PC or Mac?

Greg, you're wrong: I'm typing this on a dual 64-bit machine running at 2.7GHz, 5Gb RAM, SATA (not SATA2 I grant you), dual 1.35GHz front-side buses, PCI-X (not E, but then my machine isn't 'current' as are the current PowerMacs, which are about to go Intel anyway) and I also have integrated Bluetooth, FW800 and some other bits and bobs. I'm running a dual 1600x1200 desktop spanning over 2 screens (though PCs can do this with appropriate graphics cards) but both are driven by DVI, and I have native DVI support up to 2560x1600 res on two screens simultaneously.

What's more, current PowerMacs can have up to dual dual-code 64 bit processors (i.e. quad-core, 16Gb DDR2 RAM, SATA2 (I think), PCI-E and dual gigabit ethernet.

All in a system that never crashes - imagine that, eh? OK, I say never crashes - I've had one major crash in 18 months, and Microsoft RDC client sometimes bombs out (but unlike most PC crashes it doesn't take the system down).

Compare that to the three or four crashes I've had at work this week on my boxen (and, other than grind a bit of Perl, all I've really done this week on it is Outlook, Word and Web).

It's a sad state of affairs, but our annual support costs to cater for Windows' issues is more than most companies will ever make in their entire existence. I'm talking hundreds of millions of pounds. We're about to roll-out XP to at least fifty thousand machines, and all because my organisation managed to get itself locked into Windows...

Anyway, there's no point me moaning about it because we're too far down the MS path to change, but when you see things from a cost perspective over the longer term, you realise just how bad a deal MS and PCs in business can actually be...

That's getting off the point, however; it's clear to me that you don't have any valuable experience of the Apple system to be able to help the OP here - one needs to be using both regularly and aware of what is what to be able to make an informed comment - and the fact you didn't even know about the architecture stuff makes me question you. No offence or disrespect intended, just stating a fact.

To fill in the gaps above:

Bit perfect CD copying - Toast is what I use;
Peer 2 peer file sharing programs - Azureus is my choice;
Compressed file encoding - generally stick with AAC personally, although MANY freeware offerings exist.
Disc cloning software - again, I think Toast's yer man'
Java based VNC server / client (like Real and Ultra VNC) - there is a VNC client I use as a backup for MS Remote Desktop Connection client, which works well but not as well as RDC. If you can use RDC I would recommend it - it's freely available for the Mac via MS's Mac site;
Chat clients - MSN Messenger, MIRC etc etc: Skype, iChat/AIM are what I use - wouldn't want MSN Messenger anywhere near any machine I own!

Freeware photo editing - buy a new Mac, get iPhoto - does all of what your average snapper needs, if you need more then of course there are alternatives, or Photoshop if you want to pay;

Freeware antivirus - i.e. AVG Free - I don't use anything, but then my ISP has filters in place anyway, and though OSX can transmit a virus, it has none which directly affect it. You could argue that's due to market share but the reality is that if it were possible somebody would have claimed the glory of 'being first' by now;

Compatability with USB devices - Apple as good as introduced USB into the mainstream, and I have yet to find a USB device that didn't work save for a cheap card-reader I had, which was due to buggy/sloppy/non-standard USB chipset on the card;

OK, that's my work here done...

John

 

John my Mother in Law has a works PC at home which is very old and noisy. The only purpose for this is so she can access her works PC to run from her works network one application she needs too that needs the network to operate. Sorry I am not making a lot of sense but in essence she uses her home PC to connect to her works network using something along the lines of VNC, all over broadband.

Now she has a 15 inch powerbook and I said in passing she could probably do what she wishes on that instead of the turbine computer in the bedroom.

Would the RDC do this for her?

thanks.

 

If she simply connects up using a web browser, chances are it is a citrix remote access system, in which case you would have to check if the citrix client software is available for the mac (I would have thought it would be)

 

Gary, RDC (if installed on the works machine) basically allows you to remotely control the machine as if it were in front of you. I do ALL my VS.NET dev this way, via my local network. Andrew's post is probably on the money - it would depend. However, I can't see any major problems though - if Terminal Services is installed on the host machine (the work one, that is) then RDC is very usable, but that depends on the mechanism that's being used to actually connect to it - VPN style connections do vary, and it would depend.

