Mac vs Regular PC

[Punkster]

I think regular PCs are better, because Macs seem over-priced and don't allow for much customization, expandability or self upgrades.

Gaming on regular PCs with Windows XP/Vista is better because there is a much greater library of games for Windows and its a fairly stable OS as long as you know how to optimize it for best performance.

Sure you can install Windows separately on a Mac using boot camp but who could be arsed to have to switch between the OSs to play games on and it would take up quite a bit of storage space to have another OS. So it makes more sense to have just the one OS for gaming - Windows XP/Vista.

Can Macs be upgraded easily yourself?

[fusionx449]

see this is what gets to me, MAC VS PC its like comparing a XBOX 360 with a PS3..

personally i would go for a mac. they look good, quality product and the service is good. i dont really care for updating my PC although i still do. MAC are by far better.

and a PC or MAC is not build for gaming just a by product

PS: mac desktops can me updated, however you pay for the price

[Punkster]

but is it as easy to upgrade a Mac yourself as it is with a regular PC? e.g. with most PCs you can easily install extra RAM or install a new graphics card.

Mac's are too expensive imo, i'm sure you could get a much better gaming PC for the same price as an expensive Mac.

PC's not that bad for gaming. It's been around for ages and is always getting better. Yes the current gen of consoles are very good for their price but there's a more varied selection of games on PC, old and new, and the money you pay for a console could be better spent on a better PC in some cases, coz you're going to need a PC anyway.

Plus, if you're a bit cheap, you can find ways of getting free games very easily for PC, whereas this is harder for consoles.

[Nintengod]

PC's are dire for gaming, other than in strategy and simulations.......but every other genre of gaming is wrapped up by the consoles. You'd be a freak to prefer games on PC's to consoles and just saying it for the sake of a lost argument.

[Shooting Palanx]

Yeah, like Nin has stated, you'd be somewhat igonrant to think that games on a PC is better on a console, even though that's not part of the argument at hand :p

I think PC's are much more applicable, it's the better of the two, that it's cheaper in price, as it's already been said, and it provides safe havens for games.

Everything comes with it's quirks, PC's are prone to alot of viruses and malware, spyware, where MACs are not.

Overall: PC > MAC

[DanK]

Regular PC for me, though i do like the dock idea but i can just download object dock for that.

[GoombaStalker]

PC with linux any day.

[Punkster]

PC's are dire for gaming, other than in strategy and simulations.......but every other genre of gaming is wrapped up by the consoles. You'd be a freak to prefer games on PC's to consoles and just saying it for the sake of a lost argument.

well depends on what you look then. For instance, i do like strategy and shooter games and mouse and keyboard are the perfect controls for it. There are a couple of good racing games on PC, you just need to plug in a controller and that's easy. Pretty much any console game could be played on a PC that is powerful enough, except for perhaps Wii games coz you'd have to have a Wiimote and I don't think any games developers will ever bother to sell something like that for the PC's mainstream gaming market.

[Wiibertine]

Vista is a pain in the arse.

[fusionx449]

well depends on what you look then. For instance, i do like strategy and shooter games and mouse and keyboard are the perfect controls for it. There are a couple of good racing games on PC, you just need to plug in a controller and that's easy. Pretty much any console game could be played on a PC that is powerful enough, except for perhaps Wii games coz you'd have to have a Wiimote and I don't think any games developers will ever bother to sell something like that for the PC's mainstream gaming market.

well you can always hack a wiimote aint that hard from what i have seen....

PC games are **** apart from a small percentage...if you want to see soem fanboy comments go on custom pc.

for me mac anyday but i still use my lil PC

[Punkster]

well, whats so good about a mac that a regular PC can't do? other than be over priced?

[fusionx449]

you are just going after the fact that games a better on PC then MAC..tehre are like no mac games really but hey...most developers (game that is) use mac..believe me or not

[MurdersGalore]

