[Rob Judd]

I have been an avid Mac fan for over 8 years but when I buy a new computer in the summer I�m not sure it will be a Mac, please save me from buying a PC.

Reasons I might convert:

I can never quite get my Mac to network up to the other PCs in my flat (using DAVE), I often find that software provided on my Computer Science course needs a PC, PCs are a lot cheaper than Macs (even Dells), Mac OS X.1.2 runs slow on my iMac DV 400 and most new apps will be OS X only, OS X gives a slightly inconsistent interface between Carbon and Cocoa apps (font smoothing and that flashing default button thing), you can get a lot more peripherals for PCs and a lot more games and I am quite exited about MSs .net plans.

Why do I own a Mac again?

[KellyHogan]

Buy a new iMac and get VPC if you really need a Windows app or two. You won't be sorry. PCs are very hard to relate to unless you build them yourself. Macs have personality outside the box that makes you happy to use them.

[mahoney2]

XP, .net, and Passport are 3 reasons I would not switch to PC's. Personally I love my Pismo 400mhz and it runs OSX as well as I need it to right now (even the Photoshop beta). I work with PC's everyday doing IT right now and love the fact that I can go home and my mac with OS X never has a problem and always runs like it should. Plus iTunes, iMovie and the iPod are not on Windows, 3 things that I love, especially the iPod

[Agent69]

I think that you should wait until the summer, evaluate what your needs are, do some shopping around, and then make a decision. Don't let anyone make the decision for you; it's your money.


Agent69

[Rob Judd]

I watched my friend try to use the Rio software to get songs onto his mp3 player, when I showed him how to do it in iTunes he was amazed. I do like the iApps but OSX is not fast, try switching back to OS 9.x it feels about 30% faster on my machine.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Rob Judd ]

[RollTheBones]

Why do I own a Mac again? [/QB]

Go ahead and buy a PC. Try a Dell....maybe a laptop. They are cheep. Or build one yourself - even cheeper!
But however you do it, see to it that your next computer is a PC.

Then you'll know why you own a Mac now.

[Rob Judd]

Originally posted by RollTheBones:
<STRONG>

Go ahead and buy a PC. Try a Dell....maybe a laptop. They are cheep. Or build one yourself - even cheeper!
But however you do it, see to it that your next computer is a PC.

Then you'll know why you own a Mac now.</STRONG>

Seems like its a case of "you don't know what you've got 'til its gone".

[Developer]

I'm not going to persuade you. You should use the tool that fits your needs best. If it is a PC than that's what you should go get. And if your computer science course requires a PC (though I seriously doubt that) than it's no question at all.

There's one thing I'm interested though: What's that flashing default button thing you are talking about?

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Rob Judd:
<STRONG>I watched my friend try to use the Rio software to get songs onto his mp3 player, when I showed him how to do it in iTunes he was amazed. I do like the iApps but OSX is not fast, try switching back to OS 9.x it feels about 30% faster on my machine.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Rob Judd ]</STRONG>

Yes, but by that logic Windows 3.11 runs incredibly fast on modern computers. I don't know anyone who doesn't complain about OSX's speed but its getting better fast. Download Xounds and see the psychological difference sound events makes. Soon OSX will not only be faster but also support many of those things OS9 had.

[dtriska]

Originally posted by Rob Judd:
<STRONG>�OSX is not fast, try switching back to OS 9.x it feels about 30% faster on my machine.</STRONG>

Why should this matter if you're getting a new machine this summer? Your new Mac, if it's a desktop, would be at least a G4, which OS X flies on. Dual processors are even better, if you can save the money for a tower by the summer.

For your information, Wintel boxes are not cheaper than Macs. I do tech support, and let's just say that my salary has multiplied many times since we added some Windows machines into the mix. You may think you're ahead of the game when you first buy your PC, but it'll hurt you in the long run.

Which brings me to my last point. How long do you intend to have this computer? If it's a PC, then you'll be buying again in two or three years. If it's a Mac, you can stretch it to five years and beyond.

[Rob Judd]

Originally posted by Developer:
<STRONG>I'm not going to persuade you. You should use the tool that fits your needs best. If it is a PC than that's what you should go get. And if your computer science course requires a PC (though I seriously doubt that) than it's no question at all.

There's one thing I'm interested though: What's that flashing default button thing you are talking about?</STRONG>

It's this little nigle I have with (I think) carbon apps. When you hold down the mouse or do a processor intensive task (e.g move your mouse over a magnified dock) the falshing button stops flashing (or pulsing). This wont happen in Cocoa apps. Especially noticable when dragging windows with default button in.