Citrix do indeed do client software for OSX: Click here

 

I am confident she is on VNC as her works computer appears within a window.

I'll ask her in the week what the deal is and see if we can set her up on the powerbook, the beast of a PC really is loud. (To be fairs it like 10 years old or something hehe)

 

The majority of our machines are single or dual core athlon 64, 2GB RAM, RAID SATA or SATA2 with graphics cards under £200 a piece but which support up to: dual DVI 2048 x 1536 @ 85 Hz / 32-bit colour.

In all, each machine costs us under £800 to build and I dare say perform to the similar standards as the latest PowerMacs, but weigh in considerably cheaper £££.

I can honestly neither I or any of my staff have had a single Windows XP crash (OS crash) since moving to SP2. Very few if any on XP prior and a handful in Win2K. I think this is down to careful system component matching rather than going for lowest cost. Of course we have application crashes.

So I dont really have to imagine, it's a reality.

I just prefer that we can choose components from the leading manufacturers for each and change/upgrade as we choose. I can see why Macs would suit people who dont want to research/build their own systems though.

 

The main attraction of Macs is they are a full, robust, powerful, major application compatible and well supported UNIX system in a cute stylish box for little more than a tacky, buggy, virus ridden PC.

Tony.

 

If that's not a biased opinion playing down the drawbacks and emphasising the supposed benefits I dont know what is.

 

Y'see, Greg my ol' pal, it's interesting that all the people on this thread who are 'pro' Mac started off being 'pro' PC - like myself. We've all been on both sides of the fence, so to speak. We've all been there, done that. To make an informed decision one must consider the whole, not the individual parts. On paper, many's a PC seem to offer better value - components are cheaper, more choice, etc., but that's to selectively ignore the single most important factor: the synergy as a whole.

OSX is so far advanced from XPSP2; it's hugely stable, multitasks properly (I am, for instance, doing many things in the background here - even on my high end work PC multitasking is at best adequate and at worst flaky.), has a far more secure foundation for multiuser/connected security - need I go on?

Not to split hairs, but:

So, that's a fine CPU (no arguments from me), an adequate amount of RAM and graphics cards which don't do the highest resolutions (2048x1536 is NOT 2560x1600, and you wouldn't, for example, be able to drive a Dell 3007FP at native res with your machines. Hardly top end, eh?)

Anyway, all of this is moot, as the fact is that any machine (Windows PC/Linux PC/OSX Mac/etc.) is hugely powerful by the standards of typical user needs. A little extra MHz isn't going to make much of a difference - what IS needed is decent software, and that's what's the big Achilles Heel in your argument - even if you can get XP to be moderately stable, it's still a godawful OS.

 

So where I comment that we find XP SP2 to be stable such that we havent had any crashes. How much more stable than stable can an OS get?

I dont find a problem in this area myself, we usually have many tasks and threads running simultaneously without a hitch (or at least not one that I'm aware of).

I completely accept that the basis for MS engineering multi-user/account logic is just a plain copy of UNIX concepts, it has come far too late, though it's catching up. But dont forget the client model is largely identical to the Remote Desktop model which is now pretty good, though unpredictable with some applications

Please do as so far you havent really made any points I would consider compelling.

In fact I think it's fair to say a better CPU than the one Apple are migrating to (they should have stuck with the PowerPC architecture IMO)

You missed my point - the graphics cards we use are far from top end - just £178 (ex VAT), yet are virtually up to the spec you're harping about. TBH we wouldnt have a need for higher res. Incidentally we have stuck with Iiyama VM Pro CRT's which we find to be perfectly good.

As I mentioned we find it stable, not moderately stable. We work with UNIX servers, Linux servers and Win2003 servers. With 64 bit architecture and 32 bit. I am a fan of Linux as a server OS. I find UNIX generally to be a bit overhyped and see no real strong arguments to say it is a better server OS than Win2003. It doesnt perform better in 32 bit apps, it doesnt show greater uptime for many server apps, and so far Win2003 is matching it for kernel uptime.