I can't even believe that such a poll would exist in a gamers forum....much less in the PC discussion forum. To say that a MAC could even be remotely competitive to a PC in the gaming market is just blind denial.
The irony is all in the title "Mac vs Regular PC". Let's talk hardware. A modern Mac running OSX IS basically a regular PC. It has an intel cpu connected to a motherboard with intel chipsets and your choice of outdated ATI or nVidia graphics. The real difference between a Mac and a PC then you ask? OSX ofcourse. But few Mac zealots know about the funky little DRM like chip on the Mac Mainboard that OSX looks for to run. If OSX doesn't find the chip...it refuses to run. So you can't run OSX on a "regular pc". Oh wait....actually you can. Do a quick Google of the OSx86 project. So if you can then run OSX on a "regular pc" and windows on a mac....see where I'm going with this?
Steve Jobs is ripping all of his followers off. And because he can claim a niche market he is getting away with it. Apple preys on the "average computer user", offering you "innovations" like the iPod. And because these people end up paying so much more for what really amounts to a "regular pc" they defend their little boxes tooth and nail. It all boils down to purchaser's guilt. That, and the "mac community" that you will become a member of. Using a computer is not a freaking cultural movement. But Steve and Co. would like you to think otherwise. They tout that their computers are designed for "the artistic crowd". Yet, I have not seen one thing that a Mac does differently or better then a PC. Macs did have a slight market edge on music production, until the more tech savvy producers started working in studios and saw that the older generation where using macs. They knew that all these things that those old cronies were fooled into believing only macs could do, could be done just as well but much cheaper on PC's. Macs are 95% hype, just like the iPod. Nothing special, innovative, or different. In the end, just like Microsoft, it's all a clever way to make you part with more of your money.
What erks me is how the Mac zealots (and notice I'm not saying users, if you want to use a mac or even prefer it that's your perogative) will always tout about all these things a mac can do that a PC can't. I challenge any of you to give me one thing that a Mac can do that a PC can't.
Also, and this is something bad about the Linux crowd as well, they always use old arguments against windows based PC's that are no longer relevant. Such as saying that Linux/OSX is more stable and that Windows give constant BSOD's. That could have been said 8 or so years ago. But in that time XP has become a very robust and stable OS. Another argument is the whole virus/spyware/security thing. I get tired of this argument. For one, ofcourse there is more of this kinda junk for windows. Windows has more of EVERY type of application, including malware, and will because it is the desktop os market leader. Why would a lazy script kiddie waste time porting this junk to OSX/Linux/BSD/ect....to infect a small market minority. Not to mention, a lot of trojans and viruses are actually coded by the OSS zealots who are anti-microsoft anyway. Don't believe me...search slashdot. Eric S. Raymond himself made an open statement asking some "unknown members of our tribe" to stop a DOS attack on SCO's servers. He believed it was a retaliation from the open source community due to SCO's attack against linux which was financially backed by Microsoft. Not saying that SCO or Microsoft were right in the matter.....but two wrongs don't make a right. One side doing ****ty business practices...the other side committing a felony.
I say again...I am not bashing general users here. There are things that Mac's do well. Linux is undisputed in the server market. A PC with Windows in the ultimate DESKTOP solution. But to say that a Mac does thing that a PC cannot do is just horse ****.

To sum it up...Linux developers know that computers are intrinsically stupid. Windows developers know that computers and some of their users are intrinsically stupid. Mac developers believe their computers are perfect and their users are all intrinsically stupid.

[MurdersGalore]

Another thing....

...most developers (game that is) use mac..believe me or not

Not exactly.....and when speaking of Xbox 360 exclusives...dead wrong.

Some graphics design may be done on Macs.....but the majority of the coding and engine work (physics, ai, ect.) is mostly done on Workstation PC's or even workstations based on other architectures (sparc, risc,ect.). Though designing graphics on Macs so that they can be imported to a PC to use makes the Mac technically a part of development....it would be a totally false statement to say that all game development (or most for that matter) is done on Macs. Weather Macs are better for graphics manipulation in a workstation environment or not is a matter of debate.

As for Xbox exclusives....think about why Microsoft calls it the "Xbox". The original name for the first gen Xbox was going to be "DirectX Box" but the marketing guru's decided they needed something shorter and more catchy. Xbox and Xbox 360 both rely heavily on Direct X. Direct X is proprietary and will only run on Windows OS's or the Xbox. It would be very counter-intuitive for Microsoft to use another API on the Xbox.....as it would also be bad for business to port Direct X itself to other platforms. Mac's cannot use Direct X....so therefore development on Xbox exclusive titles would have to be done on micosoft's operating systems. As for non-exclusives.....they either purchase rights to license to the source code so it can be ported.....or some game studios may even write several engines for each platform as to make the engine more optimized for each.

[Punkster]

wow, there were some good arguments in there. i do think that apple are good for the music player market but other than that, they're not really good for anything else. i too am fed up with the old argument that windows XP always gets viruses.