Please don't moan at me, I know it's not important. It is however inconsistent.

[Rob Judd]

Originally posted by dtriska:
<STRONG>

Why should this matter if you're getting a new machine this summer? Your new Mac, if it's a desktop, would be at least a G4, which OS X flies on. Dual processors are even better, if you can save the money for a tower by the summer.

For your information, Wintel boxes are not cheaper than Macs. I do tech support, and let's just say that my salary has multiplied many times since we added some Windows machines into the mix. You may think you're ahead of the game when you first buy your PC, but it'll hurt you in the long run.

Which brings me to my last point. How long do you intend to have this computer? If it's a PC, then you'll be buying again in two or three years. If it's a Mac, you can stretch it to five years and beyond.</STRONG>

I seriously doubt that you could stretch a mac five years! My iMac is 1.5 years old and with the advent of X feels too slow.

[MacGorilla]

My Mac is 5 years old, a beige G3/266

[mikemako]

I have a DP533 G4 and OS X is NOT slow on my computer. it is not slow at all, maybe window resizing sucks a little, but it does on Windows XP too so switching platforms isn't gonna help that!
Things are simpler and less cluttered on OS X than on any Windows version i've used. My friend who uses Win XP on a 850MHz P3 was using his computer to do the following things at once:
1. burn for me a CD of Mp3's
2. play songs from the playlist of his computer
3. Surf the internet.
For some reason, for the last 10sec of each song that was getting burned the computer would freeze! you couldn't click on the background (wallpaper) to get out of the program, the music that was playing temporarily stopped. then it would start again after a few seconds. Perhaps this is exclusive to his machine, but I have never seen anything like that happen on the Mac (except in OS 9). Also, I recall when I burned CD's on my PC with WinME (before I had the Mac) the CD program (CD creator i think) gave a message to not use any other programs while the CD was burning or it might cause pops or a completely unplayable CD.
The reason I will not go back to Windows is because I need the computer for consumer reasons:
To surf the internet
burn CD's
listen to music
record music
check email
use photoshop
scan and edit pictures
play the Sims
and uplaod my digital camera pics.
These tasks are SO mastered by Apple (through OS X) that I couldn't think of going back to PC. the best reason i can think of for using Windows is if your main needs for the computer are to use it for buisness reasons, like as a server or a networking device. On that I think Windows is superior.

[chatwood2]

Originally posted by mikemako:

the best reason i can think of for using Windows is if your main needs for the computer are to use it for buisness reasons, like as a server or a networking device. On that I think Windows is superior.

Use windows as a server? I don't suggest that. OS X is much more capable to do that with its UNIX underpinnings. And what do you mean by "networking device"? The only area I see where windows beats OS X is in gaming, and might change soon (we need more apps to be ported).

- Chris

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: chatwood2 ]

[godzookie2k]

Why do you want someone to change your mind for you? Its your money, its your decision and by the sounds of it you've made up your mind already, so why are you asking? If you are going to buy a PC, at least spend some money on it and get a decent system. The Vaio's are nice, as are some of the dell laptops, but, wait, then you'll be buying a quality computer for the...same...price...as...a...MAC??!

Nick

[Mr Scruff]

Originally posted by Rob Judd:
<STRONG>I have been an avid Mac fan for over 8 years but when I buy a new computer in the summer I�m not sure it will be a Mac, please save me from buying a PC.

Reasons I might convert:

I can never quite get my Mac to network up to the other PCs in my flat (using DAVE), I often find that software provided on my Computer Science course needs a PC, PCs are a lot cheaper than Macs (even Dells), Mac OS X.1.2 runs slow on my iMac DV 400 and most new apps will be OS X only, OS X gives a slightly inconsistent interface between Carbon and Cocoa apps (font smoothing and that flashing default button thing), you can get a lot more peripherals for PCs and a lot more games and I am quite exited about MSs .net plans.

Why do I own a Mac again? </STRONG>

Buy the PC only if you could really do with saving money, and you're prepared to except that the user experience will be inferior in many ways. You'll certainly gain on the speed & compatibility fronts.

However if you're not good with Windows (I mean a good technical knowledge) and don't understand PC hardware well then you're going to be relying on friends or worse, technical support when things go wrong (which they will, sooner or later).

[JeffZPgh]

I got my first Mac, ironically an iMac DV 400, last year specifically because of OS X. I think I'm the only guy in the world who didn't think it was slow - or maybe I was so happy with it otherwise that a little UI sluggishness didn't taint the experience for me.

