stingwray Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I have also used the mac os, I found it to be slower than windows and none of the apps I wanted were available for it (while you can dual boot it with windows, why spend twice as much forslower hardware just to run windows when you can build a faster system for like half the price Look for equivalent OS X applications and you'll find plenty, they also run very fast. You firstly don't spend twice as much for the hardware. Secondly its certainly not slower hardware, slowest MacBook available is 2.0GHz dual core. Majority of PC laptops use slower processors which is why they cost less. Also look at my post earlier about the Mac Pro, you can't build a system faster for less than the Mac Pro, let alone half the price. If you want to try please do and post your results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metatron Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I'd say my 24" iMac is the best PC I've owned. Compact but with a stunning screen and fast, with a nice OS. I have to say I only really use it to watch back TV but as a desktop system goes well worth the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razor512 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Look for equivalent OS X applications and you'll find plenty, they also run very fast. You firstly don't spend twice as much for the hardware. Secondly its certainly not slower hardware, slowest MacBook available is 2.0GHz dual core. Majority of PC laptops use slower processors which is why they cost less. Also look at my post earlier about the Mac Pro, you can't build a system faster for less than the Mac Pro, let alone half the price. If you want to try please do and post your results. Start building your Mac Pro with our suggested configuration: Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Harpertown” processors 2GB memory (800MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC) ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT graphics with 256MB memory 320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1 16x double-layer SuperDrive Ships: Within 24hrs Free Shipping $2,799.00 Better specs $2423.91 (you also get 2 free games, a better motherboard that allows you to overclock, it supports SLI and crossfire if you like wasting money by spending twice the cost for 2 videocards only to get a 20% performance boost) ($375.09 cheaper for better specs) the 9600gt is much better than a radeon 2600xt (i couldn't find a pce version of the 2600xt but the 2600xt is about half the price of a geforce 9600gt) better specs for less money (you can use your current OS install cd or buy a copy of windows (which happens to be more expensive than the mac os and it will still be cheaper ) PS many of the parts listed in the shopping cart would have been cheaper if I picked parts from newegg and amazon ) while you cant build a mac pro for half the price, you can build a imac for almost half the price and keep in mind companies like apple get their hardware much cheaper than any normal user, they get volume savings and have deals with many companies, your building a system for less money, using parts that are much more expensive than what apple would spend on them also unlike companies like dell and hp, apple doesn't need a license or to buy a large volume of OS for their computers since apple makes the OS and have nothing to gain from charging them self for their own product also building your own system will allow you to upgrade it more easily, overclock, install any OS including the mac os, and many other things that you cant do with locked down DRM filled mac pro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingwray Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Better specs $2423.91 (you also get 2 free games, a better motherboard that allows you to overclock, it supports SLI and crossfire if you like wasting money by spending twice the cost for 2 videocards only to get a 20% performance boost) ($375.09 cheaper for better specs) the 9600gt is much better than a radeon 2600xt (i couldn't find a pce version of the 2600xt but the 2600xt is about half the price of a geforce 9600gt) better specs for less money (you can use your current OS install cd or buy a copy of windows (which happens to be more expensive than the mac os and it will still be cheaper ) PS many of the parts listed in the shopping cart would have been cheaper if I picked parts from newegg and amazon ) while you cant build a mac pro for half the price, you can build a imac for almost half the price and keep in mind companies like apple get their hardware much cheaper than any normal user, they get volume savings and have deals with many companies, your building a system for less money, using parts that are much more expensive than what apple would spend on them also unlike companies like dell and hp, apple doesn't need a license or to buy a large volume of OS for their computers since apple makes the OS and have nothing to gain from charging them self for their own product also building your own system will allow you to upgrade it more easily, overclock, install any OS including the mac os, and many other things that you cant do with locked down DRM filled mac pro Try again, you have the wrong CPUs, 1600MHz FSB you need, the E5462, I don't know many US component shops but cheapest I found it was $878.04. Also your motherboard is worse than the Mac Pros, it can only support 8GB of memory across 4 DIMM slots, so no thanks. You should check your license on your copy of Windows, most of the license's are not portable. This adds an extra $100 for the Microsoft Tax in the form of Vista Home Premium, god help you if you want all the features of the OS, you have to pay $180 for that. Finally if you are lucky enough to get student discount you can get 15% of the Mac Pro straight way. Making it a bargin, can't do that from dell or a scratch build. It might be easier in the US to build something nearly equivalent to the Mac Pro for the same money, but your not there. I'd like you to find an all in one screen and computer