Macs vs. PCs
Macs vs. PCs
Macs are really bad... I am curious why people still use them considering how much faster, cheaper, etc. PCs are.
Not at all. Macs are ridiculously over priced. Check this out: http://arstechnica.com/guide/system/hotrod.htmlzip wrote:You get what you pay for, and you will get $200 worth of Mall-Wart PC when you buy one.
AMD Athlon64 3000+
1Gig PC3200 DDR SDRAM
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
M-Audio Revolution 7.1 sound card
120GB 10k SATA HD
8x DVD-RW/CD-RW
16X DVD-ROM
19" CRT monitor
Logitech Z-560 4.1 speakers
(keyboard, mouse, floppy, etc. too)
$1600
A Mac with similar specs would cost 2-3 times as much. Furthermore, Apple hardware being high quality is mostly a myth. It's not like Apple manufactures the hard drives, cd-roms, and other components that goes into a Mac. They use standard OEM parts that would go into any other PC. These standard OEM parts are the same things in PCs, but usually they are older and relatively obsolete. Take "Apple's" optical drives and hard drives, for example. They are definitely sub par.
-
- The wolfire forum member with no title.
- Posts: 749
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 9:40 pm
Jeff wrote:Not at all. Macs are ridiculously over priced. Check this out: http://arstechnica.com/guide/system/hotrod.htmlzip wrote:You get what you pay for, and you will get $200 worth of Mall-Wart PC when you buy one.
AMD Athlon64 3000+
1Gig PC3200 DDR SDRAM
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
M-Audio Revolution 7.1 sound card
120GB 10k SATA HD
8x DVD-RW/CD-RW
16X DVD-ROM
19" CRT monitor
Logitech Z-560 4.1 speakers
(keyboard, mouse, floppy, etc. too)
$1600
A Mac with similar specs would cost 2-3 times as much. Furthermore, Apple hardware being high quality is mostly a myth. It's not like Apple manufactures the hard drives, cd-roms, and other components that goes into a Mac. They use standard OEM parts that would go into any other PC. These standard OEM parts are the same things in PCs, but usually they are older and relatively obsolete. Take "Apple's" optical drives and hard drives, for example. They are definitely sub par.
Let's get him!!!
-
- Wooter
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 5:56 pm
- Location: Milky Way
- Contact:
Viking Zippy wrote:Macs may be expensive, but they sure as hell work better in the long run. I'd rather take a 2,000 dollar computer that will work perfectly for 5 years than a 300 dollar PC that acquires popups in the OS itself (no programs open or anything) and becomes completely unstable within half a year.
Damn you, Viking! I was going to say that!!!
I've had my comp for around 2.5 years, and haven't had any problems with it other than a critical read error on my HD, which occurs on EVERY computer type. Refuting that last point is an indication of technology ignorance.
Also, find me a mac worth $2000 and a PC worth $300 as in your examples with similar specs before ranting about better performance, because, really, you can only get $300 machines if they're a year old already, so OF COURSE they die after 6 months. Furthermore, if you DO find me a PC that's only $300 versus a $2000 Mac that both have comparable specs, OF COURSE WE'D GO FOR THE DAMN PC! We could get around 7 of those PCs for your one Mac, for the same damn specs. Even if they lived to be only 1 year each, that's 7 years in total, which outlives any of the estimates you guys are shooting around for Macs.
Also, the user of the machine really determines the lifespan of the sucker. Pushing the machine too hard with a game that doesn't clear memory will of course crash the sucker, no matter the hardware or OS (just look at what I did with David's machine all last summer!)
As Leo would say: "It's the runner, not the frame that makes the difference."
Respond with a logical argument and statistical data before even thinking of posting in reply to my statements.
-Fournine, of the 'net
Also, find me a mac worth $2000 and a PC worth $300 as in your examples with similar specs before ranting about better performance, because, really, you can only get $300 machines if they're a year old already, so OF COURSE they die after 6 months. Furthermore, if you DO find me a PC that's only $300 versus a $2000 Mac that both have comparable specs, OF COURSE WE'D GO FOR THE DAMN PC! We could get around 7 of those PCs for your one Mac, for the same damn specs. Even if they lived to be only 1 year each, that's 7 years in total, which outlives any of the estimates you guys are shooting around for Macs.
Also, the user of the machine really determines the lifespan of the sucker. Pushing the machine too hard with a game that doesn't clear memory will of course crash the sucker, no matter the hardware or OS (just look at what I did with David's machine all last summer!)
As Leo would say: "It's the runner, not the frame that makes the difference."
Respond with a logical argument and statistical data before even thinking of posting in reply to my statements.
-Fournine, of the 'net
Please, let us not talk about this stuff here!
- Macs are expensive.
- Some PC's are expensive too. Especially those designed like Macs (if you can finde some)
- In general, you can build a fast PC for small $
- You can't build your own Mac. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.
____________________________
It is your choice. What you like, what you need - you buy it.
Apple won't sell Macs for cheap. Macs won't be much faster then PC's.
Slower too. This discussion is senseless.
Life may be unfair. But every one of us have choice.
- Macs are expensive.
- Some PC's are expensive too. Especially those designed like Macs (if you can finde some)
- In general, you can build a fast PC for small $
- You can't build your own Mac. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.
____________________________
It is your choice. What you like, what you need - you buy it.
Apple won't sell Macs for cheap. Macs won't be much faster then PC's.
Slower too. This discussion is senseless.
Life may be unfair. But every one of us have choice.
I wish they'd come out with ALTIMIT already. The new hyper-generation of OS's should be here in about six months, but I guess the development for an anti-virus/anti-hacker A.I. built into the OS itself just takes too much time and effort to make an on-time release.
I wonder if they're not developing them as soon because "Deadly Flash" didn't come out last year like it was supposed to?
Hey, what do you guys think- could someone be sentenced to death over an international cyber crime? They were discussing it recently due to the whole incident occuring with the servers on "The World", but I'm not sure the recent outbreak is related.
Man, can a person really be put into a coma because of a game?
Oh, wait. Wrong reality. I thought this was .hack ... heh.
I need sleep, don't I?
-Fournine, of the 'net
I wonder if they're not developing them as soon because "Deadly Flash" didn't come out last year like it was supposed to?
Hey, what do you guys think- could someone be sentenced to death over an international cyber crime? They were discussing it recently due to the whole incident occuring with the servers on "The World", but I'm not sure the recent outbreak is related.
Man, can a person really be put into a coma because of a game?
Oh, wait. Wrong reality. I thought this was .hack ... heh.
I need sleep, don't I?
-Fournine, of the 'net