Of course you're going to get viruses if you download porn from weird sites constantly and open every single e-mail in you junk box who you have no idea where it's from. If you've got a bit of common sense when using the internet you can avoid all the malware. and it's not even much of a hassle to remove viruses or prevent them in the first place with software which you can get free.

you don't get viruses on mac coz no one gives a s*** about Mac OSX. if some annoying person is going to spend a lot of time writing a virus then they'd target the larger group of people- windows XP users.

and Mac is crap for gaming. You hear lots of ppl install boot camp to play windows xp games. When have you ever seen someone install Mac OSX to play Mac games??

[UberDae]

Ceebs reading through all the posts. Mac vs PC age old.

Gamers obv need a PC - macs just don't cut it in terms of value for money.

Having said that though I would buy one because they look pretty =)

*dying to be an art fag writting up an essay in starbucks*

Everyone who goes on about how bad macs are compared to PC's secretly wants one because they really just look cooler then the usual tower setup. Be honest.

Dae.

[halo-fan-4ever]

pc´s are better, macs arent upgradeable, not many programs and stuff are compatible, too expencive, not enough people know how to repair them, and too expencive for repair

[fusionx449]

Another thing....



Not exactly.....and when speaking of Xbox 360 exclusives...dead wrong.

Some graphics design may be done on Macs.....but the majority of the coding and engine work (physics, ai, ect.) is mostly done on Workstation PC's or even workstations based on other architectures (sparc, risc,ect.). Though designing graphics on Macs so that they can be imported to a PC to use makes the Mac technically a part of development....it would be a totally false statement to say that all game development (or most for that matter) is done on Macs. Weather Macs are better for graphics manipulation in a workstation environment or not is a matter of debate.

As for Xbox exclusives....think about why Microsoft calls it the "Xbox". The original name for the first gen Xbox was going to be "DirectX Box" but the marketing guru's decided they needed something shorter and more catchy. Xbox and Xbox 360 both rely heavily on Direct X. Direct X is proprietary and will only run on Windows OS's or the Xbox. It would be very counter-intuitive for Microsoft to use another API on the Xbox.....as it would also be bad for business to port Direct X itself to other platforms. Mac's cannot use Direct X....so therefore development on Xbox exclusive titles would have to be done on micosoft's operating systems. As for non-exclusives.....they either purchase rights to license to the source code so it can be ported.....or some game studios may even write several engines for each platform as to make the engine more optimized for each.


wow thanks mate....reason for saying that was because we asked what these guys use to program their games and the answer was mac therefore i said they mainly use mac but ok .

thanks

most of you guys im sure never really used the new mac just read about them...

and PCS or MACs are not made for gaming god damn it, gaming is a by product nothing else...buy a console if you want to play games.

[Punkster]

of course a PC can be used to play games even if it is a "by-product" for most PCs. If you spend some money upgrading your PC you can get it as powerful as the current gen of consoles.

not everyone likes consoles. PCs are way more versatile. Great variety of games, loads of people to play online with and there's plenty of games you can get free, so actually consoles aren't that much cheaper if you think about it. And you can always plug in any USB controller of your choice that's made for a PC.

[powerblade]

i think ill go for mac. i may be a pc user, but i saw mac and its frickking awesome!

(personally, i'll buy a mac soon)

[Punkster]

even though they're quite a bit more expensive compared to what else you could get for the same value?

just had a look at the mac website. I think the iMac is alright for £800 considering it saves a lot of space. for playing games, i don't think it'd be very good though.

[fusionx449]

of course a PC can be used to play games even if it is a "by-product" for most PCs. If you spend some money upgrading your PC you can get it as powerful as the current gen of consoles.

not everyone likes consoles. PCs are way more versatile. Great variety of games, loads of people to play online with and there's plenty of games you can get free, so actually consoles aren't that much cheaper if you think about it. And you can always plug in any USB controller of your choice that's made for a PC.

never said you cant play games on a pc... you try running top end games on an average PC.

how much does a pc cost that can run crysis smoothly! i rather get a console a machine build to play games.

[Punkster]

i'd say you could spend about £800 on a PC inclu monitor and be able to play a game like crysis quite well with decent graphics settings.

A console would cost around £300. an average PC would be around £500 and you'd need a PC anyway, so you can spend the money you'd use to buy a console and instead get a better PC. Also, you got to remember that in the long term, you have to pay for games which are more expensive on consoles compared to PC games, and there are very easy ways of getting games free for PC - but that's only if you're a cheap-skate like me :)

Anyway, I don't think Crysis is a fantastic game, it has very high system requirements and it's mainly just eye-candy, it's not worth getting a high-end machine just to run Crysis.

Personally I would prefer to get a better PC than get a games console.

