h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm only suggesting that when you wander into a discussion and call somone wrong, well, you don't make any friends. Not that you have to be out to make friends, but people will listen more if you calmly suggest that such and such might be true. Ah, well, some of the finer points of discussion are lost on some people, I suppose.

i've got to go with my beloved g-4 mac. i adore it so. it's got character, it's unique, it's reliable, fast, and it all around kicks ass.

three cheers for macs!

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to get nasty and hostile. Let's all take a step back, take a deep breath and regain our composure. The Mac and PC box (computer hardware) are basically the same, they do use different processor and a different ways of interfacing everything together. But they can be interchangeable, I can take Windows NT and load it on the Mac G4 and it will run fine. What we are really discussing is the OS and the Mac OS and Windows are designed to do different things. Which is best depends on what you are going to use it for. For business applications Windows NT is best. For graphic design the Mac is best. For home use it's a wash, there is not enough difference between the two to notice, (FOR HOME USE). It will depend on what you are most comfortable with.

There are always a few people who take computer Holy Wars a little too seriously, whether Mac/PC, Unix/VMS, RISC/CISC, etc.

At least in the UK, the question of who's paying for the machine and future upgrades can make a significant difference.
If you're planning on keeping a machine for a while, I think it's a little more likely that you'll be able to enhance it in a years time for a reasonable cost if it's a PC rather than a Mac. The sheer volume of PC hardware does help keep prices low, and over here, *some* Mac stores seem to charge rather more than cheap PC stores for identical upgrades.

Slapping an extra IDE hard drive in a PC is usually a no-brainer, whatever drive you buy. I found trying to be sure which IDE drives might or might not work in a G3 was somewhat harder, since as far as I could tell, the manual only referred to upgrading via adding SCSI drives.

However, if someone else is paying, or you're self-employed, the price is usually going to be less important than whether you're happy with the machine, and/or whether you can be more productive (always assuming you can convince your boss. If you're not going to upgrade the machine anyway, the cost of upgrades is irrelevant.

For some applications available on both platforms (ie Photoshop with large images), the CPU and OS can be less important than having lots of RAM, or an extra drive or two for swap space, or a decent sized screen or a graphic tablet.

One other point, which is quite relevant where I work, where we have 50 PCs and 1 Mac, is that having an odd machine out can be a pain for support. It's really a drag for me to have to learn stuff about Macs just to keep one machine running, and unlike with the PCs, I can't 'trickle-down' any hardware freed up by fancy add-ons to higher end machines. However, because many external design companies seem to refuse to provide artwork that PCs can actually process, we don't have any choice.

I'd tend to disagree with that bit about Mac OS being better for graphics and Windows being better for business apps. It's true that traditionally the graphics-oriented people have flocked to the Mac and stayed there, because way back when that statement about the Mac being better for graphics was quite true. These days, though, most of those apps are cross-platform. The people who use them may not be though.

For business apps, Windows has a single advantage in that there is a larger library of apps to choose from. Some might buy a Windows box solely because they need QuickBooks. (Damn Intuit anyway for discontinuing their Mac QuickBooks support. ) But more software doesn't make it better; it just means there's more. If your main apps are Word, Excel and PowerPoint, who cares? You can get them on both, and share files cross-platform in those apps rather transparently. Again, though, the people who use some of these apps may be more comfortable with one OS or another.

I look at it this way: if there's an app you absolutely must use that's only for one platform or another, well, looks like that's the platform you're gonna use. If you want games, there's absolutely no question: get a Windows box, and a good one at that, cos you won't be happy with the performance of a cheapo entry-level box for games. (Gaming requires a lot more processor and graphics adapter power than your average home and business apps.) For home and general office use, it's a toss up: buy what people will use, buy what looks cool, buy what you're familiar with... really doesn't matter too much.

