RE: MAC VS PC

BillyBoy wrote on 7/15/2002, 11:35 PM

I'll be kind. The "stuff" you heard is urban legend, folklore and rumor. The Mac isn't better than the PC, nor is a PC better than a Mac. They simply run on different operating systems and use different processors and chipsets. The basic difference between Mac's and IBM and the many clones commonly called PC's is the former (Mac's) use a "closed" architecture while the latter uses a "open" architecture.

The folks at Apple made what I and many feel was a fatal mistake by having a closed system which originally meant you could only get hardware made by Apple. So you basically had little to choose from. IBM and the many clones that followed having a open system quickly developed a huge after market cottage industry that vastly improved on the original IBM design.

Originally way back in the 70's Apple had a huge following with so-called "creative" types like those involved in graphic work. True, in the 70's and into the 80's Apple may have had some superiority both in hardware and what graphic software ran on that platform. That advantage vanished long ago. The truth is there are far more graphic applications (hint: Vegas for example) that run only under Windows.

You need to broaden your circle of friends if you think everyone that does serious graphic work only uses a Mac. For example, Photoshop, the undisputed leader and top choice of professionals for all high end image manipulation has been available for both the Mac and Windows platforms for years. So too with Corel, and most every other major product.

For video editing Final Cut Pro for the Mac, about $900, comes in a distant second to Vegas Video which is about half as much due to both missing features and what it can do is more clumsy.

The truth is Mac's always have had and probably will always have a cult following. You know how cults are. They always think they're something special, rarely is that true. Anytime I get into a debate with some Mac Nut, and they are out there, I usually shut them up quickly simply by pointing to a fact that can't deny. If Apple made such a "hot" product then how come for the last 20 years or so they never had more than about 6% of the market and much of that is due to dumping Macs in all kinds of school districts. You also note that if retailers carry Macs at all, they are now almost always relegated to either the back or some dark corner of the store.

Mac's superior, no, but I probably could make a good argument why they are inferior, however this post is already way too large. No, according to SoFo, there isn't and likely never will be a Mac version of Vegas. <wink>

sonicboom wrote on 7/15/2002, 11:44 PM

thanks for the quick response
i appreciate it
it's true - you don't see many mac any more
i know so people in advertising that swear buy them
anyway, i'm sticking with my pc and vegas
thanks
cheers
sb

VideoWizard wrote on 7/16/2002, 9:55 AM

Well said Billy Boy....basically the Macs had OS's that were more stable/flexible for intense graphic/audio applications (and they WERE more intuitive for creative non-techies). Because of that early advantage there WERE more (and more expensive) programs that did high end work. But with the improvement of PC operating systems (Win 2000/XP) and hardware, the advantage is slim. Now that Hardware & software costs are more reasonable, P-4's are getting better/faster, I've dumped my Macs (except one G-4 pro-tools rig) and am an exclusive P-3/P-4 operation!
The Northwood processor (512 cache) w/ Windows XP rocks!!

VideoWizard wrote on 7/16/2002, 9:58 AM

PS: After seeing Final Cut Pro side my side w/ Vegas, Vegas is cooler!

BillyBoy wrote on 7/16/2002, 11:11 AM

I like apples...I have a bag full chilling in the fridge right now.

jeffy82 wrote on 7/16/2002, 1:56 PM

Billyboy,

VERY VERY well put, and quite accurate if I might add, not too many people know the actual architecure history. Yep, Apples/Job's believe in Closed Architecture was a godsend to IBM/PC.

I own a few MACs but mostly PCs, and its funny when you see how MACS have come full circle, just by looking inside. What? Its a PC. AGP Slot, USB, PCI Slots, Ethernet. No more SCSI. Not that they had much of a choice.

Mac are great to look at, very esthetically pleasing, especially that Backlit Apple on the laptop screenback. As far as easier to use, less problematic, yes, maybe, but that has more to do with statistics than anything else. MACS are a compromise of expandability, adaptability, and versatility. It is the way it is when you buy it. And price fixed If I might add. Practically no hardware changes allowed. Just try to change the HDD on the 3Gig Ibook. So when you have a limited number of periferals, and 1/4 of a isle of software, its clear why they seem less problematic, they can concentrate making the few things they can do work very well. This would be the same as comparing a dedicated fax machine (MAC) to using your computer's modem to fax documents (PC). This is just my opinion. I try not to argue with those people, I found it pointless to argue with someone who is following the pied piper. They agree with you and then next week, they hit you with, "Did you SEE the new XSERVER?" The key word here is "See".