[Nintengod]

i'd say you could spend about £800 on a PC inclu monitor and be able to play a game like crysis quite well with decent graphics settings.

A console would cost around £300. an average PC would be around £500 and you'd need a PC anyway, so you can spend the money you'd use to buy a console and instead get a better PC. Also, you got to remember that in the long term, you have to pay for games which are more expensive on consoles compared to PC games, and there are very easy ways of getting games free for PC - but that's only if you're a cheap-skate like me :)

Anyway, I don't think Crysis is a fantastic game, it has very high system requirements and it's mainly just eye-candy, it's not worth getting a high-end machine just to run Crysis.

Personally I would prefer to get a better PC than get a games console.

You don't need a £800 PC "anyway". I bought my laptop 2nd hand for £80 and it does EVERYTHING i need a personal computer to do, including playing "free" games etc.

So if I bought a Xbox 360 for £200 (premium), and my laptop at £80.....I can do all the stuff I need, including playing high-definition and next gen gaming....without the worry of PC requirements and constant upgrades.

[Punkster]

i still prefer PCs anyway.

(EDIT: ) the current gen of consoles mainly 360 and ps3 are trying to become more and more like a PC, except minus the features such as internet browsing (ok pS3 can do this now), work, listening to music, being able to install any application you want such as iTunes to listen to your music easily if you prefer that, chat to people, use a mouse and keyboard (again, ok, you can plug in mouse and keyboard into a PS3, bu seriously who puts their PS3 near a desktop so they can rest their mouse and keyboard their to type,etc.?)

if this trend follow, Pretty soon, the next gen of consoles will become gaming PCs like the ones you can get nowadays with all the features of a normal PC and you won't be able to define the difference between a console and PC anymore. It'll become all in one.

ok, nin's got a good point that actually console gaming can be quite cheaper, but there are some features of a PC that are missed out such as freely downloadable mods to games and yes, there are some great mods out there i believe. atm, i think the only game on the current gen of consoles which support mods is unreal tournament 3 on PS3. halo 3 doesn't really count, coz that's just rearranging a bunch of items and not really changing the maps completely or adding new characters.

Oh yeh, and again, PC has a vast selection of games, not just shooters like the 360, although PC is the ultimate platform for shooters and the online community is much better on PC games. Xbox live seems to be riddled with little kiddies playing violent games they shouldn't be even playing in the first place such as gears of war and halo 3 - so annoying.

PC games generally allow for more tweaking as well. e.g. in crisis, you can mess around with the files and change the way the AI behave, up to the point where the enemies don't even react at all to you. Just fun things like this are priceless and something you can't do in console games.

[Nintengod]

i still prefer PCs anyway.

But the fact is, gaming is generally superior on consoles, and the best games ever made have been on consoles, with the odd one or two games on PC.

[fusionx449]

i can only think of two games that are better on the pc then on the console....

half life 1 and 2

[MurdersGalore]

You have it backwards. Console gaming is the bi-product of computers. The fact that games are developed on workstation computers should make that obvious. Ofcourse the consoles will offer less fuss for gaming because that is what they are designed soley to do. A console is not designed to do anything other than run games. You are forgetting a large chunk of history here. The Commodore 64/128 computers...the Amiga...the Amstrad.....all were at one point the preferred way to play games at home though they were not designed to do only this. Commodore 64 sales eclipsed the 8 bit nintendo sales by the millions. Still to this day it has the largest library of software and the most units sold for any single model of computer. Consoles came to be because the devs figured out a way to make special machines from these computers that came with only the needed hardware and software to play games and do nothing else. That made the computer gaming market niche a mainstream thing. It made gaming available to people who knew **** about computers. It also made the hardware much cheaper because they could leave out alot of the extra **** that would be used for other things such as extravagant operating systems, Large storage devices...ect ect. The 360 and ps3 don't have Hard drives in them because its an innovative thing. They have them because Consoles are becoming more like PC's. All this because all a gaming console is is a specialized computer.

[Punkster]

well actually the 360 and PS3 both do have hard drives now.

