|
|
|
| CNBC Say "PCs" Need $600 Extra To Perform As Well As A Mac (Hahaha, n00bs) |
|
Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
 |
That's a thoroughly fair post, but I'd switch at least one thing, albeit based on a bit of a cheat: Available software: Mac wins; install Parallels/VMWare + a Windows licence, enable coherence/equivalent, run Mac, Windows and X11 software together seamlessly on the same desktop. If you're approaching it from a purely hardware-to-buy point of view, that's relevant. If you want to turn it into a Microsoft versus Apple fight as per the original piece of idiotic journalism then obviously it isn't. [My site] [Tetrominoes] |
|
Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
 |
Tobias Dammers said: Installation effort: Mac wins (open box, plug in, enter personal data, go - 5 minutes max) That's the same experience I've had with both of the PCs I've bought.
|
|
Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
|
I guess the argument is that once you're installing extra software to match functionality (be it free or commercial), the PC becomes more installation effort? I guess the problem is that for the purposes of comparison it is fairest to assess various things separately from each other (hence, it is fair to say that a new Mac can run a wider range of software because it can also run Windows and to give it that point, since cost is a separate issue in that assessment), but in some cases the things overlap a little too much? [My site] [Tetrominoes] |
|
Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
 |
Neil Black said: That's the same experience I've had with both of the PCs I've bought. Yes, sometimes you get lucky, but other times, the "Recovery Solution" offered by your hardware vendor destroys the OS installation, or the operating system (Vista in my case) takes a full 15 minutes before booting into a useable state, after which all sorts of configuration settings must be made. Thomas Harte said: I guess the argument is that once you're installing extra software to match functionality (be it free or commercial), the PC becomes more installation effort? Hm, no, I rather meant that on a Mac, the chances are much higher that the system reaches a useable state within a few minutes after unpacking. The extra software point is an additional plus for the Mac, but only if the pre-installed packages are the ones you need. Quote: I guess the problem is that for the purposes of comparison it is fairest to assess various things separately from each other (hence, it is fair to say that a new Mac can run a wider range of software because it can also run Windows and to give it that point, since cost is a separate issue in that assessment), but in some cases the things overlap a little too much? My point is mainly that virtually all important factors turn out to be a draw or a "matter of taste" scenario; at the very least, none of the two platforms is ultimately "better" than the other, it depends on personal needs and preferences. --- |
|
Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
 |
oh, you two are just gay for macs, admit it. -- |
|
Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
|
Shush! I haven't told my parents yet... EDIT: incidentally, I am unable to find a machine that costs less than the current entry level MacBook which has equivalent hardware. [My site] [Tetrominoes] |
|
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
 |
Thomas, it's not that you are unable to find, it's more that your appleised eyes are masking you the good places ;-) "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
|
Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
|
GullRaDriel said: Thomas, it's not that you are unable to find, it's more that your appleised eyes are masking you the good places ;-) Prove it. [My site] [Tetrominoes] |
|
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
|
Gimme the minimum price and specs. Edit: just for the sake. Apple Store said: 2.0GHz * Processeur Intel Core 2 Duo * Expédition (départ du dépôt) : sous 24h
now... the pc part... "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
|
Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
|
2Ghz Core 2 Duo, 1026Mhz FSB, 2 GB DDR2, NVidia 9400M, 120GB SATA, 13.3" 1280x800, Gigabit ethernet, Firewire, Wifi, Bluetooth. US$999. Trading numbers in one area for numbers in another is something real consumers would do, for the purposes of this entirely artificial game, it is not allowed. My own search has been thwarted by the GPU. It is more than likely that I just don't know where to look. Apparently Ron Novy can get that machine for $499.50, but for argument's sake let's assume he isn't willing to act as a reseller. EDIT: further, even if in some hypothetical world Macs and PCs had an exactly identical price at all times, I can still think of a million reasons why one might favour a PC. And I mean in no way to appear to argue otherwise. I just think the comparable specced machine price thing is a cheap shot that is far from accurate. EDIT2: oh, and a million reasons why one might favour a Mac even if they were more expensive. Which is lucky. [My site] [Tetrominoes] |
|
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
|
Thomas said: It is more than likely that I just don't know where to look. Is that also some kind of English humour that I am unable to catch ? I wouldn't want to be mad, I just wanted to tease and chase you a little. "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
|
Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
|
No, it's an honest admission that I'm quite probably looking in the wrong places. I really have no idea what the going rate is for computers nowadays, especially not in the international markets now that the UK£ is in freefall. [My site] [Tetrominoes] |
|
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
|
Well, everything is fine. It's the crisis, my dear. "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
|
MiquelFire
Member #3,110
January 2003
 |
LennyLen said: Ron Novy said: Microsoft Movie Maker??? FREE! It's crap though. But at least there are other, better, free alternatives. I haven't really seen any. My Google fu is really weak in this area. --- |
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
 |
Thomas Harte said: I am unable to find a machine that costs less than the current entry level MacBook which has equivalent hardware.
That's because the MacBooks are actually similarly priced as equivalent PC laptops.[1] The MacBook Pros are reportedly more expensive (but I never tried to directly compare those). Anyway, this type of argument is ultimately silly, independent of from which side you approach it. References
|
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
 |
Once Apple switched to PC style hardware, prices did indeed come down. -- |
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
Funny, my iBook G4 was also cheaper than PC laptops of similar size, speed, battery life and weight at the time. I was actually looking for the cheapest option at the time, and it turned out to be the iBook. |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
 |
MiquelFire said: I haven't really seen any. My Google fu is really weak in this area. AviSynth. It's more difficult to learn than Movie Maker, but is a lot more feature packed.
|
|
Timorg
Member #2,028
March 2002
|
Nero Vision works well enough, I never really explored its features other than removing sections of the video file. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
|
Timorg said: Nero Vision works well enough, I never really explored its features other than removing sections of the video file. Is that free though? For just that sort of thing, VirtualDub is good, and fairly easy to use.
|
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
I've used VDub for various simple editing and conversion tasks in the past. It works well enough -- |
|
Timorg
Member #2,028
March 2002
|
A neutered version called Nero Vision express is, it misses a bunch of disk burning functionality. It was the reason I purchased Nero, rather than just use the copy that came with my dvd-rom, in the end, I don't think I ever used the full version of it. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
 |
Walmart sells brand new PCs for $300. Apple's cheapest computer is what, $600? That's twice as expensive. Compare apples to apples you say? (Bad pun!) Tell that to the person who only has $300 to spend. |
|
Schyfis
Member #9,752
May 2008
 |
While we're on the subject of Macs vs. PCs, I'm really tired of the stereotype that Macs are "good for graphics editing." The last time I checked, Photoshop runs just as nicely on a PC as it does on a Mac. In fact, I like the PC version better because on the Mac version I keep clicking through to the desktop accidentally on the Mac version. (The mouse is another subject of my rage, but at least you can swap it out.) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
They were good (better than PCs anyway) 15 years ago, but PCs have caught up. It's in the same league as "Macs are too expensive". Matthew Leverton said: Tell that to the person who only has $300 to spend. Apple doesn't make cheap computers. I'm sure you're aware that the comparison is meaningless if you're not comparing like with like. I'm also sure you're aware that someone who only has $300 deciding that he can't afford a Mac has no bearing on the question of whether Macs are relatively expensive or not. Schyfis said: In fact, I like the PC version better because on the Mac version I keep clicking through to the desktop accidentally on the Mac version. (The mouse is another subject of my rage, but at least you can swap it out.)
Eh? |
|
|
|
