computer. Having 4GB on my Vista PC still doesn't compare to the performance of a 2GB mac when running multiple programs.

No doubt, its a vague comparision since there are many other different things between my Dell Latitude E5400 and my Macbook.

They say that Windows 7 runs with less now, comparable to OSX.

In terms of interface, Microsoft did its best to emulate the simplicity and ease of use of OSX. Even graphically, OSX is being copied into Window's new OS design.

So while a typical PC may cost hundreds less while having similar hardware as a Mac, it doesn't mean that the PC will be as fast, or productive as the mac.

You get what you pay for.

-Tyler
Click to expand...


We all like different things...granted, but I truely do believe that buying a PC greatly out weighs the costs of buying a Mac.

Also, for when you talk about productivity software....what do you mean buy it? Are you talking about word processing or just things in general. Please give an example. There is a ton of free software available for PCs.

I admit that Windows does have it's faults for when it comes to memory usage and management. However, when your computer comes with 4+ gigs for only $400 to $500, does it really matter?

"Having 4GB on my Vista PC still doesn't compare to the performance of a 2GB mac when running multiple programs."

I beg to differ. I can run 10+ programs with out my pc slowing down a single bit....That might have something to do with me having a quad core though. :)

I don't get it...You get what you pay for.......I guess in your point of view...wicked lasers is the best company ever

Bearded_Galaxy said:
iskor12, do not provoke Meatball.

Meatball, I must remind you:
dont-feed-the-troll.jpg
Click to expand...


I'm a troll!!!!!! Yay....I have never been called this before....It's a privlage...and here I thought this was an open debate. Hmm

Sorry budy....I can't get called out like that with out saying anything back
 
Last edited:
Haha don't worry iskor12!

This has been a good discussion so far! I learned quite a bit!

By productivity, I simply mean stuff like, Calendar, Mail, iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes... stuff like that.

Its not like this same stuff isn't available for PC users.. its just that macs come with it already installed!

I suppose Windows includes Photo Gallery, and Media Player and Movie Maker, but honestly... that stuff is weak sauce in my opinion.

iTunes beats out Media Player.... with ease.

iMovie beats out Movie maker for editing capabilities...

iPhoto has many more editing features and options than Photo Gallery.
Plus, iPhoto lets you directly upload photos to facebook, or any other online album..

Theres lots of great stuff like this available for Windows users too no doubt... its just that Mac users get it all included with OSX.

iLife is pretty amazing in my opinion..

Your point about RAM is very true... especially considering that RAM is so dirt cheap anymore...

Perhaps I should consider buying a nice PC to have OSX on...

Haha ok.... I admit. Quad Core beats out MANY things!

Hopefully I'll be able to do the same thing once I figure out how to appease Windows 7 enough to get it to install on my laptop...

:(

Well theres certainly a line drawn between getting ripped off, and getting a product you're satisfied with.

I have yet to meet a macbook owner, that doesn't love their macbook. For me, its about as simple as that.

Numbers aside, if the customer is not dissatisfied with your product, might as well get your profit from it!

Haha Wicked Lasers is not the best company for lasers out there. They may be expensive, but I hear that they have made some significant improvements to their designs.

You're not a troll! I'm not exactly sure where he pulled that one out of.... :\

I'm not troll feeding! I'm spending time doing one thing I love to do....

debunk misconceptions about OSX! lol
 
These last two posts are pretty much dead on. It really depends on what you want/need from your computer as well as what you are the most familiar with.

I would be lying if I said that Macs are crappy computers (which I have not said), for me it's the misunderstandings and untrue statements concerning the relationship between hardware and software and what makes for a good combination of the two that are annoying. Cost is irrelevant to my argument..

If you really think about this, an Apple platform is completely proprietary. This means that Apple software only needs to run glitch-free on a few specific hardware combinations.

PC-based operating systems and software must run well and (mostly) glitch free on a nearly infinite number of possible hardware combinations. Given this, it's nearly a miracle that PCs do as well as they do.. and it says a lot about the people that write the software.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top