[fusionx449]

You have it backwards. Console gaming is the bi-product of computers. The fact that games are developed on workstation computers should make that obvious. Ofcourse the consoles will offer less fuss for gaming because that is what they are designed soley to do. A console is not designed to do anything other than run games. You are forgetting a large chunk of history here. The Commodore 64/128 computers...the Amiga...the Amstrad.....all were at one point the preferred way to play games at home though they were not designed to do only this. Commodore 64 sales eclipsed the 8 bit nintendo sales by the millions. Still to this day it has the largest library of software and the most units sold for any single model of computer. Consoles came to be because the devs figured out a way to make special machines from these computers that came with only the needed hardware and software to play games and do nothing else. That made the computer gaming market niche a mainstream thing. It made gaming available to people who knew **** about computers. It also made the hardware much cheaper because they could leave out alot of the extra **** that would be used for other things such as extravagant operating systems, Large storage devices...ect ect. The 360 and ps3 don't have Hard drives in them because its an innovative thing. They have them because Consoles are becoming more like PC's. All this because all a gaming console is is a specialized computer.

go cuddle you pc :rolleyes:

now you explain to me why console games are better then pc games? if they are designed on a pc why dont they play better on them :s.

halo 2 is a fine example...sucks on the pc if you ask me.

[Nintengod]

i can only think of two games that are better on the pc then on the console....

half life 1 and 2

Hmmmmm.....I disagree. Half Life 1 was heavily modified for the Playstation 2 and used much higher textures, and you could also use mouse/keyboard (it being the first PS2 game ever to support the use of the USB ports).

Half Life 2.....not so sure, wasn't Orange Box on the 360 the best version?

[Punkster]

what's wrong with halo 2 on the pc? it got poor reviews coz it came out late on PC and it was a game designed more for xbox than PC. by the time it was ported over to PC, there were much better shooter games available.

i think i can partly answer your question why it seems that the better games are coming out on console rather than PC. I think it is because games developers want to aim at consoles instead of PCs as it is harder to get torrent files or other ways of pirating console discs and less people are willing to do so compared to people with PCs, and yes it is very easy to get access to even the latest best games for free off the internet nowadays and play straight away on your PC with minimal hassle.

So the games developers would rather invest in making a game specifically for consoles to reduce the loss of profit from piracy. Tbh, i think the huge library of games available for PC more than makes up for the few good exclusives on each individual console. You say the best games come out on consoles, but in that case you'd probably need to buy each individual console to get the best games then.

EDIT:

being the first PS2 game ever to support the use of the USB ports

wow i never knew that. Why can't the latest games console all allow mouse and keyboard to be plugged in for all games? that way strategy games and shooter could be played so much more easily.

Controller should still be allowed. But people who choose to use controllers on multiplayer will have to suffer for not using keyboard and mouse - their problem, coz it's their choice.

can the 360 be plugged into any monitor made for PCs?

[fusionx449]

Hmmmmm.....I disagree. Half Life 1 was heavily modified for the Playstation 2 and used much higher textures, and you could also use mouse/keyboard (it being the first PS2 game ever to support the use of the USB ports).

Half Life 2.....not so sure, wasn't Orange Box on the 360 the best version?

half life 2 came out on the xbox and was re-released on the 360 as the orange box (with episode 1 and 2 and portal AND TF2)

@punk no, PC games are so much mroe expensive to run thats why most developers aim their games at consoles!

[Nintengod]

half life 2 came out on the xbox and was re-released on the 360 as the orange box (with episode 1 and 2 and portal AND TF2)

@punk no, PC games are so much mroe expensive to run thats why most developers aim their games at consoles!

Half Life 2 wasn't up the scratch on the Xbox with some slowdown....but it came out on 360 with the Orange Box package as you said, and was more than competition for the PC version.

Strategy games tend to be better on PC.....although with the fact that all consoles now have USB ports, and with enough RAM on board....I don't see why they ought to be any different now.

[MurdersGalore]

if they are designed on a pc why dont they play better on them :s.

What a silly question. A game dev studio has access to much better hardware then the average PC user obviously. Thats like asking "why isn't macdonald's considered a 5 star restaurant When they have a grill just like Dorcia?"
now you explain to me why console games are better then pc games?
I dont recall claiming PC gaming was better then console gaming or vice versa. I thought the discussion was about Mac gaming vs "regular PC" gaming...which is a laughable question also.

What caused that little spurr in the topic anyway was me correcting you on some issues you had wrong.
You said most game development was done on macs...wrong.
You claimed PC gaming was a bi-product...no wait...."by-product" of a PC's capabilities....which also is wrong.