Regards MS Windows. I find it pathetic how long it has taken them to improve and enhance their desktop and server OS. NT4 was a joke - as far as I know NT was largely nicked from VMS (hence WNT). Win2K seemed to be where they got more serious. They have generally always presented style over content, but in the last 6 years things have started to really improve and now I think they have something pretty good. Yes they are the targets of every virus writer in the world, but we dont suffer with virus attacks or spyware (we dont use Exchange or Outlook so that helps), but apart from personal preferences I dont see anything radically better in OSX or UNIX desktop alternatives to convince me I'm being a chimp. I personally believe in Linux in the long term for servers and possibly for desktops. I havent ruled out Macs and see sense for many style conscious concumers switching to them. I also respect their place in the world of graphic/video/post-production/design and music production, though I think this is largely because of the style consciousness of people in those industries. Sorry you'll have to do better if you intended to land some sort of killer punch.

 

Greg, I really can't be bothered to carry on this debate. I know, as a pro developer, what's what from both sides of the fence. It would appear that you don't (not having the experience of OSX). I am currently running RDC into an XP box doing .NET dev as I speak (or I should be working - the fact I'm replying to this means I am not getting anything done) and the system is moderately stable. However, I have already had to reboot once today on that box. The Windows interface is terrible. There isn't a decent shell. It's a well specced machine but try asking it to do more than a few things at once - it really struggles, for instance opening up VS.NET at the same time as running big SQL Server queries - it grinds to a virtual halt.

I know what I know, and that is to say that WXP has a way to go. Perhaps Vista will help, but it's too little, too late for me.

The saddest bit about it is that there are so many people like you who just don't get it. But I see you have a vested interest in perpetuating the 'Windows XP is entirely stable, buy our PCs' myth...

Anyway, each to his or her own - I, sadly, can't avoid Windows (it is, after all, my bread and butter) but I know the reality of just how flaky it is if you try to do anything unusual... that said, I do wish we had VS.NET on OSX, despite some major criticisms I have of it, and SQL Server is still my RDBMS of choice (mainly through my MS affiliations, ironically - don't want to get that MCSD all rusty now, though I'm not keeping up with it post .NET ...)

 

Even I have to admit windows does do some funny things from time to time. I work in a team that supports around 5000 or so machines. Now I have to admit, that only a very small proportion of those are Macs, however, it does seem very very rare that theres ever much of a problem with them.

The worst by far are in fact our Thin Clients, which either run on Windows 2003 or Windows 2000 Server. It takes very little for these to go wrong, and I'd say out of everything, it is these that cause the most problems. Out of the proportion of thin client problems, I'd say about 1/3 of those problems were due to bugs in the windows systems.

The remaining machines are all Windows based machines usually NT4 (not that many remaining now), 2000 (a fair few), and XP (the majority). There are a handful of 9x machines as well. The 9x machines arent even worth bothering with... rubbish stability.

That leaves the NT based machines. I'd say all of these suffered little bugs that do take up a little of our time. Usually just niggly things, but it makes you wonder why it happens at all, as it just seems to be for no reason at times.

Although I do think that the internet is somewhat responsible, with IE installing ActiveX controls without the users knowledge which then goes and does something on the machine. I would say that viruses, spyware and crappy programs do cause us a lot of problems, but even without those, it has tendencies to do some strange things now and again.

XP is the best one yet, but it still has its fair share of bugs. One of the most irritating in fact is the taskbar / tooltip bug. Tooltips quite often appear behind the taskbar, not their intended behavior. This problem has no fix, other than to restart the PC when it happens or put up with it. Not only that but it has many design bugs, the design in places is well thought out and easy to use, but in other places, almost completely uninituitive to all except those who are experienced PC users..... then there are other little things, such as icons... a lot of windows icons were re-written for XP, many of them with the new size, however not all were, and this results in an inconsistent looking interface. An example of this is the control panel, where a mix of XP and 2000 based icons appear (you can easily tell, by using "Tiles" mode which the offenders are because they are blocky). Look inside the Administrative Tools folder for more evidence of this.

In this respect I'd even say for work use, I prefer the 2000 interface as at least its a touch more consistent than the XP interface which appears half finished.