I was never happier than when I threw my PC and a whole box of peripherals and wires out on the curb, and started enjoying all my extra desk space.

Now I have an iBook 500, and it's even better.

.NET is a scourge. If you need to run PC-ish stuff get Virtual PC. Besides, if your CS department at your school is so tied to Windows that you need proprietary software in order to do your schoolwork, they should supply the crappy hardware on which to do it.

There may be more PC peripherals, but a greater percentage of the Mac peripherals out there actually work.

And don't even try to tell anyone here that any version of Windows has fewer UI inconsistencies and glitches than Aqua!

In the end, do what you want. I don't even know why you posted this, or why I responded....

[me]

I can never quite get my Mac to network up to the other PCs in my flat (using DAVE)

Tried the built in SMB or Sharity?

I often find that software provided on my Computer Science course needs a PC

What school? At UW we use unix tools for almost everything, using windows is a disadvantage here.

PCs are a lot cheaper than Macs (even Dells)

That is truly debatable. Grab the specs on the new iMac with the superdrive. Go to Dell's site and configure a machine with all the same specs. Depending on which processor you choose it will be about the same or MORE than the iMac - but without the style or iApps. Granted this isn't comprehensive, but the price difference is minimal but the difference between a mac and a dell is far greater.

I am quite exited about MSs .net plans.

Really? Microsoft's .net engineers have come to the UW CSE department to discuss it, we mostly think its a joke. Not to say it won't happen, but it won't be revolutionary. .Net will work with other platforms, Microsoft has made that clear already. By the time .net is anything more than a rebrand of hotmail, chat, passport, etc you'll probably be looking to buy a new computer anyway. But keep this in mind - Microsoft has a horrible track record with security and reliability - what happens when you let them take control of even more of the digital lifestyle??

Why do I own a Mac again?

Simply put, because Apple is the true innovator in the field. Things aren't perfect on either side of the fence, but we have the coolest hardware on earth, the best software, and a generally responsive company which takes responsibility for the full widget.

Sure, the PC looks great on the surface. I know plenty of people who think MS got it right this time and all will likely be fine for a while if you get a PC. But there will be viruses, frequent security updates, and corrupt registries (hive). You will download one app from the net and get 3 pieces of adware/spyware installed on your machine. Instead of iTunes there will be MusicMatch or Windows Media Player (trust me, they suck). I don't use the rest of the iApps, but I know nothing like them on Windows. think Toast is cool? Easy CD Creator isn't. Like the formatting pallet in Office 2001/v.X? Not there on Office for Windows. The list goes on and on...

[Fallout]

Me, your sig kicks ass.

I say get a PC. The UI in WinXP is much faster. It may be a bit shitty in several ways, but a PC is generally much more compatible, cheaper, and widely supported.

Either that or wait for the G5's and grab one of those. I doubt OSX will go slow on that.

[BTP]

I tend to agree with the crowd that says decide when you need to. Along with that, if you don't see the Mac platform providing you with what you need, then you should switch. I really enjoy the Mac, but I work on Windows a lot too. That gives we constanst exposure to measure and question the differences between the two platforms. Some people don't understand the differences between the platforms and yet make negative judgements against either platform. Mac users should not deride Windows in ignorance, nor vice versa.

Interestingly enough, I find the occasional Windows "I hate Macs" bigot and just a few questions into it, I find that in many cases, it is a bias based on ignorance more that anything else. If you like or dislike something, strengthen your beliefs when you can challenge them.

That said, there are a lot of ways to conenct to and run Windows software. Many *nix apps are now able to run on Macs running OS X, and I presume that as a Computer Sci student, you can compile *nix apps if you need to. I suggest that you start by solving the networking issues, as I have connected to many *nix/Win networks with little/no problems. I am not a networking guru either.

PC's are cheaper, as in "of very poor quality". You get what you pay for and Apple is a premium brand and they cost more, up front at least. The total cost of ownership is not a myth. Ask our accounting department. While they use PC's they acknowledge in our reports that the cost to adminster Mac's is less thatn half.

If 10.1.2 runs slowly, there are a few things to consider. One, your expectation. I can't help that and don't know what it is. I don't know what fast is to you. Second, RAM. RAM is cheap and makes the most of OS X. Final note here is that 10.2 should come around when you are buying a new computer and will no doubt have SOME speed improvement.