Jeffy82@aol.com

riredale wrote on 7/17/2002, 1:20 AM

I joined Apple in 1982 from HP. We were recruited as Account Execs to bring the Apple message to the Fortune 500. Man, we talked and demoed until we were blue in the face, but Corporate America was IBM through and through. Back in those days, Apple really DID have a brilliant message and product--remember the original Mac ad with the female hammer thrower? Pure genius. I was sitting in the audience at the Apple Sales Conference in Hawaii when Sculley first showed that 60-second spot. It was truly a religious moment--little brilliant creative Apple against the machine. We all went absolutely wild with joy and enthusiasm. Funny thing is, Sculley later decided to shelve the ad and save the money (it was very expensive airtime--SuperBowl). Only at the last minute was he convinced to run the ad.

After the Mac came out, most of us in the field saw the handwriting on the wall: if we didn't diversify and allow others in, as IBM had done, we would eventually be toast. I think the attitude at Apple Corporate was, "Hey, the IBM clones would forever be saddled with trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Our Macintosh runs our elegant OS on just 128KB of RAM and a 10MHz clock speed. Why, it would take a megabyte of RAM and a 50MHz processor to do anything similar on a PC!" Bill Gates figured it right: it couldn't be done today, but soon there would be enough brute-force power to make it work. I remember thinking ten years ago, when it was announced that Apple had lost the lawsuit against MS for the "windows" look, that Apple's fate was sealed.

On the other hand, look at Harley-Davidson. Any engineer knows that Japanese bikes just blow Harley away from a technical viewpoint, yet they are not only surviving but thriving. I guess they are different enough that they appeal to a certain class of rider. Maybe Apple will also thrive forever as a 5% market-share player.

BillyBoy wrote on 7/17/2002, 9:49 AM

What do you think of the new crop of Apple commericals? Personally I find them insulting. For those that haven't seen them they have a bunch of dorks all X Windows users explain why they switched to Macs. The message seems to be, hey, if you're really dumb as a rock like me, come on over to Apple and you'll find a home. Not exactly the message you'd want to go for.

riredale wrote on 7/17/2002, 11:48 AM

I haven't seen any ad all the way through yet, but you've got a point. Apple's only real angle these days has been to play the part of rebel, like Harley. When I think of Apple I think of a multimedia guy with perhaps an eyebrow ring, or at least a ponytail. I guess they're trying to appeal to a wider base of users by going back to basics, but one can argue that their new strategy would have had much more effect back when W95 often served up BSODs (Blue Screens of Death). These days, XP is pretty stable.

At one time Apple had a hammerlock on the K-12 market, but at my daughter's elementary school, for instance, all of the Macs have been recently pushed aside for a 30-PC lab (Dells). Right now they are running W2000, but my gut feel is that a gradual transition over to Linux is inevitable.

I love the unusual shapes and designs of the hardware, and am surprised that more of that artsy look hasn't yet caught on with the PC crowd. For example, wouldn't it be nice if I could get my PC housed in a drop-dead gorgeous rosewood enclosure? Or maybe a stainless-steel pyramid shape? Hmmmm....

Chienworks wrote on 7/17/2002, 1:00 PM

I want my computer (whether it be Mac, PC, or some glorified toaster oven with a RISC chip) to have a nice rectangular case and a flat top. The flat top of the case is the only clear spot in my workspace i have left for setting down my Mountain Dew can and snacks. They'd fall of the top of any of those fancy case designs ;)

Seriously though, in a small workspace, i find the flat top of the case invaluable when i need to swap equipment around. My computer serves as a stand for the scanner, VCR, printer, camcorder, tape deck, second PC, etc. each in it's turn.

falz wrote on 7/17/2002, 3:42 PM

If you want to right click, use a PC.

Sorry to be rude, but click-hovering and waiting for 3 seconds is NOT productive. Why does the entire mouse need to be one HUGE button?

vitamin_D wrote on 7/17/2002, 3:57 PM

"...all X Windows users explain why they switched to Macs."

Careful, there -- X Windows is a GUI interface for UNIX :)

"Ex-Windows" would be better.

- jim

riredale wrote on 7/17/2002, 10:53 PM

From what I hear, Apple is migrating to the multi-button mouse too.

Also, if you want a holder for your can of Mountain Dew, just push that button on the front of any PC, and a cool little cupholder pops out. Man, these guys think of everything!

Chienworks wrote on 7/17/2002, 10:56 PM

When i do that, the movie i'm watching stops playing. Dunno why. Very weird.