you can build for less than the iMac, the iMac fits a very nice market, one of not having a bulky computer box and lots of cables to deal with. You can upgrade anything you want in the Mac Pro, Processors, RAM, HDDs, GFX cards etc. You don't overclock workstations, you want something stable and dependable which will give you the correct result. You can install any OS on the Mac Pro, you can run OS X legally on it without the need to break the law. Also OS X really doesn't have any DRM in it, not like Windows, I don't have to activate my OS, I don't have to install crap from the vendor like WGA to get all the features of the OS. I don't have to worry about a serial number or how many times I reinstall the OS. Not even to get into the horrible mess of windows and media with DRM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SomethingToChatWith Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 This topic could go on forever... Hackers use all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I don't think the activation stuff is fair to be honest, if OSX was pirated anywhere as often as Windows is then you can be damn sure apple would have some form of activation in it. Just look at Apples attempts to make jailbreaking/unlocking your iPhone an actual crime with fines and jail time. The DRM issue is tricky as well, its not like Microsoft dreamed the whole thing up. This is something that the movie studio alliances want, so if you want your OS to be able to play the latest media formats etc then you either build in DRM or you do with out. Even apple is being forced to add HDCP to their lines, especially given the close ties between iTunes and Apple. No studio wants to give its content to a providor who won't protect it. As for Microsoft Tax, I have no idea why anyone on this forum who uses a lot of MS software is paying retail for it. A technet subscription will give you pretty much everything MS make for less than the sticker price of ultimate vista (which is pointless unless you really need to have a media center on a domain). But it all comes down to this in the end, if your happy doing things the way you do them, then awesome. But you need to respect that other people may do things differently, and sometimes they may actually be doing things better than you, and that you should probally steal their ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razor512 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 http://www.buy.com/prod/xeon-e5462-qc-lga7.../210441727.html $858 (there many other shops selling it for $821 but i don't fully trust those stores ) these cpu's overclock really well, how would you keep from pulling your hair out thinking, It could be so much faster is i could just overclock it and if your overclock is fully stable then you just got free performance thats why i find the motherboard better, (you can install 16GB memory, 4x4GB ddr2 memory 4GB memory sticks are just so insanely expensive that your better off just buying a new car or something ) it can still come out cheaper than the mac pro with the changes you listed and money can be saved on the videocard by going with the slower 3650 (still faster than the 2600xt and still more expensive, but the 2600 is just too hard to find) windows keeps getting more and more expensive for no reason, the OS gets slower but the price goes up http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814102726 windows also gets more and more DRM filled with each new version and the user could always go with linux if they wanted to, nothing says they have to use windows (and you really cant compare the mac os with windows in terms of features because the 2 os do entirely different things to accomplish the same goal) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 My Vista x64 E6750 with 8GB of RAM runs much faster than any XP install i've used.... On a side note Razor512, is there any chance you can proof read your posts, they read like Dada Poetry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3%5kr3w Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 ok, this is getting out of hand, and I feel flames brewing here.. I will break a few things down that makes it almost impossible to try to actually compaire Apple to IBM compat, or IBM compat to Apple. 1. Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Harpertown” processors - Apple uses Xeon processors. These are good for certain things, you wouldnt want to build an IBM compatible system with these processors because they are geared toward server applications. Apple makes the code specially for these processors to utilize what they can do for their O.S. Microsoft does not (unless your running Windows Server). 2. You can scream about memory all you want, unless your running photoshop and your working on pictures around 2500x2500 or higher, or working with video, you do not need anything more than 2 to 4 gig's of memory. I am using the memory hog known as Vista w/2 gig's of memory, I can run a Virtual Box Server 03 Image, and two XP clients, and though I have almost totally used up the memory, I see NO lag whatsoever, because half decent computer parts these days are still fast. 3. I understand that Apple has quality hardware, but IBM compat.'s do too, you just have to be a smart buyer when it comes to IBM compatible hardware. 4. Xp can be rocky, just like Vista can be rocky. I dont use XP anymore because I get nothing but errors from it, it's just a matter of time. I have been using Vista on my desktop for a good 9 months now (WITHOUT A RELOAD!), and 7 is on my laptop fulltime with no issues. 