Choosing a computer for college? Mac or PC?

Student Lounge College Life
121

<p>If you're on the fence and don't otherwise care, go with the college's infrastructure. If the college says it supports both Mac and Win equally, go with what you've been using. If you still can't decide, go with a Mac; you'll love it, and it can also run Windows.</p>

122

<p>
[quote]
If you still can't decide, go with a Mac; you'll love it, and it can also run Windows.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or, save the money, just get a PC, dual boot Windows with your choice of many flavors of Linux and UNIX. And since OS X is a very faithful UNIX clone, you don't have much to lose.</p>

123

<p>IT'S...A...COMPUTER. This isn't your spouse, people. Pick one that does what you want/need. It's that freakin' simple. How many Mac vs. PC threads do we need full of fanboys? You are not deciding the fate of the bloody universe, here.</p>

<p>Yes, Macs can cost more-- if you're smart, you don't buy all the upgrades through Apple and do some yourself and save money (RAM, for example). Seriously, it's not that hard to just decide you want to trade one thing for another. </p>

<p>Oh, and all the arguments about "ZOMG THIS COMPUTER I BUILD THRASHES THIS STOOPD MAC" are silly. I couldn't care less how many 3DMarks your Frankencomputer gets. I just want something that lets me do my work and won't subject me to Aero.</p>

124

<p>
[quote]
This isn't your spouse, people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nah, this is way more important that that haha.</p>

<p>Now, if we could only upgrade spouses/significant others...</p>

125

<p>I'd probably have to add more ram, first thing . . .</p>

126

<p>OK, first thing: Vista copied some from Mac OS, and Mac OS X "copied" from Longhorn (in-development Vista). Konfabulator made "widgets" or "gadgets" or whatever you want to call micro applications back in 2002, and the gadget sidebar was present before Dashboard widgets... XP showed thumbnails of files too, mine previewed AVIs and PDFs, among other files... as far as 3D program switching, Expose came out way before "Flip 3D" in Vista, so I'll give you that.</p>

<p>


.</p>

<p>If Microsoft could work out some sort of arrangement where they could run Mac OS X on a PC, I'm sure they'd leap for it. Forgetting the hundreds of devices without OS X drivers, making this impossible for a couple of years, there's the fact that the reason Mac OS X is so valuable is because you only CAN get it on a Mac. Oh, sure, there are "projects" to get it running on a PC, but you run into issues with hardware compatibility, and software updates randomly screw things up. If MS could get a deal to run Mac OS X to run on the same computer as Vista, they'd go for it. Who cares if you're running OS X if you've paid for Vista?</p>

<p>Dell said they were interested in making computers with Mac OS X, Apple said No, and they don't have any intention of just giving away the OS that causes many to buy their hardware.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>True :)</p>

<hr>

<p>


</p>

<p>We'll see, Vista has some issues, but I'm running Ultimate x64 and it runs pretty well. Right now laptop hardware needs to catch up a bit. Most university offered (whether included in tuition or sold by the college) laptops are still XP Pro from what I've seen. In a year or so RAM (4GB and under for x32 OSes like XP- there was XP Pro x64, but it's not widely availible and has almost no drivers) will meet the criterea for x64 and stability should improve. Hardware should reach levels where Vista is run pretty comfortably. A lot of older machines had trouble running XP at launch, not a big surprise. OS X was a bit of a resource hog at launch, although I'll applaud Apple for keeping it up to date and improving it for many years.</p>

<hr>

<p>


</p>

<p>Something we should all keep in mind ;) Really, it's personal preference. Most campuses are Mac friendly nowadays. Art or video majors may prefer Mac OS, engineers may require Windows for specific apps, and just about everyone else has personal preference.</p>

127

<p>We are a house of Mac's, Window's PC's, Linux PC's and Sun Workstations. Desktops and laptops. The one thing we all agree on is that given the choice we would all pick Mac over a Window based PC. And with the new Intel based Mac's you can run both OS so you can run your Windows apps that you desperately have to have. The thing we have found over the long run is that Mac's last longer and not just in hardware longevity, but in real time useage. Every Windows based box has been wonderful for less than a year and within two years we are thinking up excusing to get rid of it. Not so with the Mac's. My 6 year old Ti-book functions too well and its only been in the last year that it became a bit slow and hard to do some things like movie editing. Mac's crash, but they recover nicely. Window's based boxes crash and don't always recover. Not to mention the fact that Vista is pretty, but ugly to use.</p>

