What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
531 Comments
- inactive, on 10/19/2009, -92/+372Someone wake me up when Mac's don't cost twice as much for the same hardware as a PC, and I won't have to buy another operating system just to play games. kthx.
- Jimmysh, on 10/19/2009, -83/+332For me Windows 7 is a win!
- delirium, on 10/19/2009, -24/+202Seems to be the PC guy knew more about the technical stuff behind Windows. The Apple guy sounded like he was reciting marketing points from Apple.
- silent128, on 10/19/2009, -22/+125Who cares? I wouldn't purchase snow leopard even if it was 10x better then windows because i use windows and i doubt any hardcore mac user will suddenly switch if they see windows being 10x better either. There both good OS's.
- drouk1556, on 10/19/2009, -28/+124They both made valid points up until the part where Jay Paulus called 10.6 a $30 service pack.
Maybe, but Snow Leopard is an incremental upgrade, not an entirely new OS. That's the crucial distinction (and mistake) that's being made in this argument. Windows 7 is a totally different desktop environment than Vista, whereas Snow Leopard is just a rollup of architectural and cosmetic changes from 10.5.
There's a difference between Microsoft's and Apple's OS upgrade strategies. This particular argument is a little bit apples and oranges. - lerkgick, on 10/19/2009, -12/+105I hate pissing contests ...
Some of them are very lame arguments ...
Leopard has bigger icons? LAFFFFFF!!!! - Appox, on 10/19/2009, -19/+107Windows 7. There is nothing 'mac exclusive' that I want, but I do like to play games.
- valkyries, on 10/19/2009, -6/+84maybe next year
- SurrealDream, on 10/19/2009, -6/+74Uh oh, I smell a fight on our hands.
...No, wait, that's Dorito dust. - atgmac, on 10/19/2009, -0/+47Apple are never going to do that. They tried it 15 years ago and it nearly killed them.
The situation is a little different today but the underlying reason is the same: Apple don't make money from the OS, they make it from the hardware. - Locastus, on 10/19/2009, -22/+69Yeah, Mac's are a far better build quality than every one else, even though they're made by the EXACT SAME CHINESE MANUFACTURER - FOXCONN.
You pay an extra $1000 for an operating system with a single hardware config. Good for you! - eobet, on 10/19/2009, -41/+83Buried for PC Mag... when it comes to Apple reporting, they're about as high quality as Fox News.
- Asrrin29, on 10/19/2009, -20/+58I purchased my 2.4 Ghz dual core AMD, 4GB of RAM, 320 GB hard drive, 15.4 inch screen, and nVidia GeForce 9600GT laptop for $800 about a year ago. A MacPro with almost the same exact specs was literally twice as much. don't tell me that macs are cheaper, because they aren't. And yes, mine came with all the extra features like bluetooth, webcam, mic, keypad, HDMI.
- toastrs, on 10/19/2009, -15/+53This flame war already has become quite amusing ;)
I have used both Win 7 Pro and OS X Snow Leopard (on different machines), and I can say they are both great to work (and play) off and are both decent upgrades. But personally I prefer OS X Snow Leopard because of it's workflow (exposé and spaces), and Mac only software (like Coda and Things).
Oh, and for those bitching about Apple's proprietary overpriced hardware: http://lifehacker.com/5360150/install-snow-leopard ... - porl, on 10/19/2009, -5/+41er... you sure about that??
- hitchhiker009, on 10/19/2009, -22/+58I'm a Windows user, and long time .net programmer.
AnyPC/Windows: Covers more ground that osx due to battle testing on every rig under the sun, win7 finally works well.
Mac/MacOSX: Elegant, works perfectly, a joy to use.
If it was a perfect world, honestly, Windows would have been scraped around about ME time - and the Linux community would have reaslised what Mac did - most end users don't have the time to explore the inner workings of their OS - they need clarity in GUI design / functionality - it's about getting stuff done not learning console syntax.
