Mac vs. PC: A fight to the death!
(Credit:
Crave UK)
Hear ye! Hear ye! Before us we have two gallant fighters preparing to do bloody battle for our affections. In the orange corner we have Baron Vista, representing Windows' finest, and in the black corner is Count OS X, representing Apple.
That's right, we're doing Mac vs. PC, Crave UK-style: in tights. Gasp in fear as Vista approaches OS X, questions his parentage and slaps a heavy gauntlet across the Count's supple, moisturised face. Feel your heart race as OS X swings his sword with reckless abandon, and scream in desperation as Vista counters with a barrage of flying fists.
Forget Mitchell and Webb's veiled insults--these boys get down and dirty until there's only one winner. So who will it be? Will it be Vista, with its improved user interface and superior graphics performance? Or will it be OS X with its ease of use and unrivalled style?
Grab the popcorn, take the phone off the hook and gather 'round--it's about to go down! Click here to see the fight unfold.
(Source: Crave UK)
I swear, the sheeple mentality among the media is amazing.
credibility. For example:
"Count OS X, by comparison, is counting on his few enemies to see him
through. His armour is forged from the fires of Linux, which he hopes will
keep him safe from the common viruses that plague the land."
Ok... OS X is not based off Linux, and no, Windows viruses won't affect a Mac.
"Right after they stole everything from Xerox and co."
Xerox gave Apple the technology. Microsoft "stole" it more than Apple.
"it's in no way as efficient as OS X's Exposé feature ... We're calling this one a
draw."
Now that's fair...
"PCs are definitely the place to go if you want the latest technology. PCs were
privileged to the first Intel Core and Core 2 Duo CPU"
Not really. Look at the Mac Pros, Firewire, USB, the Mouse, and the GUI.
"PCs are greener than their Mac brethren. A Mac "scores badly on almost all
criteria", and Apple "fails to embrace the precautionary principle, withholds
its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating
toxics polyvinyl chloride (PVC)"."
Let's pull the Greenpeace card. Because that obviously makes Vista better
than OSX.
There was also a part about the delete key. Does the reviewer not know that
the Backspace key is named "delete" on the Apple Keyboard? Plug in a PC
keyboard and it'll be the same, just named differently.
After reading these things as well as others I have a hard time giving this
writer credibility. The fact that it was depticted "Shakespearean English style"
didn't help. The article in my opinion is an embarrassment.
And if you don't believe me, I've sourced contradictions to your claims directly from Apple and from Apple fan blogs.
1. The feature doesn't even say "His armour is forged from the fires of Linux." It reads "His armour is forged from the fires of Unix."
I'm assuming the poster cut and pasted the entire passage, changed "Unix" to "Linux," and used this convenient edit to call the article's accuracy into question.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
2. "...and no, Windows viruses won't affect a Mac."
Yes they will. They probably won't affect Mac OS X unless the virus completely wipes your hard drive, but there's a difference between "a Mac" and "Mac OS X." A Windows virus can affect a Mac's performance if you're running Windows with Boot Camp.
Straight from Apple:
"Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it?ll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes."
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/
3. Vegabondmx: "Xerox gave Apple the technology. Microsoft "stole" it more than Apple."
If that's the case, why did Xerox sue Apple over its GUI in 1989? Those aren't the actions of a gift-giver.
http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/history/2006/12/14/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7DE1E39F936A25751C1A96F948260
Now that would have been funny and actually quite accurate. :-)
GreenPeace = a bunch of wankers
Microsoft and PCs being innovative???? yea right on ??? NOT.
etc, etc etc.
en
Not that would have been funny and actually quite accurate. :)
Microsoft and PC'S being innovative is a "not" for you? Well that feature called TimeMachine (yeah, the one with the childish GUI) is ripped from a feature implemented in Windows Server 2003 and present in Vista called ShadowCopy (without the childish GUI, of course, Microsoft develops OS's for people who know how to work with computers, not for kids). Now, Apple being better than PC/Windows? Maybe in gaving to reboot every 15 minutes every time you want to play a game or run Windows specific software or in baing hacked every month or even in getting 25 patches/month for security vulnerabilities.