128

<p>I doubt mac os can be easily ported to windows. why? because macos is pretty much built to work on a certain spec of hardware(mac hardware only). it's easier to build high quality software if the domain spec is smaller. when you build windows, you have all the problems with backward compatibilities (which prevent good stable OS), lots of hardware to work with. so it's harder to make the OS work. </p>

<p>under the same argument, if macOS were to be built for regular PC, I doubt they will be as stable as they are currently.</p>

129

<p>You hit the nail on the head, pearlygate. Apple has a much smaller hardware base and because they make their own drivers, they don't have to worry about poor quality 3rd party drivers. That's why Vista x64 requires signed drivers from Microsoft; Microsoft is trying to insure crappy drivers don't hurt the reputation of the OS.</p>

<p>There is an illegal project (since the Mac OS X license prohibits one from putting OS X on non apple hardware), but it has so many issues running that it is barely worth mentioning :( ...</p>

130

<p>
[quote]
I doubt mac os can be easily ported to windows.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nope. First, it wouldn't have to be ported to Windows, which is an OS just like OS X.</p>

<p>
[quote]
under the same argument, if macOS were to be built for regular PC, I doubt they will be as stable as they are currently

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They are built for a regular PC. There's nothing special about Mac hardware now that they are running on Intel processors. There's nothing magical in there that any other brand of PC doesn't have. There wouldn't even have to be much of a transition to run OS X on any modern PC. But there's no reason for Apple to allow this to happen. Apple essentially forces you to buy their hardware, at their prices, to run their software.</p>

<p>It's a two edged sword. On one hand they can get to charge whatever they feel like. On the other hand, OS X will never really gain mass acceptance. But Apple is doing well with it, so why change it?</p>

131

<p>"But Apple is doing well with it, so why change it?</p>

<p>Exactly. Apple is making so much money, and gaining market share (in spite of not being the cheapest), who can argue with success? I use a PC at work, and a Mac at home, and so I know why people are willing to pay more for Macs.</p>

132

<p>tetrahedr0n,</p>

<p>The one special thing is that MacOS doesn't have as many different drivers to deal with. I mean, how many options do you have for changing your, say, video card on the Mac? Not many. I remember how much of a headache it used to be upgrading my video cards on my old Athlon XP-based system. Not only did the VIA chipset drivers hate GeForces, the ATi drivers were always slow to deal with new games, etc etc.</p>

<p>Of course this has changed a bit since then, but the point still stands: you never have to deal with VIA vs. Intel vs. (who else makes northbridges these days?) driver issues on the Mac. That's an issue because you get fewer options (and there are some really good non-Intel chipsets out there), but it also means I don't have to dig around the internet for drivers every time I format.</p>

<p>vossron,</p>

<p>I feel the same way as you. Who cares if they turn a profit, and who cares if the computing experience is enjoyable? I see it as win-win for me.</p>

133

<p>
[quote]

Of course this has changed a bit since then, but the point still stands: you never have to deal with VIA vs. Intel vs. (who else makes northbridges these days?) driver issues on the Mac. That's an issue because you get fewer options (and there are some really good non-Intel chipsets out there), but it also means I don't have to dig around the internet for drivers every time I format.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with that. There are benefits to having just a few hardware options. I'm not trying to claim that the only reason Apple does what it does is profit (though I'm certain it's the great part of it.) I was merely stating that if Apple decided to, they could (fairly easily) market OS X on essentially any modern PC.</p>

134

<p>"I'm not trying to claim that the only reason Apple does what it does is profit"</p>

<p>Go ahead and claim that; it's true. Every for-profit public corporation in the U.S. is required by law to try to maximize profits for shareholders. They may have different ways they try to accomplish that goal, but it's the same goal for all.</p>

135

<p>
[quote]
Nope. First, it wouldn't have to be ported to Windows, which is an OS just like OS X.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i guess you misunderstood me, what im trying to say is mac OS to be able to be run on regular PC machine. it's the same as saying "people running windows vista on their mac"</p>