However, as I said before IMHO Win7 is actually a damn decent incarnation of the win family. So, I guess, we'll all soldier on. I really thought Vista would be the death of M$. - ronizlemcdizle, on 10/19/2009, -71/+106Sorry to break this to you, but if you configure similar hardware from Apple and a PC vendor like Dell, you get a similar price. The reason why your desktop running Windows is cheaper than my Mac Pro is because regular PC hardware is crappy. I've even looked recently - sure, you can get a PC laptop for like $400, but by the time you get something decent you're already over $1,000. Add a *good* CPU with a decent amount of cache and you're right up there with the MacBook Pros at $1,400 - $1,800.
The big thing Apple lacks is a mid-range machine between the iMac and the Mac Pro. The iMac is a decent machine, but geeks like me aren't buying an all in one that they can't really upgrade. PCs have a lot of variety in specs - which isn't always a good thing (but certainly is better than no variety at all like Apple seems to have). - overnine9k, on 10/19/2009, -30/+63I have a 5 year old Dell laptop with a Pentium M 1.7GHz processor, 1 GB RAM and a crappy Ati X300 onboard graphics which runs Windows 7 with Aero enabled perfectly fine.
Will your 6 year old laptop be able to run Snow Leopard? - overnine9k, on 10/19/2009, -6/+38except it's not an opinion piece.
- jdfwarrior, on 10/19/2009, -4/+35Are you kidding me? You really think Window 7 is a whole new OS? It's been known forever that Windows 7 was built off of Vista. Windows 7 is basically an optimized version of Vista. What rock have you been living under? With this in mind, Snow Leopard is a $30 upgrade where Windows 7, will cost more. Home Premium upgrade is $120.
Not trying to be a fan boy here, I use both.. But you can't call Snow Leopard just a service pack without calling Windows 7 the same thing. Windows 7 is a "oops, we really screwed the pooch with Vista.. here.. we fixed a few things and rebranded it as a new OS". They did a great job at it, I like Windows 7, but it's not a completely new OS. - Asrrin29, on 10/19/2009, -4/+34You have no clue about gaming platforms. PC's are the best platform. Graphics, controls, online play, price, modding community, everything about a PC blows the competition out of the water. MMO's, RTS's, hell, FPS's are better on the PC.
- hongkongjapie, on 10/19/2009, -13/+41Hate to say it, but Windows 7 is as much a service pack to Vista as Snow Leopard to Leopard. Apple has focussed on steam lining the internals, Microsoft on the User Interface.
- 0260, on 10/19/2009, -14/+41Maybe when apple allows OSX on more than just their hardware would it be a fair fight.
- cthellis, on 10/19/2009, -6/+30Certainly Apple can't claim to take the "lead" in 64-bitness, but it's pretty damn silly of Paulus to complain about which mode OS X boots into by default from one corner of his mouth while claiming that two completely different INSTALLS is "all about choice" and "easing a transition" from the other.
By the same right, it's hard to bring "we've had threads and fiber since 2000" if effectively NOTHING has hit the ground running in the better part of a decade, so far as taking advantage of multi-core goes. It remains to be seen how well-lubricated Grand Central works for developers, but there have been pretty good results on random apps from even smaller developers (as opposed to just the extremely math-heavy ones who were itching to get on top of 64-bit as well), so it seems rather disingenuous to try to write it off as a "queueing mechanism," as if anything extra is meaningless. An API focus for developers and the strength of Microsoft's development tools has been a FOCUS of theirs for a long time; the real question is "why hasn't Microsoft delivered anything substantial for multi-core processors, if they've been at it that long?"
The Dock/Taskbar bit is pretty silly, though... Rather inconsequential bitching from both sides, and in the end it's really going to be up to user appreciation. Both have their pros and cons, and... well... in the end most consumers are likely to continue to do things in old ways anyway.
On backup, there's really nothing for Microsoft to stand on for the general consumer. They've had tools for IT professionals and hardcore geeks to take advantage of (some better than the other), and things like Shadow Copy have been pretty useful, but Apple rolled out theirs to be robust, and TRIVIALLY easy to use, which means that consumers might actually USE it. It's still far more common on the PC side to see it handled by whatever purchase/subscription-based bull comes bundled with your external hard drive. We'll have to see if Windows 7 can deliver on accessability, not just "presence."