5. The whole point here is that all of the O.S. are good quality, just that they are different. You can find an OSX eq. of a windows program, just like you can find a Linux eq. of a windows program or a windows eq. of an osx, or linux program. You can easily do most things on all the different O.S's. 6. Ea. O.S. has it's own strengths and weaknesses, it's up to YOU to decide where the hit in the stomach comes from and if you can stand it. 7. As a Hak.5 community of awesome A%% people, we should be together on the fact that learning all you can about different technology is nothing but + for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deveant Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Personally i use windows / Linux, i like to be able to customize, as well as most of the apps i use are windows based. Though saying this i have nothing against MAC, they work. There a lil expensive, and limited for a gaming computer, though they work out of the box. There for the simpler minded. You buy them from department stores, you plug them in, and you use them. They are marketed to be the family PC. Which they do well. Microsoft on the other hand, may be no longer with the times, Microsoft was the monopoly and MAC has only really started to become popular since the release of the iPod. From what ive seen with today's society, people are getting dumber. I find less people in the younger generations are interested in getting to know there hardware, or how the computer manages to function. They are more interested in Playing games, checking there mail, Chatting, tooling around on facebook and hacking there sisters myspace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razor512 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 microsoft is a company that has gotten too big for it's own good when they get too much of a monopoly, as you can see the prices of the OS have gone up, and the quality has gone down and small change they make calls for a new OS release because they find it much more profitable to charge people for a OS rather than give away a service pack I am not saying that they made no improvements, I am saying that for what little they improved on, it isn't enough to be a reason for them to release it in a new OS other than to milk money from the consumers many people are seeing this as the prices (though nothing really official yet, many people are speculating higher prices ) * Windows 7 Starter: $199 * Windows 7 Home Premium: $259 * Windows 7 Professional: $299 * Windows 7 Ultimate: $319 paying more for less. compared to vista windows 7 is only slightly different compared to windows xp, it is only a little different while i am well aware of many of the core changed of the OS, what the average user will notice when they buy a computer with vista or windows 7 is , it uses more memory, it has a new UI and it has direct x 10 (i know there other changes but these are pretty much the noticeable ones ) while other companies like apple who are known to rip people off cant bring them self to rip people off as much as microsoft can for a OS there many articles on microsoft planning on increasing prices. some are saying that they will increase the price of the OS, others are saying that they will increase the price of the OS and move to additional fees to keep the OS activated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 There really isn't much difference between Xeons and Core 2's, aside from more cache, different pin-outs and different chippsets. They are also built to higher tolerances which mean they are more stable. The OS doesn't really need to be tweaked to support them, and they aren't specifically designed for servers. You often get workstations built around them for professional CAD work, video editing or simulation work, because they are designed for multiple sockets on a board. If you want a dual socket or more system you need Xeons or Opterons. As for the memory argument, I would always say "max it out", because RAM is cheap and why not? I can't see a good reason for not having a ton of memory, and I actually use it for what I do. If you can't afford to max it out, then don't bother, but if you can you should go for it. Razor512, again you don't know what your talking about. The Vista/2008/6.x line of windows is significantly different under to hood, its not just a service pack. Simply installing the thing is dramatically different under Vista, offline patching of images is one example. The way drivers work and talk to the hardware, the support for multi-core processors is another. You could not add all these features to XP without a complete re-write of most of the OS. Yes, it needs more memory but fuckit, its cheap. My Mums laptop runs fine for what she wants on 2GB. As for the price, who actually pays the box price for an OS? 99% of people get the OS as part of the hardware cost, they don't even see it on the bill. Only geeks who aren't smart enough to get technet or similar pay those prices. Microsoft isn't a monopoly anymore, times have change and its not the 90's anymore. Firefox came from nowhere and decimated IE's market share very quickly, now its at 20%+. Linux and OSX are serious threats to Microsoft and they know it, especially after the debacle of Vista. The EU is watching them like a hawk just waiting with multi-million $ fines for the slightest infraction. They know that if they do it again, its the going to kill them so they have to stand on the merits of the product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razor512 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 yep there many changes but it doesn't mean much if it makes things run slower on the same hardware (when both OS support the same hardware properly) there many changes that cant easily be applied to windows xp, I get that but the average user wont care, what they will notice is this at the end of the day, the user just wants to run their applications as fast as possible. it doesn't matter how much eye candy there is, it still comes down to the user wanting something that can run their programs fast. one of the most common tech support complaint is a user complaining that their system is really slow and in many cases where users say that they got vista and it is running faster than windows xp (i have seen many cases of it where a user would get a new computer that came with vista and will claim that vista is faster, with out thinking, her your new vista system also has twice as much memory and a cpu thats 5 times as fast, of course it will run faster, and there users who will dual boot vista and xp and will say