And also....saying I did say PC gaming was superior (which I never have)....as you obviously think console gaming is superior.....those are opinions...and opinions can be neither right or wrong. Everything I have said has been backed up by facts....and the fact is Consoles Game machines are a bi-product of the computer age. As a matter of fact...some of the things I said such as Consoles came to be because the devs figured out a way to make special machines from these computers that came with only the needed hardware and software to play games and do nothing else. That made the computer gaming market niche a mainstream thing. It made gaming available to people who knew **** about computers. It also made the hardware much cheaper because they could leave out alot of the extra **** that would be used for other things such as extravagant operating systems, Large storage devices...ect ect. Could actually be used as a pro-console statement. Why are you on the defensive then?
Seems to me that alot of the things you say are simply crap you pull out of your ass. I have read some of your other posts...and they come off as you basically not knowing **** about the technology. As for the comment about how much it would cost to build a PC to play Crysis...tell me...where is the port of Crysis for a console? Can you play an older game on your console and add extra anti-aliasing, antistorpy, ect.? How easy is it to take an older ps2 game and install a 3rd party mod to it to add more value and longevity to the title?
In the end each platform has its pros and cons. And no...it doesnt cost much to run Crysis smoothly on a pc if you know where to shop for upgrades. Having an older dual core athlon and adding ram which is cheap and a middle of the road Video card can bring a pc up to specs with next gen consoles. You can spend $200 or so in upgrades.....or $500 or so on a next gen console. Either way the technology is going to be obselete by the time you really invest in it. So if you have a pc and the cash...by all means...build a gaming rig. You can always use the extra computing power later on to edit porn. Meanwhile.....when the next gen console comes out...see how quickly your investment will become yesterday's news.
Its all about choice. Stop being so opinionated to the point that you cant see the benefits.

[Punkster]

@punk no, PC games are so much mroe expensive to run thats why most developers aim their games at consoles!

PCs aren't that much more expensive if you're going for a decent middle-of-the-road gaming PC.

People are under the illusion that all gaming PCs must cost over £1000. It's not. Heck you can even play most modern games on one that cost you around £500 with a monitor as well (dual core processor, 2GB RAM, you'd probably have to upgrade the graphics card yourself, but that's really easy and you could get a half decent one for under £80)

Yes, the very high-end PCs that are pre-built are expensive, but you don't need something that powerful unless you want to get into professional gaming.

....damn i gotta go school now :p

[MurdersGalore]

@punk no, PC games are so much mroe expensive to run thats why most developers aim their games at consoles!

No...Devs Aim at consoles because people buy consoles and game for consoles.....they arent interested in which technology is better...they want your money. If PC Gaming was the market dominator....they would aim at PC's....Remember the Dreamcast and the Saturn? They didnt have trouble getting Devs interested because the hardware sucked...they had trouble because people weren't buying dreamcasts or Saturns. They will aim their wares at any market that makes a profit.

[Nintengod]

No...Devs Aim at consoles because people buy consoles and game for consoles.....they arent interested in which technology is better...they want your money. If PC Gaming was the market dominator....they would aim at PC's....Remember the Dreamcast and the Saturn? They didnt have trouble getting Devs interested because the hardware sucked...they had trouble because people weren't buying dreamcasts or Saturns. They will aim their wares at any market that makes a profit.

Actually.....one of the reasons for the Saturns failure was down to the hardware being crap and too complicated for developers. The Playstation architecture was however, simple, and easy to make games for.

[fusionx449]

dont get me started on marketing and all the rest :D

[Arrk-Mancer]

Regular PC is by miles better no challenge what so ever mac failed in my opinion it just doesn't work like a normal PC would.

[xAchillesx]

u can see it diferrent like mac is for business and pc's for gaming :)

[Punkster]

i would have thought most businesses use XP to do work on.

[magnumsandwich]

Original pcs were made for industrial use macs are the real personal computer

[MurdersGalore]

Macs for business? That's odd.....I thought Mac's were always perceived by professionals as a toy.
And Macs for industrial use? What was the last supercomputer made from clusters of Macs that you have seen?

[Arrk-Mancer]

Mac is rubbish.

[Punkster]

i think a mac is designed for quite rich people who want to buy something "funky" and different. I like how the Mac adverts portray Mac users as "cool" people but fail to note that Mac's are considerably more expensive.

[MurdersGalore]

Hell...you know what? I cant even really be nice or even indifferent about it. Screw being politically correct. Macs are for suckers. Macs are for people who do no research into anything they buy. They are followers of trends. You ever see a comercial for a product and just know that its bull****? Then you might wonder "wow...what idiot would buy this crap?" Answer; MAC USERS!! Macs are nothing but marketing hype. They are technologically inferior and needlessly expensive. As for any argument that OSX is less prone to security problems ect...Here's a section from a March 28,2008 Computerworld article entitled "Mac easiest to hack, says 10,000 winner"
March 28, 2008 (Computerworld) The security researcher who walked away with $10,000 yesterday by hacking a MacBook Air in less than two minutes said he chose to attack Apple Inc.'s operating system for one simple reason.