Peripherals.. What ones do you mean, Digital cameras, mice, web cams, mixing consoles for A/V? But whatever ones you mean, there are a lot of devices, and some don't have drivers, but many common ones are available to both.

Games. Yep. The PC is a better overall game machine.

.Net and the interface issues... Those are personal issues and no one can help you there.

In the end, make your choice. This is not religion, it is a choice and you must base you decision on your needs (and wants to some degree). If you were to run a Mac, you can easily run Mac OS 9/X, *nix and Windows. Given the constraints of a fast machine and the need for software, you could run almost anything and use almost any peripheral. That sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

Good luck in whatever you choose.

[wadesworld]

I can never quite get my Mac to network up to the other PCs in my flat (using DAVE)

Dave should work fine. But even if it doesn't, why not just setup an ftp server on one of the machines?

I often find that software provided on my Computer Science course needs a PC

I can't imagine what software in a CS course would require a PC. It's not hard at all to write code in Codewarrior or Project Builder that compiles in whatever compiler your school uses on the PC.

Occassionally EE courses use some strange chip emulator to teach assembly, but most run on the Mac, and if they don't, you could certainly use VPC for that.

Wade

[The Evener]

Rod,

I'll echo what others have said -- in short, the decision is completely yours. If you decide that a PC would truly make things better for you, then the choice is obvious. However, since I am a Mac fan, I can only tell you to think seriously about sticking it out with the Mac. You've done it for this long, so don't throw that to the wind without some reflection.

We can measure games, apps, cost, you name it, but for me, it's as simple as using Windows. Whether at work or at a friend's, when I play around with Windows 98 or Windows XP, I thank the gods that there is a fantastic alternative.

[Arta]

As an IT student who uses Mac, I would tell you: If you think you can live with your Mac and do most (not all - of course) of your studies on the Mac, then it's much better to have a Mac at home and use the PCs in your department computer labs.

Believe me, PCs (at least the ones that I dare to suggest to my friends) are not cheaper than Macs. This is at least 100% true for notebooks, I would say iBook and PowerBook have the best price/performance ratio in their class. Also, remember to check Apple UK educational online store. By the time you want to buy your new computer, there will be faster and cheaper G4s or probably new G5s out in the market, and OS X must be more optimised, along with loads of new X software titles. On new machines, you must be able to run most Windows apps using VirtualPC with a very reasonable speed.

I agree that PCs are better for gaming, if you are a serious gamer.

I personally didn't find XP's new interface attractive. It feels like crapy low-quality recycled plastic!

There's also another solution: spend a fraction of your money and try assembling your own low-cost PC, and play with it for a while to see if you like to switch or not.

Last but not least, are you sure that you can not hire a notebook PC from your university? Some universities have that service for about 300 pounds per year. Get the notebook and use it along with your Mac. Then you will be able to decide.

Good Luck

[Gee4orce]

If you are going computer science then Mac OS X is a total dream. If your University thinks that Windows can teach you anything about Computer Science, then find a better University.

[sadie]

Rob Judd said things like:
<STRONG>OS X gives a slightly inconsistent interface between Carbon and Cocoa apps (font smoothing and that flashing default button thing)</STRONG>

This is one of many niggles that appear to happen in Carbon - another one is pausing everything when you use a menu - but like all of them it isn't universal to every Carbon app. It happens when a Carbon app isn't written well. Programs that have been properly written to use the Carbon event model act the same as a real Cocoa program.

Microsoft is one of the worst offenders in this respect, and it happens most often with programs ported in a hurry from their Classic. While there are no guaruntees, we can at least bitch about it enough to persuade the big players to do it properly.

Does anybody know how Photoshop fares in this respect?

<STRONG>...and I am quite exited about MSs .net plans.</STRONG>

Depending how far ahead you look, .NET means two different things:

• A vacuous rebranding of all their software to make you think they're worth paying for again, and to encourage people to use intrusive services like Passport.
• A new software platform to replace Win32.

The second one is actually worth a look. It's basically Microsoft's latest and most long-term response to Java: a partially emulated, processor-independent bytecode platform, and a higher-level garbage collected OO language (C#) that compiles to it. The difference is that while M$ has used the Java idea, it hasn't accepted the philosophy that makes Java so much better than C++.

A C# program generally behaves like a Java one, with similar class-encapsulation and references. It also has language-level support for properties, which is nice. However, if you wish to break through the protection and write something unsafe, you can.