Games is under the category of usability and also in performance?
Hardware for Vista is easier? Ask a mac owner how many drivers that he or she has had to download. Ask a PC owner about internal hardware and compatibility. Ask anyone about the system requirements for the two.
If this 'duel' was not fixed as much as WWE, my name is Christopher Columbus. ;)
down time a Mac user has over the average PC user who continues to fuss with
his/her computer because of malware, drivers, etc. You don't think a Mac has
the performance capabilities? Try a MacPro quad or 8-core with an x1900
Radeon card and 6 gigs of ram. This Pro Mac will "fry" any capable PC. As far as
the nutcase who has his Mac "sitting in a corner collecting dust", maybe if you
were more productive with your Mac you wouldn't spend all your time keeping
your Windoze machine running and have time to enjoy life like the rest of us.
Nuff said.
users don't even want Vista, admitting that it's a 98 to ME type upgrade. My
favorite part? "Well, OS X lets you get work done (i.e. video encoding and
image processing), but Windows has games, so yeah it wins in performance."
HA!!! Let's not forget to mention that the pretty features they rave about are
so HEAVY they have to have an 'off' switch, and will slow Vista down to a
drag, whereas OS X.4 runs like a charm on my G3 600Mhz iBook with 256MB
RAM (though, admittedly, it's only used for mobile internet, word, e-mail, and
iPhoto).
Or, how about "Why on earth in OS X is the menu bar for any given
application not attached to the application itself? Why is it fixed to the top of
the screen, detached from the very thing it controls? Why in Vista do you have
to click the 'Start' button when you want to stop using the PC?"
Well, let's see... the OS X menu bar isn't attached to the program so that you
only have to look in ONE place AND so you can have multiple floating
windows! Hmmm... seems logical. Oh, and I hate to give one to Vista, but MS
took a cue from Apple (again) and removed the word "start" (unless you have
it in 'classic' mode), probably just to end that laaaaaame observation.
And what's this about "lack of internet service provide support"??? Doesn't
even MSN provide Mac support? Maybe if you want to go with "Ma and Pop's
33.6 Slow Lane", but any provide with more than 10 customers has "Mac
support".
Other people have made the point that OSX will run on older hardware without issues; I have 10.4 running on a 350mhz G3 with NO PROBLEMS... it's not slow, it doesn't feel like a 7 year old machine at all. I can't get Vista to run happily on a 1.2 ghz P4 laptop; I CAN'T GET IT RUNNING AT ALL!
I use both macs and PCs; currently running vista on my dev machine and XP Pro on my primary; I would NOT advise anyone who values their productivity to upgrade from XP; I would also advise anyone who agrees with the article to actually USE vista and then use OSX. If you get frustrated by OSX, just spend 5 minutes playing around with it and see how you feel then. Don't write some retarded ******* article with a bunch of knobs dressed as elizabethans or some other ****.
Cnet - you suck.
doorstop not because you prefer Windoze. If you don't want to have someone
criticize you don't make disparaging remarks.
I prefer OSX, but I know there are some things that are just better on a PC. Hell, if it wasn't for apple not offering credit for students, I would have me a macbook and wouldn't have had to sell my iMac to get a laptop.
But I wouldn't dare look like an idiot on a website screaming that one is better than the other, or using extreme examples to justify my claims
correctly), but you can run Windoze on a Mac as well as Linux. As a matter of
fact, the Mac is the only CPU that can run ALL operating systems! Talk about
some deal.
You can if you don't care about legal issues
I can't say enough bad things about the presentation of this article... how on earth can anyone get to the substance of it (if any) when it's covered by endless layers of unpenetratable ...!?
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Yep, if your looking for good gas milage, a tank is the best thing to buy. :-)
Microsoft lovers --------> this way.!! LOL
1. They're ignorant: put them in front of a mac, if it doesnt operate like a PC they resist.
2. They look at numbers: yes windows holds a larger market share. All it really means is, there's a lot of dumb people (and no dont you dare try to tell me 80% is gamers - its mostly business)
So why do I feel strongly about those two points? I use to be "that guy" who was ignorant. I switched for good reasons, being a web/graphic designer, and there's just a certain efficiency the way Mac OS X is built. From my perspective, PCs hardware is kickass, but it will always be bottle-necked by windows. you could load 32 Gigs of memory in an 8-core PC... but you can plague it by adding Windows XP... better yet... Vista.