"It was the easiest one of the three," said Charlie Miller, an analyst at Independent Security Evaluators (ISE), a Baltimore-based security consultancy. "We wanted to spend as little time as possible coming up with an exploit, so we picked Mac OS X."

On Thursday afternoon, Miller breached a MacBook Air, one of three laptops up for grabs in the "PWN to OWN" hacker challenge at CanSecWest, a security conference that wraps up today in Vancouver, British Columbia. For his efforts, he got the computer and a $10,000 cash prize.

note. Yes, hacker geeks actually do have competitions for these kinds of things. It goes on farther to say....The MacBook Air was running the current version of Mac OS X, 10.5.2, with all the latest security patches applied. The other two computers, a Sony Vaio VGN-TZ37CN running Ubuntu 7.10 and a Fujitsu U810 notebook running Windows Vista Ultimate SP1, were also up to date and fully patched.

And for all the Mac boys that want to hate on Internet Explorer Which is always a security whipping boy...
Because Miller was bound by a nondisclosure agreement with 3Com Corp.'s TippingPoint, the security company that ponied up PWN To OWN's cash prizes, he was unable to share details of the vulnerability. He did confirm, however, that he had exploited a bug in Safari 3.1, the current version of Apple's browser.

Ofcourse...you could argue that this was just one hardly known Hacking contest and that this could have been a fluke...except this snippet from another article..
Computerworld tells us that Microsoft released 17 security bulletins and patches affecting Vista in its first year, compared with 30 for Windows XP. Microsoft fixed 36 bugs in Vista compared to 65 in Windows XP. Linux-based operating systems and Mac OS X didn't fare as well. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Workstation, for example, had 360. Ubuntu 6.06 LTS had 224, and Mac OS X 10.4 had 116.

Vista had 9 patch events for the first year, XP had 26, Red Hat had 64, Ubuntu had 65, and Mac OS X had 17.

I know..I know...even the linux nerds are going "ROMG!! You mean to say that Vista is less bug prone then RedHat Linux"
Yeah...that's pretty much what that means.

Now that might raise the question "Ok Murderz dude, I gess U thank dat U R so 1337 cuz U use Windoze so R U a Micro$oft fanboi? LOLerskate!!"

Absolutely not. I am not a fanboi of any platform. Each has things that suck about them. But being totally logical I have to say Macs are the worst. All the bad things about proprietary software aswell as all that has sucked about opensource software all exist simultaniously on a mac. All that ****ty software, the fact that they make "pretty" but non-standard designs, And their exceedingly ****tier choice of 2nd gen hardware at over 1st gen price, I think my reasons for choosing Windows based Pc's becomes pretty clear. They are cheaper. They have better hardware. They are more standard therefore offer a better upgrade path. Windows is expensive but I only have to buy the version I choose once. Did you know that each time Mac releases the windows world equivelent of a service pack they charge their users $120 a pop? That's insane. And yes...going from Tiger to Leopard is basically a service pack. When you pay for a new version of windows you get new technology...like going from Directx 9 to Directx 10....going from an old GUI to a totally new GUI.....hell....going from Windows 98/ME to XP introduced a new file system. Look at the changes from Tiger to Leopard or any other version of OSX.....look at the changes. New version...HAH! Its a service pack. And Apple knows that the suckers they have for users will pay.
Get educated...you are being had. Dont be a fan boy....Buy what works...Buy whats cheap. Dont be a stooge. And for the love of god Macboy...stop spilling your starbucks Latte all over your fubu shirt while listening to the American Idle tour CD on your iPOD and do a little light reading. You might be surprised to find that all these trend setting companies dont giva a **** about you. You might just be enlightened. I think this subject has reached its end.

[Punkster]

wow, the person above just expressed my opinion of mac but in a better way :p

i really do agree that Mac users, more often than not, are people who fail to find the best solution for a computer and end up getting something too expensive and they think that Macs are trendy after watching those silly adverts of Mac vs PC.

e.g. i remember one of them, can't recite the words exactly

but Mac guy goes: you can use a Mac to have fun one, making movies etc
then PC guy goes: i can use a regular PC to make pie charts and graphs (as if that's all windows is used for)

Anyone who agrees with those Mac vs PC ads must be stupid and know so little about computers. They are the audience that apple aimed the advert at.