Marking a section of code with &lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;font size="1"face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial"&gt;code:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;HR&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;font size=1 face=courier&gt;unsafe { ... }&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; means that you can use pointers and other dangerous pieces of code inside it. This is supposedly in the name of efficiency, letting you write faster code in the language, but it's real effect is to nullify the protection that encapsulation and references provide. Why would they do this?

Simple. They want to keep open the option of doing what the hell they like with your machine. If they want to break through into your address book and find out if you've been sending emails to terrorists, that'll be an option. If they want to find out what music you've been pirating recently, they can.

These things may sound technically unconnected from the ability to use pointers, but what matters is the philosophy. Java's philosophy, one that fits particularly well on the Mac, is that software is kept safe and trustworthy by preventing it from doing anything dangerous. Everything has fixed limits, everything stays in its place. The philosophy of .NET is that you can do anything to anyone, without your users knowing a damn thing about it.

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: sadie ]

[BTP]

One more thing... Check out MacWindows for your Mac to Windows issues.

[real]

HMMMM! buy a PC or a new MAC i dont know One thing for sure Dont get rid of that ibook you'll need it for sure and you'll love using it for sure call me crazy but therea lot of thing we mac users take for granted. Thee are alot of horrible things that happen to both MAcs and PC's but non e of them are as bad on a mac as on a PC. 2$
REAL

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Rob Judd:
<STRONG>OS X gives a slightly inconsistent interface between Carbon and Cocoa apps (font smoothing and that flashing default button thing),</STRONG>

LOL!

I'm sorry, but sticking *that* among musings of why to switch to Windows is just hilarious.

I'm continually amazed - literally every day at work - at how for example text entry fields will have entirely different behaviors (e.g. regarding text replacement), not only between different applications, and not even only within one application, but within a single table of functionally identical fields!!!

There is absolutely no continuity or homogenity among Windows apps (or even *within* many of them) when you get beyond a simple screen shot. I realize this is mostly third-party vendors' fault, but there is very little striving for a truly unified interface as there is on the Mac. It is still very much evident in OS X, minor cosmetic details aside.

-chris.

[pmcd]

1- networking to Unix machines, PC, etc...is trivial. You don't have to use Dave to do it.
2- Computer Science usually is platform independent and if anything is Unix based.
3- Get more memory for your iMac. Te 400MHz model is fast enough.
4- Get a console for gaming.
5- How many peripherals do you want?
6- I know nothing about .NET except for the hype. Is there really anything new there?

You are the only person that can decide. OSX is simply way ahead of anything on a Windows' PC, especially for Computer Science.

Oh well it's hard to convince people and in any case it's really none of my business.

philip

Originally posted by Rob Judd:
<STRONG>I have been an avid Mac fan for over 8 years but when I buy a new computer in the summer I�m not sure it will be a Mac, please save me from buying a PC.

Reasons I might convert:

I can never quite get my Mac to network up to the other PCs in my flat (using DAVE), I often find that software provided on my Computer Science course needs a PC, PCs are a lot cheaper than Macs (even Dells), Mac OS X.1.2 runs slow on my iMac DV 400 and most new apps will be OS X only, OS X gives a slightly inconsistent interface between Carbon and Cocoa apps (font smoothing and that flashing default button thing), you can get a lot more peripherals for PCs and a lot more games and I am quite exited about MSs .net plans.

Why do I own a Mac again? </STRONG>

[sadie]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>
I'm continually amazed - literally every day at work - at how for example text entry fields will have entirely different behaviors (e.g. regarding text replacement), not only between different applications, and not even only within one application, but within a single table of functionally identical fields!!!

There is absolutely no continuity or homogenity among Windows apps (or even *within* many of them) when you get beyond a simple screen shot. I realize this is mostly third-party vendors' fault, but there is very little striving for a truly unified interface as there is on the Mac. It is still very much evident in OS X, minor cosmetic details aside.</STRONG>

That's very true. We write software here in Java, using Swing for UI, mostly running on PCs. Whenever i suggest something that I've thought of as a user interface standard - "you should darken the header of whichever column the table is being sorted by", for example - they look blank. So i go try to find a PC program that does the same, only to be confronted by a dozen programs that each treat table headers differently.

If a niggle like the button threading issue is annoying you on the Mac, I expect to hear you coming back home very soon indeed.

[sadie]

Originally posted by pmcd:
<STRONG>4- Get a console for gaming.</STRONG>

Actually, a serious gamer wouldn't want a console any more than they'd want a Mac. I can't blame them, either - for all their 64-bit chips and super-wide communication channels, they really do suck.

