Did you switch from PC to Mac or vice versa?

[simple_gifts]

My computer history is

Apple ][e--> Mac ci --> PII 266Mz/Windoze --> Dual processor 866PII running linux and then a bunch of stuff I can't even remember.

5 reinstalls of W98 pretty much killed that experience. Earlier this year, a reinstall on XP on a cohorts machine and the IE icon lost its "E" and just showed a "unknown paper" icon days later reaffirms that little has changed.

Currently on Ubuntu w/ used P4 3.6Gz workstation

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd


NT 4.0. I tried to put XP on it, but it wouldn't run it, at least not well.


I had XP running on a 700MHz PIII with 512MB for a while and it ran very well on that machine, until it started having hard drive problems. I then took that machine and replaced the hard drive and gave it to my friend's son who used it up until a few months ago when it again had hard drive problems (actually, just one problem--the drive stopped spinning up!)

I also had XP running on a Duron 850 for a while, I had Windows 98 on it previously and it ran much better with XP than it ever did with Windows 98. I had a similar experience with switching a 350MHz PIII from Windows 98 to XP.

None of these boxes were using on-board video, which might have made a difference.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: brianl703
None of these boxes were using on-board video, which might have made a difference.


Absolutely. Apple put out machine with add on graphics even when the chipsets come with integrated cheap graphics to begin with, because they suck.

My main machine at home is still an Athlon 1600 (1.4GHz) with nVidia GeForce4 Ti4200, running Win2k, and it is still fine after all these years. The only "problem" is some newer software mandate XP instead of Win2k, so I'm stuck with something like Picasa2, Firefox (instead of IE and Chrome), and Avast AV, because everything else stop supporting Win2k already.

 

[Hokiefyd]

This G3 iMac uses onboard ATI video, but the 16 MB of video RAM it has is not shared with the main system RAM. Actually I should say that it has a separate video RAM module, but I guess some sharing could still be going on.

I was mistaken earlier when I said I had NT 4.0 on that machine. I believe it was Windows 2000. The computer I had before my current Dell was a 1.6 GHz Dell small form factor Dimension, and I believe I had XP on it, but it was not fast. It had 2 GB of RAM, and that's all it could handle, which is why I upgraded to our current Dell Dimension (E521). I have 4 GB of RAM in it and it runs fairly well. It came with XP, with a free upgrade to Vista. I did that, and after a few years, took Vista back off and re-installed from the OEM XP disc. That was a few years ago, and it's taken to be a little sluggish again, so I'm up against another reformat I think.

This is what got me thinking about switching. XP is not really supported anymore. IE9 is now Vista/7 only, and I suspect we'll see more of that as we go forward. The screen is a 4:3 19" Dell screen which is okay, but not superb. I'll want/need to upgrade to 7 on it, but I'm just not all that excited to do so. I figured I could spend a few hundred bucks on a snazzy new monitor, a hundred bucks or more on Windows 7 upgrade(s), and in the end, I've still got a system with a large desk footprint and cords everywhere. I could go to an All-In-One Windows PC, but they're close to a grand already. With the stunning Apple displays, the more eye-pleasing-to-me case design, and just a few hundred dollars more for a long-term investment, that's the way we're going to go.

To be sure, it's not for everyone. My brother switched a few years ago, which is what really got me interested. My dad (hardcore Windows user) says he'll still speak to me after the switch.

 

[brianl703]

It amazes me how most home-use name-brand boxes would use motherboards with the holes for an AGP slot, but not install the AGP slot to save a couple of bucks.

All of those boxes that I had put XP on were using Asus/ECS/etc. motherboards, which of course came with an AGP slot.

I had to upgrade my Dell Optiplex GX260 (which has NOT had any issues with bad capacitors) from Win2k to XP because M$ Communicator 2005 wouldn't work on XP.

I'd never buy an all-in-one system. In my experience the monitor lasts longer than the rest of the system, and an all-in-one just means that you can't keep the monitor when it's time to get rid of the rest.

