<p>I am planning on being a biochem or environmental science major at UC Berkeley next year. Should I get a PC or Mac? I don't know which is recommended, I checked their website and couldn't find anything.</p>
<p>I love PCs and have using them since I was 12 or so. I love Dells, they are the only ones we have ever had at my house.</p>
<p>I love Macs and they are really easy to use. I love Macbooks, they are the only ones ive used in the last 3 years. </p>
<p>Cue the raging debate</p>
<p>Does it even matter? It's not as if there's some serious deficiency in terms of function in one or the other. Most schools should support both. For the average student, either would do admirably. If you like OSX and want to use it, get a mac. If you don't mind not having OSX and want a budget laptop, get a PC. If you want OSX and want it cheap, get a used mac. If you don't like macs, get a PC.</p>
<p>Macbook would be your best choice. You have every benefit of a PC, plus many more, laid out simply in front of you..not a bunch of random icons floating around. No viruses. Sleek and trendy. </p>
<p>Need to run something in Windows? Run it through bootcamp, the shutting down/booting up process from Mac -> Windows takes ~2-3 minutes at most.</p>
<p>Is it true that Macs have less viruses, not because they’re less prone, but because virus-makers focus on PC’s because they are/were more widely used?</p>
<p>The short answer: It doesn’t matter.</p>
<p>I agonized over the Mac-based PC vs. Windows-based PC debate from January to March while waiting for my student refund to hit. I had a large budget for my new computer (my personal limit was $1500 but I had a bit more) so price wasn’t a huge concern, so I was comparing the computers solely on performance. I went to the Apple store and played with the MacBooks, asked just about every Mac owner I knew a million annoying questions, compared models online, etc.</p>
<p>In the end, I settled with a Sony VAIO. I’d like to note that I am a first-year graduate student, and not a college undergrad, but there were several reasons I personally chose the VAIO: it was cheaper, Windows was compatible with more of the programs that I had and I didn’t want to run Windows on a Mac computer all the time (it makes no sense), I’m more familiar with the Windows OS and the specs on similarly priced Windows-based PCs are WAY better. My computer has a faster processor, more RAM, more hard drive space and all the ports I need (HDMI, VGA) without requiring an external adapter and was still cheaper than the Apple.</p>
<p>However, with the prevalance of portable external hard drives up to 500 GB (and non-portable ones that carry much more) and cheap RAM all over the Internet (upgrading the RAM on your Mac is easy as pie and takes about 5 minutes), or if you’re just not a gadget hound, none of that stuff may matter. In the vast majority of cases, students don’t NEED anything faster than 2.0 GHz and don’t need more than 2 GB of RAM (Mac OSX uses up less RAM than Vista anyway so my hard-won 4 GB is being eaten by Vista’s huge RAM-eating monster anyway, and it probably runs about the same speed as Mac OSX with 2 GB of RAM) or anything bigger than 160GB. The only thing I can really make the case for is the HDD, and you can buy an external with 250 GB on it for less than $100 nowadays.</p>
<p>So basically, it doesn’t matter – just buy what you think looks better or whatever operating system you think will work better for you. The lifespan of a laptop is only about 3-4 years anyway, so once you get out of college you will have the choice to select the one you didn’t buy.</p>
<p>For the love of God, though, if you do by a Windows-based machine with Vista pre-loaded on it, plz plz plz get at the very least 2 GB of RAM, and I really recommend 3. Most college students are multitaskers. Also, don’t believe the hype about Vista; try it out yourself. I actually like it as an operating system, and my favorite parts are ironically the similarities to the Mac OSX.</p>
<p>^Vista can be configured quite easily so that it’s running fewer processes (many of which are defaulted to ‘on’ even though they are non-critical) and thereby using less RAM. The OS will then boot up and shut down faster and also load programs faster. And, remember to always keep your desktop as uncluttered as possible. Also, turn off all the irritating security features and uninstall any crapware that might have been bundled with your computer. Do this and I can guarantee you’ll enjoy the Vista experience.</p>
<p>nj<em>azn</em>premed: Or you could just buy a Mac. It’s silly to expect people to jump through hoops to “enjoy the Vista experience.”</p>
<p>You’re mostly going to be typing papers, browsing the Internet, chatting online, etc.* A MacBook will do all those things smoothly and easily, and you won’t have most of the problems that all the PC users have. It’ll be your best friend throughout school. I’ve never had to swear at my MacBook, and that’s something I can’t say for any other laptop I’ve ever used.</p>
<ul>
<li>engineering and comp sci majors and avid gamers would probably look elsewhere.</li>
</ul>
<p>First off…Macs ARE technically PCs. So this is really a Windows vs Mac battle, is it not?</p>
<p>With that aside, I proclaim myself to be a loyal Windows user. Windows is highly versatile, and (with the potential exception of Vista) will run on anything. Try doing that on a Mac (legally, anyway). The all-in-one price premium on a Mac is hardly justified if you don’t want to be locked into a very narrow subset of often proprietary hardware options. For instance, I was able to build a high-end, quad-core, gaming-capable Windows machine with commodity parts for just over $600. By comparison, a Mac with similar hardware specs would cost you well north of $1,500 (and that’s a conservative estimate). Unless you have a very specific reason for needing Mac OS, I would say that there is simply no way to justify getting a Mac.</p>