<p>
[quote]
They are built for a regular PC. There's nothing special about Mac hardware now that they are running on Intel processors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>true they're using x86 but I said that the domain spec is smaller by this I mean regular pc is all the configuration windows is able to work with. The domain is certainly much bigger than mac OS. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I was merely stating that if Apple decided to, they could (fairly easily) market OS X on essentially any modern PC.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I doubt they will be able to pull this off easily. for example we have seen how many years linux community had tried solving this compatibility issues but up till now they still haven't resolved the compatibility issue (tackling with driver issue) because windows has a lock on this problem. Entering the regular PC market would cost apple so much that it won't be worth entering at all.</p>

<p>MSFT on the other hand could enter the "specialized" market easily IMO, what they need to do is basically make their own hardware ( like apple) or make a specific hardware set that this OS will work on. Then build a new "windows" let's call it "unique premium windows" and only allow this OS to work with specific hardware set (like apple). I bet this OS will be very stable, secure and has fewer bugs/virueses (provided they don't care so much about backward compatibility with windows 95,98, ME, lol :p) in fact they can just overhaul the old kernel and start everything from scratch using new OS paradigm and such.</p>

136

<p>You're absolutely right about OS X not running well on commodity PC hardware. The OSx86 project, which has been attempting to create "Hackintoshes" (i.e. a non-Mac that runs OS X) for a long time, has had a very hard time doing this. </p>

<p>As a business, Apple should definitely keep OS X to their "special" hardware. This way, people will be willing to pay a huge premium to get that overpriced Mac hardware, just so they can have OS X. It also lets Apple not have to focus on producing lots of drivers and gives them complete control over the final product.</p>

<p>Another thing: with PCs, you get a lot of crapware on an OEM (Dell, HP, Sony, etc.) system because their bottom line is threatened by the competitive nature of the market; they'll do anything to squeeze a couple more bucks out of a PC they're selling, whereas Apple would risk losing its pristine image amongst the customers if it started pulling that ****. It all works in Apple's favor by keeping OS X exclusive to Apple hardware.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd build a computer (buy it from an OEM if it's a laptop) and run Linux. Windows is OK, but I'd never use a Mac/OS X out of choice. But that's just me :P</p>

137

<p>srunni,</p>

<p>Overpriced is relative. It depends on what you think is the point of a computer. If a computer is just semiconductors and an LCD and some moving parts, then maybe it is overpriced. If a computer is a productivity tool, then it's not overpriced in the least. There is a rather pervasive idea amongst "power users" that if it doesn't get 50K PCMarks/3DMarks, then it's just underpowered and you suck and should stop posting. </p>

<p>It's silly. A computer is about getting things done. One can argue all one wants about the millisecond difference between having this or that component, but if the system itself is not stable and can't provide me access to a productive environment, what's the bloody point? Who cares if that frankencomputer is overclocked 75% if I can't run Office properly?</p>

<p>The Macbook is actually a pretty good price for a product that most people enjoy using. The MBP is a bit expensive, but after the student discount, I found it compared favorably to other "high-end" products. I'm not trying to build a suped-up Supra here. I just want a stock Lexus that gets the job done.</p>

<p>(ed. note: when I was in high school/undergrad, Supras were cool. I know I'm old. Shush.)</p>

138

<p>I'm just saying this out of my personal experience: my HP Pavilion dv9700t cost me $900. A similarly specced MBP would be around $3000 (MacBook isn't an option, as the screen is 17"). I'm sure there are cases where the price difference isn't that big.</p>

<p>As for the idea of "getting things done" being more important, I'm not one to get a ridiculously high end computer even though I am a power user. Ubuntu and Gentoo run just fine on any average PC, so I'm OK with a $900 laptop as my main computer. Stability isn't an issue for me, as I don't use Windows anyway. </p>

<p>But from a purely hardware standpoint, Macs seem overpriced. I'd build a desktop anyway, and that's cheaper than any OEM on a mid to high range desktop. I already mentioned the MBP price issue, and I'd never get a laptop with a smaller screen, but that's just my personal situation.</p>

<p>Also, the single mouse button on the MacBooks is frustrating, not to mention the lack of a numpad on the 17" MBP. If the MBP had those 2 things and had the option of selling without OS X, I'd take it any day over any other 17" laptop, provided it wasn't overpriced. But I know that's not going to happen :P</p>