<STRONG>6- I know nothing about .NET except for the hype. Is there really anything new there?</STRONG>

Like i said, there will be - but it's got nothing to do with the current batch of Office.NET, Passport.NET etc.

[Agent69]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Yes, but by that logic Windows 3.11 runs incredibly fast on modern computers. I don't know anyone who doesn't complain about OSX's speed but its getting better fast. Download Xounds and see the psychological difference sound events makes. Soon OSX will not only be faster but also support many of those things OS9 had.</STRONG>

Of course the "classic" MacOS is faster. It's has twenty years of CPU upgrades behind it.


Agent69

[starman]

As someone who partially moved to Windows full time, I have to chime in here.

I still love Macs, but over a period of time I started getting ticked off at some of the avantages that PCs had, and I found myself needing Windows more than MacOS on a daily basis.

First off, PCs rule for games. Hands down. Macs suck for games. I'm an avid gamer and the Mac has NO advantage over Windows. PCs have the better cards, better support, and MOST importantly Windows has 5.1 EAX support which Mac doesn't have. Sure, the Mac has the Creative SB Live! support. Woop-dee-doo. One game so far as I know supports it - Deus Ex. There are more quality games on Windows (Everquest, etc.) that won't ever come out on the Mac, nor will they run in VPC.

Some web sites flat-out refuse to support the Mac.

I do not like Apple's closed hardware architecture. I like to build my own systems. I hate the fact that if I want to upgrade my Mac's mobo, I have to buy a whole new f-----g Mac (which is overpriced already). That's just BAD. I built my own PC. Here's a pic of it. Tell me you can do this with a Mac:
http://members.home.net/starmannj/DCP_0886cropped.jpg

I do a lot of digital audio work for making DVDs. The Mac has NO support for Creative's Audigy or SB Live! Drive. I NEED digital audio input/output. Apple refuses to support anything more than 2-channel stereo. Even Final Cut Pro 3 doesn't have 5.1 editing capabilities.

Someone mentioned using a Mac as a file server. Again, because of the closed architecture model, you have to buy a whle new Mac in order to do that. It's better to buy CHEAP PC parts and put one together yourself for a fraction of the cost. My file server runs on Windows XP, both my PC and my Mac can use it.

Now, on the Mac advantages front:

UNIX. I love Unix. I grew up with it and I still use it today. Being able to get all that Unix software to run under X is great.

iTunes

iPhoto (but it needs improvement)

iDVD

iMovie

I tried the built-in Windows apps and they all lack features that are in the iApps that Apple gives.

OS X is slow on my MP533 G4 at work and my 733 G4 at home. I think that Apple really needs to get Motorola's ass in gear and bump the MHz speed to 1000+.

It depends on what you want to do with your computer. Like someone said here, it's your money. If you really want a PC, get a cheap one - one that will support your minimal needs for the PC world, and keep your Mac. I've been having the toughest decision the last few days - get a new PC laptop or an iBook. I've never had so much trouble making a dection on what to buy.

Mike

[dcmacdaddy]

Like others who have commented, go ahead and get what you think works best for you. Evaluate the options of staying Mac as opposes to going PC, but make up your own mind. Don't ask us to do it for you.

I've got a first generation dual-USB iBook running OS X exclusively and it rocks. I am a part-time graduate student and it serves my needs great (web browsing, e-mail, word processing, database management). Sure I occassionally get the spinning beach ball but I get the hourglass cursor just as often on my P4 1Ghz Dell desktop at work (running Win2K). Let me tell you, price should not be a consideration in your decision. My wife just bought a nice Dell laptop (PIII 1GhZ, Win2K)to write her dissertation and I helped her spec it out. (She is a physical chemist and a lot of the software she uses for her resarch is homegrown and only runs on a PC. Otherwise she would have a Mac too.) It was equivalent to the TiBook in features but only less than $200 cheaper. However, had she got the optional 1394-card, they don't call it FireWire, she would have paid more for the Dell than a TiBook.

[Mr K]

starman, I simply wanted to correct a few things:

Apple refuses to support anything more than 2-channel stereo.

If you're just talking about the systems audio, then X changes a few things. I don't know about the drivers for those cards you mentioned.


MAc OS X supports multichannel audio natively at up to 32 bit 96khz.

the audio subsystem of X is excellent, AFAIK. Latency with some sound devices is as low as 1 millisecond - yes 40 samples.

the ability to use multiple audio cards/ AD convertors with different programs at the same time - that is, allocating 6 channels of device A to Audio app 1 and the remaining 2 channels to audio app 2

Native MIDI support.