It is so not true, coz you can use any normal windows-based PC to do anything a Mac can do but probably better, coz most windows-based products are standard and lots of people use them, so it is easier to use and learn by asking others.

Whereas Mac make something that's almost exactly the same, but looks slightly different and "funkier" and has totally different controls so you end up wasting time learning how to use the thing. Doesn't mean it's better.

Mac tries to be different, thinking that people want to trendy and different. And it seems as if it's working. Fair enough, if you want to spend too much money on something unnecessary and is technologically inferior, coz you're lazy, rich, don't give a toss and don't use computers much, but please don't argue that Macs are better than everything else in the same market.

[Arrk-Mancer]

Regular PC's are better in so many ways.

1. Better security.
2. Can have better hardware and software installed.
3. Runs games allot better.
4. Stable internet connection most of the time.
5. Easier to use.
6. Can become faulty and develop a personality.
7. Not completely vulnerable to viruses and other crappy infections. (i.e Rootkits and Very dangerous fisher price modems)
8. Wont name them all takes way to long.

You get the picture.

[MurdersGalore]

Punkster....funny you should mention their commercials. I read an article about how some studies have shown that Mac's ads are actually in a way ****ing them over. They cast this young slacker type as the MAC, and this Nerdy 30-something guy as PC. Funny thing is...and I noticed this myself....People love geeks. The Mac character comes off as an arrogant slacker...the PC character comes off as a fun loving geek...he is more likable and often times has the funnier dialouge in the ads. Mac also still only has roughly 6.5% of the US market...and 3% of the total global market. Maybe there is something to it.
Also, Mac pr is a nightmare. The company, and especially Steve Jobs, are about as sensitive to technical issues as a Mafia Don is sensitive to racial equality. Take this snippet from a Microsoft PR for instance:
On Ina Fried's "Beyond Binary" blog, there are quotes from Chris Jones, the Windows Live VP at Microsoft about the Macintosh and Apple. In the article, Jones has the following things to say about Apple and the Macintosh: "I think there is no blanket statement I can make about the Mac, except to say we think the Macintosh is a great platform, and we think that customers should be able to get to their Windows Live stuff on the Mac, and we'll continue to evaluate ways to do that."
Notice the professionalism. And even compliments. On the other hand:
Now, let's contrast that with a single image from Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. This is how Apple repays Microsoft for its kind words toward the Mac, its continued support of the Mac in Microsoft Office, Windows Live, etc.

Apple's Image of the Windows PC in Leopard

Does Apple depict Windows as a bland beige box? No. Does it depict Windows with a flat screen with some generic GUI on it? No. A Windows logo? No. What does Apple do? It depicts Windows PCs inside the OS with an outdated monitor and the "blue screen of death".

If Apple has no respect for a company whose executives are publicly kind to it, what kind of respect do you think it really has of its own customers? Actually, that's pretty obvious to those of us who aren't Apple customers.

Needless to say I dont have to speak farther on that...the Author said it all (courtesy of themacsucks.com)

Further....Steve jobs has been known to treat people like **** in public. There was an episaod with a MAC fan approaching Steve for a photo and perhaps an autograph. He allegedly was quite curt with her, told her she was rude, and then proceeded to turn his back to her and make fun of her with his cappacino guzzling buddies. WHat a douche. You are the CEO of Apple...you arent famous, you aint ****ing Brad Pitt...you are a geek who should be grateful that you have fans, and people buying your crap, all willing to make you a very rich geek. And he should be damn grateful it was a female.
No wonder Mac users are ****ed up. They didnt just buy a computer, they joined a cult. Steve Jobs is L.Ron Hubbard, OSX is dianetics, and the Mac community is scientology.

Macintology. It makes sense. They try to cram ads for their **** in movies. They have to make sure to let us know that people like Ex Vice President/Professional Tree Hugger Al Gore uses a Mac.
I once heard a Macintologist (has a nice ring to it) rant about how the Zune will take over the market because microsoft is a dirty company and will cram it down our throats through marketing. This is ****ing funny. When was the last Microsft vs Anyone TV ad?
When asked Apple's position on the Zune aquiring the #2 spot in portable media player market share Steve Jobs basically asked them if they were drunk. What an ass. He is in just as much denial that apple sucks as his fanbase.
themacsucks.com refers to this as the Steve Jobs RDF (Reality Distortion Field). Check it out.
http://themacsucks.com/joomla/content/view/438/28/

[Punkster]

wow, that was some strong stuff there. I agree with some of your points but not sure about the more extreme ones. Nonetheless nice to hear your opinion.