139

<p>srunni,</p>

<p>I built a HP Pavilion dv9700t on the website to match the low end 17" Macbook Pro. It was $1600. Not the 17" MBP at $2700, to be sure, but not $900. I did spec for spec matching, including bluetooth and the same video card. You also have to add in the warranty.</p>

<p>Of course, we can't truly do a proper comparison because the MBP has features that the HP does not (multi-touch trackpad, iSight, about a pound lighter), and the HP has features the MBP does not (media card reader.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
As for the idea of "getting things done" being more important, I'm not one to get a ridiculously high end computer even though I am a power user. Ubuntu and Gentoo run just fine on any average PC, so I'm OK with a $900 laptop as my main computer. Stability isn't an issue for me, as I don't use Windows anyway.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I respect your decision to go with Linux, but for most of us it's just not an option. I cannot use OOo, for example, and am stuck with Office (for better or for worse.) </p>

<p>
[quote]
But from a purely hardware standpoint, Macs seem overpriced. I'd build a desktop anyway, and that's cheaper than any OEM on a mid to high range desktop. I already mentioned the MBP price issue, and I'd never get a laptop with a smaller screen, but that's just my personal situation.</p>

<p>Also, the single mouse button on the MacBooks is frustrating, not to mention the lack of a numpad on the 17" MBP. If the MBP had those 2 things and had the option of selling without OS X, I'd take it any day over any other 17" laptop, provided it wasn't overpriced. But I know that's not going to happen :P

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The single button works because it works in OS X, which is the core purpose of the machine. Of course if you want to strip it of OS X and use another OS, then yeah... you need an external mouse.</p>

<p>For me, the MBP offers me a lot a "freetard" (thanks Fake Steve Jobs!) machine does not:</p>

<ul>
<li> access to a nationwide support network in case something goes wrong (Apple Store)</li>
<li> access to every OS </li>
<li> smaller and lighter form factor</li>
<li> clean work environment (both computer and OS)</li>
<li> no bloatware</li>
</ul>

<p>The first one matters the most to me. I hated having a Dell, Compaq, and Toshiba. Every time something went haywire, it was a little game on the phone-- "Who supports them? How long with it take to get fixed? Who do I even call first?"</p>

<p>With Dell, it was a fun little "wait 3-100 weeks for them to send the part and have them make you fix it."</p>

<p>With Compaq and Toshiba, it was "wait 4 hours to get through to someone at a call center who will send you to some 3rd party repair place that will just mail it out to Compaq or Toshiba anyway. And wait 3 to 100 weeks.</p>

<p>With Apple, I just walk into the Apple store, drop it off, and pick it up a few days later.</p>

140

<p>HP had a discount in the post-holiday shopping season...of course, Apple has no discounts ever and completely controls the prices at which 3rd party retailers sell their products, so you have to buy their computers at that one price. It is true that the configuration was slightly different - the MBP had a 2.2 GHz processor, whereas the HP had a 2.0 GHz processor and some other additional features such as a fingerprint reader; also, this was prior to the MBP upgrade a few weeks back. There is a webcam included in the HP, so the equivalent of iSight is available.</p>

<p>As for Office, I'm not stuck with OpenOffice.org - I can run Word, Excel, and PowerPoint 2003 in Wine with absolutely no problems at all. If I need Office 2007, I run it in VirtualBox, which has a "seamless" mode similar to Parallels' coherence mode. You can sync the desktops/documents folders between the Windows virtual machine and Linux, making it a completely seamless experience.</p>

<p>Having access to every OS is available for me too, except for OS X, which isn't available purely because Apple refuses to allow non-Mac PCs to install OS X on them. That seems to have more to do with Apple's policies than the other computers lacking something. I have no bloatware problems at all, as I installed XP over Vista right away to use as my Windows OS. And I don't really understand what you mean by a "clean work environment"...your points about the support and the form factor are true though. They don't seem worth the additional price though, not to mention the fact that there are a plethora of PC laptops available, so there are ones of a smaller size, if that's a factor. As for support, there's no doubt that people have had horror stories with many Windows OEMs, but that doesn't mean Apple is free of consumer complaints. That area seems like a matter of personal experience.</p>

<p>The integrated experience with OS X is what really turns me off - I've used OS X extensively for development and it has proven frustrating to no end. I'm willing to pay the Windows tax for a non-Mac laptop though, as there are no hardware restrictions, such as the one-button mouse, preventing me from being able to truly use another OS.</p>