Support built in the SYSTEM for VST-like effects.

BTW, buy the iBook, if you're doing any work with audio, if you asked me.

all the best,

-Keith

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Mr K:
<STRONG>MAc OS X supports multichannel audio natively at up to 32 bit 96khz.
</STRONG>

actually, I believe that OS X itself doesn't limit sampling frequency. 96 KHz just happens to be the highest sampling rate currently supported by recording hardware.

from Apple:
Core Audio manages all audio as 32-bit floating-point data. This allows your Mac to efficiently handle 24/96 as well as higher resolutions that may become common in the future. Core Audio also delivers highly optimized sample rate converters to allow programs that do not yet use this high-resolution format to provide data to Mac OS X without truncation.

-chris.

[starman]

If OS X supports multi-channel audio, WHERE IS THE HARDWARE SUPPORT?

Even if OS X does support it, the games sure don't. At this moment in time, given the choice to pick the Mac or PC version of the same game, I'll always go for the PC version for the EAX audio. It makes a WORLD of difference.

Mike

[edddeduck]

I do comp sci most lecturers swear by UNIX and one lecturer (who has frequently gone to m$ to teach workshops to their techs) will not allow M$ boxes in her lab.

Just to say if your Comp Sci course needs PC's you are on the wrong course.

Cheers Edd
3rd Year Comp Sci Heriot-Watt

[asiufy]

Originally posted by Rob Judd:
<STRONG>I have been an avid Mac fan for over 8 years but when I buy a new computer in the summer I�m not sure it will be a Mac, please save me from buying a PC.

Reasons I might convert:

I can never quite get my Mac to network up to the other PCs in my flat (using DAVE), I often find that software provided on my Computer Science course needs a PC, PCs are a lot cheaper than Macs (even Dells), Mac OS X.1.2 runs slow on my iMac DV 400 and most new apps will be OS X only, OS X gives a slightly inconsistent interface between Carbon and Cocoa apps (font smoothing and that flashing default button thing), you can get a lot more peripherals for PCs and a lot more games and I am quite exited about MSs .net plans.

Why do I own a Mac again? </STRONG>

Buy a PC.

Being excited by such obvious crap as ".net" is a sure sign that you're not supposed to be using Macs.

[petej]

I do back-end web and internet work, and for me, having a first-class UI coupled with Unix underpinnings makes my job easier. I run two webservers (Apache and AOLserver) and databases as needed on my machine. I get to edit code in BBEdit, which is pretty much my favorite text editor right now, and I can do visual HTML work with GoLive or Dreamweaver (and it will get better when OS X native versions of those apps come out). I keep source-code archives of all my work in CVS, and the CVS server resides elsewhere on the network. This is my workload, and Mac OS X handles it nicely. This may be different from your workload, so OS X may not handle your workload as nicely.

I have a Linux box on my LAN which runs SAMBA and Netatalk, so I can share files between Macs and Windows machines, as long as the load is fairly light. The setup works really well for me.

You need to decide what you need your computer to do and buy the equipment that makes the most sense for your needs. If it happens to be a Windows machine, don't feel guilty -- you've just chosen the appropriate tool for the job, based on your judgement.

[theolein]

I switched last week to a Dell Laptop. I did for Java and economics. A PC is a bit cheaper and I can test my java on Linux and Windows. Java is also much faster on a PC. I ranted like an idiot about java on macs last week and decided to stop worrying and just get a PC. It's fine, it works and gets done what I need it to do. If I have spare money later this year then I'll be able get whatever new Mac is out there. Hopefully by then Apple will have improved OSX's response times and Java's as well.

I think the person who said get the tool you need is right. It's senseless getting a Mac with VPC if you game a lot. Get a PC ofr gaming. If you have software that is not extremely time critical on windows, you can try VPC, but be warned, it's slow, runs about like a 133MHz pentium on an 800 Machine. I have no idea what kind of software you're refering to. If it's some gcc compiler then you're more than ok in OSX. If it's visual studio, then go for a PC. If you have the money for a 800Mhz Mac you can actually save and get an iMac and a PC with the same money.

Lot's of options. Go with the one you feel is best.

[dtriska]

Originally posted by Rob Judd:
<STRONG>I seriously doubt that you could stretch a mac five years! My iMac is 1.5 years old and with the advent of X feels too slow.</STRONG>

It depends on the person. I can't stand to have a computer that is approaching three years old, but my parents have no problem with the Performa 6400/200 I gave them.