 

[Mystic]

This is the reason I don't like the all-in-one iMac, brian1703. If the monitor goes out you lose the entire computer, unless you have an expensive long term maintenance agreement with Apple. I had a monitor go out on an eMac. I was lucky I had a maintenance setup. I also do not like the color accuracy of newer Mac computers. The monitor still works okay on my aging iMac, but I think the hard dirve will probably not last too much longer. If the hard drive goes out it will depend on whether I can get another one installed for a reasonable price at a local computer shop. The people there are big time computer gamers using Windows computers and they build custom computer systems, but surprisingly they also sell and service Mac computers. If it would cost too much to get a new hard drive in that iMac, or if I could not get a used Mac cheap, I guess my Macintosh days are over.

I understand the mobile computing craze but some people like to have a desktop computer they can use at home. I don't feel like lugging a computer around when I go someplace to shoot photographs. If Apple would produce a reasonable cost desktop computer that still used an external monitor I would consider buying a Mac. After all, at least the malware threat is greatly reduced. And especially if Apple's Aperture software (the upcoming version 4) was greatly improved a Mac would be tempting.

Apple software in general tends to be somewhat cheaper than Windows software in my experience. For example, iWork is $79.00. And Aperture has come down greatly in price from the time it was first introduced. But Apple expects people to buy new software every year or so. Apple hardware however is expensive compared to how much a comparable Windows computer would cost. The lowest cost Mac Pros cost some $3000.00 (no monitor).

And having used Apple computers for many years, I know it is simply not true that Apple software does not need updates. Over the years, many Apple software updates have been massive. Often so massive it makes the typical Microsoft Windows update look like nothing in comparison. It sometimes seems that at Apple they completely rewrite their software.

There are some other hassles with Apple computers. There is less hardware support and for some equipment you have to jump through hoops to get the equipment to work.

 

[Mystic]

Aperture is getting so good I wish Apple would make a Windows version of it. But they probably will not. And they probably will not build an affordable desktop computer either (beside the iMac and the MacMini).

Oh well, we still have Photoshop. Photoshop is eternal, it seems. To work on photos just use curves and the unsharp mask. And you can get versions of Photoshop for either Windows or the Mac. There was a time when Photoshop was pretty much limited to the Mac. That time is long gone. So the Mac, because it is too expensive, becomes no longer relevant.

 

[wavinwayne]

I used Windows PCs from the early 90's until late 2009, when I bought my wife a Macbook Pro. It is a very well-made computer with an operating system (Snow Leopard) that I find very attractive and user-friendly for the most part. With that said, I also have systems running Windows (7 & Vista) and Ubuntu 10.10 that I enjoy using. Of the three OSs, I like OS X best, followed by Windows and Ubuntu.

For those that want a reasonably priced Apple desktop, there is the Mac Mini. You can use your existing monitor, keyboard and mouse with the Mac Mini. Yes, it is more expensive than a comparably spec'd Windows desktop system, but it is the cheapest entry point to the Apple Mac OS X experience. Refurbished Mac Minis can usually be had at the Apple store for a decent discount, FWIW.

 

[Brons2]

I like Macs, but I find the hardware costs to be intolerable. I use Windows 7 and Ubuntu on mostly cheap hardware. I like to overclock as much as I can get away with. Only smoked 1 CPU in 15 years of overclocking

 

[Mystic]

I might get a MacMini when my iMac goes out. I could use a spare monitor and get a keyboard and mouse pretty cheap. A Mac is useful exploring the internet, because there is less malware affecting Macs. And with enough RAM I could probably run Aperture on that MacMini.

I consider Windows computers and Macs to be the best desktop operating systems for most people.

 

[gaspo]

I have both Win7 and Snow Leopard - lightning fast quad core 12gb ram systems. I love em both but for some reason i prefer Win7, my GF Mac.

 

[CivicFan]

Next time I will seriously look at Macbook Air for a laptop.

http://www.apple.com/macbookair/

I need something portable that can handle spreadsheets and looked into iPad but it is mostly unusable for my needs. The only thing it's good for is to play solitaire.

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Next time I will seriously look at Macbook Air for a laptop.

http://www.apple.com/macbookair/

I need something portable that can handle spreadsheets and looked into iPad but it is mostly unusable for my needs. The only thing it's good for is to play solitaire.


Take a look at some of the offerings from Asus. They've got a model that fits just about any need and some of them put Macs to shame in terms of how slick they look (and you can get aluminum cased and framed ones like the MBPs for half the cost).