vista runs faster on their pc. but if you ask the user to post a hjt log from both OS, you will see that their xp install is in pretty bad shape, like like 120 unneeded running processes including crap from real player, wild tangent and other resource intensive apps. it doesn't matter if a company rewrites 100% of the OS, it it runs slower on the same hardware compared to a older OS, users wont find it to be as good If canon came out with a new firmware for their EOS 1d that added a dancing puppy on the top part of the screen but it causes it's bootup time to go from 0.1 seconds, to 5 seconds and the shooting speed to go from 10FPS, to 1.5FPS but it turns out they the new firmware also is completely rewritten with many under the hood (all of which does nothing to improve your performance) would you install it to your camera? (I bet not because it reduces the performance of your main task, taking pictures ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swathe Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I use windows 7 for my gaming machine and I really love it. Linux on my laptop atm but distro hopping pretty often. On Ubuntu 8.10 atm but probably going back to slackware or arch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3%5kr3w Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 I think I am finally going to give BSD a spin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deveant Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Yea Vako that's what i was saying before about Microsoft and monopoly. They were it, but now times are changing and so is there profit line, though still they are more widely know and for that, 'trusted' by users. More experienced users are moving on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psydT0ne Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 OS/2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tactix Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 amiga os ftw the last mac i owned was a g4 tower ( the ex liked the look of it ) it made a perfect seat though when my comp chair broke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seshan Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I use OS X. Game in windows, witch I hate having to boot into, I'm happy that EA is starting to put games out for OS X, with spore, The new red alert is coming next month and The Sims 3 will be on OS X, Finally a game developer that see's that there are not a couple thousand mac users, but millions. It will only get better in the future, and this is great for the Apple community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Actually netbooks are killing Apples market share, since apple aren't going to make a sub £200-300 machine its only going to get worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seshan Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Yeah but net books are horribly under powered and will stay that way until Microsoft lets OEMs put XP are more powerful computers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 They do just fine for the Facebook generation who do everything online. Not everyone needs a super fast setup, especially in the developing world or people new to the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ansichild Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 For me, there's only one law. That law is software. Macs can run more software than PCs, because they are PCs (can run windows, *nix, etc) and also Macs. So the "Mac Tax" as you would call it, enables you to run almost any software on the planet made for a desktop computer. QFT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingwray Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Actually netbooks are killing Apples market share, since apple aren't going to make a sub £200-300 machine its only going to get worse. I don't think they are killing anyones market share in standard laptops. I've yet to see anyone buy a netbook as their main computer and thats the way its going to stay as they are unusable for extended periods of time (the main reason because of this is the 1024x600 resolution is two small to be generally productive on it). Its up to apple whether they want to compete it that area which is very volatile at the moment and netbooks shouldn't really be seen as part of the laptop market in my opinion, like desktops are different and MIDs are different. Apple tried to cater for the lower cost user with the Mac Mini and unfortunately it didn't work as well as they would have liked, so I don't think they are going to rush into this area until they feel they can bring something substantially different from what is currently available, which is basically a set of clones. Given that you can get a 15" laptop for less than £400 which has a decent spec and Apple is still doing well with its market share, I would say Apple is fairing pretty well. Its because of these prices that we are now seeing more laptops shipping than desktops for the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razor512 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 in my opinion, the mac mini failed because it offered next to nothing for a steep price, it was also harder to service and apple didn't support it as well as their other systems I have used a few netbooks and there fast enough to handle things like firefox, ms office and many other basic programs you just cant game on them and you cant use apps like photoshop with out having a ton of lag, and you cant get anything done with a program like 3ds max or maya and you cant run crysis on them :) netbooks are good for basic usage, the screens are just too small, they should make one with a 15 inch screen (a 15 inch screen on ebay cost about $40, and i know that these companies can get their hardware cheaper, it wont add too much to the cost of the netbook, if they do this then you will finally see people making the switch to using a netbook as a primary pc as there many users who only use their computers to chat with friends and surf the web Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.