You also have to realize that the entire platform changed with OS X. If you want to use a Mac with OS X for the next five years, you need to buy a new Mac. Remember, all new Macs released this year will be released with OS X in mind.

[booboo]

Take some responsibility for what you support in the world we live in.

Don't support M$. They don't deserve it.

Buy another Mac, and if OS X hasn't shaped up, run Linux.

[petej]

Originally posted by booboo:
<STRONG>Buy another Mac, and if OS X hasn't shaped up, run Linux.</STRONG>

I spent some time running LinuxPPC on one of my Macs before I bought a refurb'd PC through eBay. Linux on PPC is supposed to work, but it's really a second-class citizen, maybe worse. Driver support isn't quite there, and there are a lot of apps which are just coming up-to-snuff on Linux as it is, so adding in a marginal platform makes the whole experience worse. If you want to run Linux, pick up a used or refurb'd box for it -- a lot of the boxes don't come with Windows licenses, so you can feel all warm and fuzzy about not supporting Microsoft.

Having said that, my hat is definitely off to the folks who work on Linux for PPC -- it's a fabulous effort, and shows how much can be done. I ran LinuxPPC on a 7200 at one point, and it ran fairly well for many things (mail, DNS, web service); Darwin in its current form does not appear to be able to scale down to use such low-end hardware, so I'd say that Linux PPC might be a better choice than Darwin, but I'd still either go Mac OS X on a Mac or Linux on an IA-32 box.

[LostinSpace]

I've been using X full time on my main machine learning stuff and have also been a long time Apple supporter; however, the current state of computers with Mac OS X definitely not being what I expect in a computer and only marginally better than any incarnation of windows I am not sure about anything.

They say that Mac OS 9 is dead but when I boot into it my experience is much more pleasurable. Mind you I want to believe but gosh with X only being marginally better and if I did not do what I do, I would just stay in 9 and be happy.

So I guess what I am saying is that never before in the past 10 years, even when Apple was in its darkest days was I ever in such a state of indecision depression and frustration. I sure do hope there is some serious upgrading to Mac OS X 10.2 because if not, then I do not see why anyone would want to continue with a Mac given the much higher expense. Steve is way more of a dictator and bringing us further down than anything Bill Gates has ever done.

[starman]

So I guess what I am saying is that never before in the past 10 years, even when Apple was in its darkest days was I ever in such a state of indecision depression and frustration.

Oh, tell me about it. I've been itching to get a laptop the last few days and I cannot for the life of me decide on what to get. I'm so completely 50/50 over Mac/PC. Mac OS X is great, but 600 MHz? Come on, Apple/Motorola! OS X runs so damn slow on an iBook. And I keep telling myself "you need an iBook NOW!", then the other side of my brain says "you silly person, you need a PC NOW!". And I wonder what the next iBook speed bump will be. *sigh*

I think I have to go to the Apple Store in Nyack again this weekend.

Mike

[mikemako]

for me it is quite opposite, so of course we all will go by our own opinions. When I boot into OS9 it feels dark and akward and unsteady. everything is that old gray color and i am constantly loosing control of the computer while waiting for it to complete whatever task it wants to do. When I boot back into OSX and see that blue background and the brighter Mac OS X startup screen I feel refreshed and relaxed... glad to be home...
Please note that I have owned a Mac only since 03/2001 (and had never used one prior to that) and was disgusted by the box-like, old school look and un-responsivness of OS9. When OS X came out later that month I finally appreciated owning a Mac.

[pmcd]

Well I agree that serious gamers typically go for Intel computers running Windows, and are forever tweaking their systems to run the latest and greatest.

But serious gamers are a tiny minority which is why console games outsell computer games by an incredible amount. This will only increase in my opinion. In any case in neither case are we talking about the holodeck in Star Trek. Artificial entertainment is in its infancy. Five years from now it wll be something to see, but it just doesn't impress this person after too many years of spending a fortune on games.

Philip

[vsurfer]

I was thinking about a PC for development, and I went into Gateway and tried a few machines running XP.

The visuals seemed/felt inferior to OSX despite the new look. The thin, boring weedy-looking default interface fonts don't help.

On another machine I opened Microsoft Money, to be greeted by an image of a smug looking woman, and an annoying voice over. THat was a creepy experience right there.

If you do get a PC for gaming, I'd see if you could dual boot Linux on it, so that you are not stuck with the MS blandness all the time.

I suggest like others have done on this thread - you go into a few stores and try some PC's out. If your experience is anything like mine, you'll know real quick.

iMac DV G3 400
& G4 867