I could have sworn Microsoft was going to re-write their OS from scratch...
In the meantime, PC hardware is still lightyears ahead of it's own software
gave up on Windows. Just wanted to point out a few things
1. Hardware made for PCs is sometimes (but only sometimes) better than Mac
hardware because the hardware developers can get away with a lot more
when they write WIndows drivers. You can do things with Windows drivers
that you can't on a mac because Mac-OS won't let you get away with it. Since
your Windows drivers can be written more loosely, the hardware can be made
a little more snazzy. Mac-OS demands a higher standard, which is why it
works so well....drivers have to be tight, and conform to the platform,
whereas with Windows the OS conforms to the drivers. The tradeoff is your
hardware works as expected on a Mac. On a PC you have this rockin
hardware that makes your computer cry...right before it locks up or throws a
blue screen in your face. Mac hardware has come a long way though.
2. For those WIndows users reading this....Macs are to the computer industry
what Jaguars are to the audo industry. Just because fewer people use them
doesn't mean they suck.
There is no spoon....
like I know my name. And I know the x86 PC platform even better. I was
hardly an average computer user and I knew how to take care of my machine
and data. But I still wasted too much time breathing life into my Windows
box with what seemed like endless maintenance. Too much time fixing
problems, working around errors, waiting for my computer to stop freaking
out when I put it through some real work (Sorry, I can't except "out of
memory" errors when I have 4GB of memory in the box!!). A few years ago
my computer screwed me over for the last time. I lost an entire work day
trying to revive my machine and when I finally got it running I found that I
had lost a lot of data; only 60% of which had been backed up because of
another fist-full of Windows stupidity.
I converted to Mac-OS and I never looked back. I get more worke done with
my Mac, I get it done faster, and I get it done better...BETTER because with a
computer that cooperates--rather than fights with you--you're not afraid to
run content through a bunch of different filters to get the exact look you
want. And with added efficiency I'm able to ride my creative train all the way
to town without having to stop.
And the thing is, while my Windows-woes were clear to me, there were also a
bunch of smaller Windows pests that I didn't even realize I was dealing with
because they were so normal with the Windows experience. When I switched
to Mac I started realizing just how many problems I dealt with in Windows
that I hadn't realized until I worked on a system (Mac) where those problems
didn't exist. Life is a lot better since I ditched Windows. I work the heck out
of my machine (not just for work, but for play, too) and I can leave it on for
weeks without feeling the need to reboot. Mac OS is more reliable, more
stable, more sensible, more cooperative, less intrusive, and a lot less retarded
than Windows. I will never use Windows again.
Then I came running back to dual boot Windows/Linux
1. The graphics horsepower of ANY Mac machine is terrible (tried using a classmate's decked out Mac Pro, framerates less than my budget gaming system)
2. Macs are too expensive for my liking (You can say stuff like "in the long run cheaper," but I have never paid a cent in stuff other than WinXP, Games, MS Office, and hardware upgrades, I found everything else for free)
3. Macs aren't as upgradeable as PC's
- This is a religious war not a technical one
- by eboland May 4, 2007 12:20 PM PDT
- I have been watching and dealing with this "us vs them" since the introduction of the Apple and the PC (not that I like to date myself) but I find it hilarious. What O/S do I prefer .... what ever is in front of me (actually I loved Digitals' VMS) I work, on a daily basis with MAC 9, OSX10, Linux Win2k, winXP and Win Vista, Win Server2003, Cisco ......etc etc... and they all preform their job. I wear many hats as the "I/T geek" for a complex Gov't installation from network engineer to video production to web development to C# and Data Base development and except for some specific Server tasks I can acomplish my work on any platform available. What do I recomend for the end user? What ever their budget allows and what ever they are more familiar with. Don't forget these PC s and Mac s are usually nothing more than personal workstations and we are finally in an envronment where the all play together. So who is best ---whatever you prefer ! there is no "technically" better only "comfortably" better.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (71 Comments)