Even some hardware is cross-platform these days, including some PCI cards (though those are still the most iffy). That support thing is a problem. (For me it's still sometimes a problem the other way around! ) An good online resource for cross-platform issues is http://www.macwindows.com They try, although sometimes you can't help but notice it comes from a slightly Mac point of view. And I really suggest Potholer you pick up the excellent O'Reilly book published late last year called "Crossing Platforms". You've seen a foreign language phrasebook? This book is a Mac-Windows and Windows-Mac phrasebook. You look an item up in the OS you're familiar with, and it tells you the equivalent in the OS you don't know. Beautiful little reference book and very well-suited to you having to support one Mac. There are also some good message boards on places like http://www.macfixit.com/ where people will happily answer questions even if you tell them that you're more familiar with Windows.

It really does depend on what you are looking for... from the hardware point of view, Wintel boxes have a wider assortment... since audio, video, etc. aren't built onto the motherboard they are upgradable as need and finances dictate. Also, if one of those blows up, it's much easier to replace. The Mac however uses a RISC processor, the basic architecture of which leaves Intel compatables in the dust.

I've only used a friend's Mac a few times, so I'm not personally real familiar with the OS, but from a User POV, it's a GUI... Mac, Win3.1, Win32, Xwindows, CDE... they all came out of Xerox PARC, and they all do the same things in pretty much the same way. From the stability standpoint, let's face it... 100 monkeys coding for 100 hours on 100 computers could come up with something better than Windoze, and still have time to write six of Shakespear's tragedies. (just give me 5min alone in a room with the guy who thought up the supremely condescending 'To avoid seeing this message in the future, always shut down your computer in the proper manner' )

Sun does build some nice boxes... I got a Sparc20 that's a mission critical server, been up and running for six or seven years now... have never needed to bring the backup online. I deal mostly with IBM RS6000 (604e Power PC, aka Mac G4), running AIX4.3.2... also pretty sweet... from an admin point of view, AIX is quite nice.

But of course, niether Sun or RS6000 are really 'home' computers.

Hm, I hope you won't take offense as I correct a few bits about your post there. Video is not built into the motherboard on blue G3 boxes and all G4 systems including the new Cube. The G4s and cube use an AGP slot; the earlier blue G3s used an extra PCI slot. The iMac is of course a rather closed box all around, but it's pretty shocking what you can add these days with USB and FireWire. And all non-iMac desktop systems have had PCI slots for years. It's not as if you can't upgrade the video on those. And although the sound is still on the motherboard, no less than Creative Labs of SoundBlaster fame has introduced Mac drivers, recognizing that some folks might want to have audio other than what's on board. There are certainly *more* choices in this area for Wintel boxes, but they're no easier to replace or upgrade.

"They all came out of Xerox PARC" is a long-standing simplification of the evolution of the GUI. Key points: Apple's interface was in development before their visit to PARC; the visit was an indication they were on the right track, and the OS that resulted was far ahead of anything they had achieved at PARC. Microsoft's interest came out of the commercial success of the Mac OS more than it did directly from PARC.

A 604e is not a G4. In fact, using that terminology it would instead be a "G2". The "G3" used in all Apple machines is a Power PC 750. The "G4" is a PowerPC 7400. The 603, 603e, 604, 604e and 604r (aka Mach5) all belong to the earlier generation. The 601 was the earliest. There's also a 620 (also a second gen PowerPC) which was never used in any Mac systems but was used by IBM. IBM has a new processor called Power4, also likely not destined for desktops. PowerPC was all IBM development at first, and the name is an IBM trademark. The unfortunate truth right now is that it appears that bringing in Motorola muddled up the works. Rumor has it that IBM is ready to ship faster processors but Apple's getting screwed over by Motorola's low yield on faster parts. At least originally, only Motorola was producing units with the AltiVec enhancement.

PCs are way better - I use both ... I have a pc @ home, and use apple macs @ school. Pcs are easier to understand, and yeah. Other stuff like that. I don't even know what I'm talking about really.

Sorry
but there
both about
the same
unless u are
a computer
'nerd'.
It needs to
be said that there
are more interesting
and profound
diffences in
the world.

Jk

not "computer nerd" the term is "Alpha Geek"

Acorns.Use to be anyway.

Whatever you lot say, I'm sticking to my guns. VIC-20 any day