Even I would have to concede now that XP while it is the best version of windows yet, does not come close to the polish and finesse of the Mac OS. Its only been me using it a little more recently that has made me realise.

Apparently some colleagues of mine have been beta testing Windows Vista, and even that is not as polished. In some respects, even Linux appears more polished than windows nowadays, although that comes with a far steeper learning curve.

PS. I dont know if anyone has noticed, but its fairly common knowledge in IT circles that the interface design teams for Office and Windows do not actually communicate with each other, and this results in an almost unforgivable variation in the appearance of Office 2003 v's Windows XP - the former clearly looking more polished than OS it runs on.

 

greg/Jtc


The point of your debate is what exactly? How is any of it relevant to your average home (or for that matter office) user?

I can't claim to have had years of experience of Unix, (or any of it's derivatives), but I've had enough to know that for the average home or office user (as a client) it's no more effective an OS than either Windows 2000 or XP. For what 99.9% of people want to do with a computer at home the choice of OS is pretty much irrelevant and it comes down almost entirely to personal preferences and software choices. Do people on here really believe that if MS OS were so bad they would have the market dominance they have? Even with the best will in the world and full belief in all the anti-competitive practices and cospiracy theories that are banded around about MS the simple fact is that if window (in all it's derivations at the given point in time) weren't "good enough" and other OS options are "so much better" then we would all be using Nix derivatives on our Computers now.

I'm no M$ fanboy but lets put this arguement in to perspective.

GTM

 

MS do owe a lot of their success to their marketing skills, and some would say, questionable business practices. Make no mistake though, as you say, it does a job for most people, and I guess I should not complain about their buggy software when it keeps me in work

 

The original question was (in summary): "I've had/I'm having a bad time with Windows, but have some collateral which will make switching to a Mac costly (the font licenses). Should I switch?"

My points are - is switching compelling? If so why? Also that issues on PC's IMO is due to using a system which is not well integrated, and/or software which is not well written and/or spyware/virus activity. I argue these problems can be avoided and as such the PC platform + Windows is now no less reliable and performance friendly than Macs, but has greater flexibility regards changing hardware and regards software options than OSX/Mac. And is considerably cheaper.

So the points I have made are relevant I think. I have in some comments said what you said below - PC/Win can work as well so why switch? I would also add that PC/Win can fail badly because as a platform it is inherently not standardised. I would then add it is the platform that democratised personal computer usage so for that reason alone I believe in it.

 

I tried Ubuntu this morning and was pleasantly surprised. One of the easiet products I've installed and used. I only tried the CD bootdisk briefly so can't comment on what it's like to use on a permanent basis, but I liked my very brief experience, enough to try it on a PC at work for a while.

 

^^ That looks too much like a cheap rip off of Windows IMO.

 

Dev,
quite a few others have had the same reaction as yourself, a few even create a dual boot system as a precursor to moving to a Ubuntu only system. I Know such a machine is not a mac but a dual boot Windows / ubuntu but it could be a low cost alternative to purchasing a shed load of new hardware and a bit of new software.

Best of luck Dev, let me know what happens with your machine at work.

 

I've tried several versions of Linux and within five minutes was supposed to go into the terminal and edit some text file in an attempt to get the fonts to display at a nice size. I found this out by going to a forum and writing down the command I would need to use to reconfigure x-windows and.............

On the Mac one of our most common problems is fonts. Are they True Type, Open Type, Postscript I or II. Does that font only crash the printer when printed from Quark or does it crash with Illustrator as well. That is in addition to the reflow problems we have in applications on both operating systems with fonts.

On the reliability side our XP machines have been as reliable as the OSX Macs and I find Windows easier to use as do several others in the office.

 

I've tried a large number of different versions of linux for my pc's and have found ubuntu to be the best for ease of use which is why it is the default version installed as standard.

Suse is good, but not free. Morphix I found to be a little unreliable. For those after an OSX style look, Fox Linux is good, but I found it to be quite a bit slower than ubuntu (happy to install it on any pc's though if wanted)

On slower hardware, Slax and Damn Small Linux are very fast, but aren't quite as user friendly as the likes of ubuntu.

Andrew