Personally, I dislike OS X just because the way that everything operates on it is antithetical to how windows does things. The thing the bugs me the most is how all programs dump their file, edit, view etc menu to the main taskbar at the top of the screen. If I'm going to have multiple programs open (which I often do - browser, Audacity, Paintshop Pro, Videostudio, Audacity, etc) I want each to be self-contained within its own window, including the menu bar.

 

[SLCraig]

Never had to switch, never had the desire to own an Apple.
Back in the day at my last company, we had slow as can be Mac G5's that were brutally expensive. Pretty much turned me off for good.

Besides, I love Windows 7. I've had no problems with it at all and its blazing fast especially on my custom built machine with SSD boot drive.

 

[Mystic]

The single thing that is still great about Macs is that to this day there is little malware affecting them. But I really do not care all that much about all-in-one computers like the iMac (I still own an old one) and the Mac Pro is insanely expensive. Apple has no computer model between the iMac and the Mac Pro.

Otherwise today I am sold on Windows. Windows 7 is pretty dang good-not perfect but certainly good enough. I don't care much for Dell and HP but instead I like custom built Windows computers where I can get exactly what I want. A person can even build their own computer using Windows and save a lot of money. All I have to do is update components from time to time.

Not every Windows operating system is good. Windows ME was a dud. And many people consider Windows Vista to be a dud. But there is fairly universal praise for Windows 7. Where I work the IT deparment has already replaced most of the computers using Windows XP with Windows 7.

Windows is good enough. There are people who love to hate Microsoft and Windows but for me Windows is good enough and very compatible with software and hardware. You know that you should be able to communicate with someone because Windows is 95% of desktop computers in the world and Microsoft Office is 90% of office software.

Even a lot of people who have Macs are actually running Windows on their Intel Macs as a second operating system and many people who own Macs run Microsoft Office for the Macintosh so that they are compatible.

I think if Apple reduced the prices for their computers and built a desktop model between the iMac and the Mac Pro they would sell a lot more computers. But that will never happen.

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: SLCraig
Never had to switch, never had the desire to own an Apple.
Back in the day at my last company, we had slow as can be Mac G5's that were brutally expensive. Pretty much turned me off for good.

Besides, I love Windows 7. I've had no problems with it at all and its blazing fast especially on my custom built machine with SSD boot drive.

That's the biggest problem with Macs today. I get paying top dollar for the design, but along with the design should come current hardware and not stuff that's at best a year or more out of date.

Macbook (basic $999)
Core2Duo 2.4GHz 3MB L2 cache (this is about 3 year old tech at this point)
2GB Ram (WHAT!?)
Nvidia 320M
Quote:
The NVIDIA GeForce 320M is an integrated chipset graphics card for Core 2 Duo based laptops and successor of the GeForce 9400M. It does not feature dedicated graphics memory but uses the systems main memory instead (shared memory, in Mac OS X 256 MB from the main memory). Therefore, the performance is not as good as similar cards with dedicated graphics RAM. Therefore, older and less demanding games should run in high details fluently. Modern and demanding games like Crysis or NFS Shift should only run in low detail settings.


No HDMI without a $30 dongle.

Compared to Dell XPS 15" ($1049)
Core i7 2.70GHz (dual core)
4GB RAM
Nvidia 525M with 1GB dedicated video RAM

MacBook Pro 13" $1199 (base model)
Core i5 2.3GHz (dual core)
4GB RAM
Intel HD Graphic 3000 (performance on par with Nvidia 310M an entry level GPU)

MacBook Pro 15" $1799 (base model)
Core i7 2.0GHz (quad core) 6MB L2 cache
4GB RAM
Radeon HD 6490M w/ 256MB RAM and Intel HD 3000 (two discreet graphics chips with on-demand switching)

XPS 15" $1389
Core i7 2.20GHz (quad core) 6MB L2 cache
8GB RAM
Nvidia 540M 2GB dedicated RAM

MacBook Pro 17" ($2499 base model)
Core i7 2.0GHz (quad core) 6MB L2 cache
4GB RAM
Radeon HD 6750M 1GB RAM and Intel HD 3000 (two chips on demand switching) entry to mid level chips

XPS 17" with 3D screen (includes 3D glasses) $1995
Core i7 2.30GHz (quad core) 8MB L2 cache
12GB RAM
Nvidia 555M with 3GB RAM and TV tuner - mid to high level chip
(upgraded 9 cell battery)

Alienware M17x with 3D $2,978 (includes 3D glasses)
Core i7 2.30GHz (quad core) 8MB L2 cache
16GB RAM
Nvidia 460M 1.5GB RAM (high end GPU)
1.5 terrabyte Raid 0 dual hdd
Highest end Intel wifi card

 

[KrisZ]

I always wanted to get into a Mac, I even planned my next computer to be a Mac, but my brother in law recently bought an iMac.