<p>Furthermore, what can you do on a Mac that you couldn’t do on a PC? People often cite Macs as being good for artists and creative professionals, but as evidenced by the available software out there, this is simply not the case. High-end packages like Adobe Photoshop, Maya, etc. run on both Mac and Windows. Windows haters often cite Apple’s Mac-only Final Cut video editing software, but this is tempered by Adobe’s Premiere, which is just as capable, if not more.</p>
<p>Naturally, this leads to the converse: what can you do on Windows that you can’t do on Mac? Take for example HD video. Windows, more or less beginning with XP, is capable of accelerating HD video playback by offloading the task to your graphics card (given that the graphics card supports this). Recent Intel Macs actually have the hardware necessary for HD video acceleration, but Mac OS lacks the software or driver support necessary. This gives more credence to the argument that Macs, especially the newer Intel models, are nothing more than commodity hardware with a price premium.</p>
<p>Many users of Macs brag that they never get viruses. To them I say, neither have I - and I use Windows. Quite simply, any Windows computer that is up-to-date, fully patched, and adequately protected will NOT become infected. For example, the Conficker worm spread mainly because of a vulnerability that Microsoft had patched back in October. Only those who had not yet installed the patch were vulnerable to infection. And keeping current need not be difficult; Windows Update can automatically take care of that. (That’s why Microsoft RECOMMENDS that Windows Update be set to “Automatic”). If Macs enjoyed the popularity of Windows, no doubt there would be a much larger variety of malware for it, too.</p>
<p>Finally, many Apple fans worship Intel Macs’ capability to natively dual-boot Windows through Boot Camp.This feat is possibly only because Windows shares the x86 platform of the Intel Macs. Additionally, Mac lovers scoff at the inability to boot Mac on a Windows machine. Perhaps they should be laughing at Apple itself, for Mac OS’s license specifically prohibits running Mac OS on non-Apple hardware. Microsoft made no such restriction on Windows, thereby “allowing” Windows-on-Mac and Boot Camp. The last blow to this flawed argument is the existence of hacked (but illegal) loaders that patch the Mac installer and kernel to work on a wide variety of commodity hardware (hence the name Hackintosh).</p>
<p>Once again, unless you can soundly justify the hefty price premium of getting a Mac, DON’T. Some people might complain about Microsoft’s monopoly, but they have a monopoly for a good reason: Windows is a fully featured, functional, and versatile operating system that will adequately serve the needs of the vast majority of users.</p>
<p>@silvestris: Since when did Windows users have problems surfing the web, chatting, or typing papers? Even your most basic computer can handle these tasks - definitely not something you NEED a Mac for. I have never witnessed any Windows users having problems with these most mundane of uses for a computer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know what’s funny? Optimal Vista performance results from no tweaking whatsoever. That’s why I say only stubborn and arrogant people have issues with Vista. People who don’t care about anything except “…typing papers, browsing the Internet, chatting online, etc…” probably don’t even know what a tweak is and so will have a pleasant Vista experience, and people who love computers but aren’t afraid to get advice from others know that Vista works best when left alone.</p>
<p>As others have said, the appropriate question is “Windows or OS X???” Keep the following in mind:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Macs can run Windows natively and painlessly. It takes considerably more effort to run OS X on a non-Apple PC, but it’s been done before by many people. (There’s an entire community dedicated to it.)</p></li>
<li><p>Apple has a far more limited lineup than HP, Dell, Lenovo, and so forth. There are always huge jumps in price and power with Macs, whereas non-Apple PCs have more gradations. For example, there is no consumer Mac midtower. You choose between an all-in-one system (iMac) or a professional workstation (Mac Pro), neither of which fits the bill if you’re looking for a Mac that is highly upgradeable but starts at under $2300. But this type of system is ubiquitous in the Windows world.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
Yes, but isn’t it silly to pay $1000 more for a software change when the hardware is comparable?</p>
<p>@fabrizio: Totally agree about Vista working best when left alone. IMO it’s more a question of “can your hardware handle it?” I have 4GB of RAM and Vista just flies. Very happy with it. It seems that all of the complaints about Vista stem from insufficient hardware.</p>
<p>
+1
Those guys just need to upgrade their hardware. Seriously, with the cost of RAM nowadays, if you can’t spend $50 to get 4GB of RAM, then you do’t have any business spending $1000 more on a Mac because it “looks cool.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yh the reason there were so many complaints about Vista at the start were</p>
<p>1) Driver incompatibilities, which almost all of those have been fixed and weren’t completely Microsoft’s problem to begin with</p>
<p>2) Microsoft allowed computer companies to put the Vista capable sticker on computer’s they knew would not run it well so Intel could sell some of their weaker processors more easily.</p>
<p>Also after July 1st I believe all computers sold with them will be eligable for a free upgrade to Windows 7, which I can say is definitely better than Vista in all the right ways. Nothing major, just a few of the small problems are fixed and it runs smoother and quicker than Vista.</p>