He doesn't know squat about computers, he only bough the Mac because he heard they're good. Well I was helping him with getting acquainted with the system, I was getting acquainted with Mac system as well, and to be honest I just don't see what the fuss is about. Aside from sleek exterior design and some cool window transition animations I find the system not intuitive at all.

Needless to say, that experience, plus the price tag cured my desire for a Mac.

I never had any problems with my Vista 64, aside from taking huge amounts of memory, but my system is pretty fast and really stable, no unexpected crashes or blue screen of deaths, that weren't caused by me (like overclocking the graphics gard).
Sure I did catch some viruses (mind you I have no firewall and no virus protection at all), but keeping sheduled backups cures the problem for me in about 20 mins.

EDIT:

Also, I always heard how fast Macs are, but that was not the experience I got with my BIL's Mac. I was helping him with a school project, we had several internet windows open, an excel spreadsheet iTunes and iMovie to edit a short video for his project. These programs were just open, the video was not being edited or rendered, and switching between windows was pretty slow, I never experienced such slowness on my PC. I can have a game open (some games at least as there are games that crash when minimized), minimize it without any issues and have several things running in the background.

I even had Vegas Pro rendering a 1.5 hour video (AVCHD to DVD) in the background and I could easily surf the net or do other light apps.

 

[PandaBear]

The old arguments between PC (or more accurately Windows) vs Mac (or more accurately OSX) are obsoleted:

1) Mac is easy to use, Windows is not: They are both as easy to use nowadays as both have evolved to such a state that anyone who has used Internet in the last 2 years should know how to use either one.

2) Mac cost about the same in the long run: nope, Windows machine is cheaper to buy, software cost is about the same, and in the long run you can get more cheap parts (ebay) for Windows.

3) Mac is higher quality: aside from noise and power consumption, I don't see how they are higher quality. You do pay more for Mac, so if you spend the same amount on Windows PC, you do get better (if not even better than Mac) stuff too.


The problem is price and performance. Mac tends to have lower end spec that focus on low temperature, quiet operation, and longer battery life. So all high power performance parts are off the table.

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The old arguments between PC (or more accurately Windows) vs Mac (or more accurately OSX) are obsoleted:

3) Mac is higher quality: aside from noise and power consumption, I don't see how they are higher quality. You do pay more for Mac, so if you spend the same amount on Windows PC, you do get better (if not even better than Mac) stuff too.


The problem is price and performance. Mac tends to have lower end spec that focus on low temperature, quiet operation, and longer battery life. So all high power performance parts are off the table.

I'm glad you brought up the noise/temp/power angle.

One thing that you'll discover is to achieve the temp/noise reduction, particularly their laptops (and especially the basic MacBook with its lauded battery life) Apple cripples the hardware via the OS.

While all modern OSes including Linux throttle CPU performance, Apple really throttles CPU performance to help keep the heat down and thus the fans off or on low to reduce noise. It takes a lot heavier load to make OSX to remove the "restrictor plate" if you will compare to Windows. This is why even on equal hardware Macs seem to run slower.

And unlike Windows there is no way to force the hardware to run at max speed or loosen up the throttling settings. Yes you can go into the system preferences and set reduced, variable, or max for performance of the CPU (on battery or AC). But even set on performance mode, it still heavily throttles the CPU.

Their slick design is part of the reason/need for this.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
.

3) Mac is higher quality: aside from noise and power consumption, I don't see how they are higher quality. You do pay more for Mac, so if you spend the same amount on Windows PC, you do get better (if not even better than Mac) stuff too.



You are correct. Personal experience showed that the components in a Macbook are the same as any other off the shelf laptop. BootCamp, then Windows 2008 (or Win7), open Device Manager, you'll see the typical stuff: Broadcom WLAN, etc. I was surprised at how undifferent the MacBook was when compared to any other Dell or HP unit on the market. For $1000 Macbook white model, you don't even get and Intel WLAN NIC.

The "better quality" people speak of is perceived quality, not actual quality.