The "left behind" debate is also pretty silly, as well, since most people do upgrade only when they pick up a new machine. (And anyone who's been riding on XP for 5+ years isn't going to think about replacing their long-used OS and well-worn desktop icons with a complete reinstall.) You're more likely to catch people who picked up XP right before the Vista release or picked up some XP-downgraded machines, but they're also the ones most likely to say "why bother?" until they're in the market for a new machine anyway. They're obviously not unhappy with XP. Apple takes the larger hit mainly because Mac users are MORE likely to upgrade their old hardware, and they made it IMPOSSIBLE for some to do so. Certainly PowerPC hardware support is dead-end right now (though they might be keeping it going behind the scenes like they did keeping an x86 version in constant development) and it makes more pragmatic sense for them to not spend a lot MORE money to support ONLY old hardware that will make users less likely to buy a new machine (especially since things like Grand Central would have effectively no use at all), but "good for Apple" and "good for Apple developers" does not mean "good for consumers."
"Bundled app" thing is a bit silly... As is the "activation" stuff...
Though I find Paulus' "so what?" comment about the registry odd. I mean, the registry is a giant PITA for no particularly good reason, but shouldn't he be defending the reason it's still there and the advantages it brings? Not saying "so what?" You can slough off activation, but things like the registry and file fragmentation...?
Pricing is a win hands-down for Apple, but Paulus had a good comment about "charging more for the hardware" keeping OS costs down. Same way Apple continues to enhance and deliver their solid app suites, since they don't really make money on them... they're there to enhance the whole machine, which they DO charge a premium for. But the "service pack" is fanboy-baiting *****, and the BEST thing Microsoft could have done this round is made it as simple as XP's was, version-wise, rather than trying to ape Vista. While not as confusing and stupidly splintered as Vista's versions, 7 should really have come in "home" and "business" flavors, and that's that. No "simple" version; just have home run in a different mode. No "ultimate" version putting certain features beyond a huge price barrier; just bundle it all in. (The business version is expensive enough as is.) Especially since business users are MUCH more likely to purchase a full version of Office in conjunction, which is itself stupidly expensive.
Overall, though, a pretty odd interview. Not as fanboy-baiting as they're usually about, but having effectively two marketers go over points for about 30 seconds apiece seems... just lame. I look forward to _actual analysis_. - aychseven, on 10/19/2009, -8/+32oh wonderful. more mac vs. windows nonsense. buried.
- Bigbro69, on 10/19/2009, -2/+24They both bring up good points, and I use both OSes. I can see where each side is coming from, and they both have their advantages and disadvantages. I'm getting pretty sick of the OS war - all OSes have pros and cons; just because an OS doesn't suit you, doesn't mean it won't suit somebody else.
- Kamujin, on 10/19/2009, -7/+28I learned long ago that Apple defenders cherry pick the time when they try the "Apple's are not overpriced" argument. In reality, it does depend on when you are doing the comparison. Apple tends too keep their prices flat all year long, so even if they are 2 weeks away from a massive hardware upgrade, last years model is still being sold at full price. Most PC makers continually reduce the prices of older models throughout the year.
That said, at their best comparison, they are equal in cost, at their worst, the Apple is grossly overpriced. - Ymeg, on 10/19/2009, -3/+23or the year after that...
- talonh, on 10/19/2009, -4/+22I hear McDonald's has a pretty big marketshare. Doesn't mean I want to eat there.
- 7aji, on 10/19/2009, -7/+25hey I read this years ago, is it another Mac vs Windows thingy??
If so, enough already! - kellyrx8, on 10/19/2009, -9/+27you gotta be kidding me.
have you looked at hardware upgrades for a mac?
gtx 285....cheapest I found on the web for a mac....same card different firmware.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0029L6KMK
non-mac gtx 285
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results. ...
same card as above.
That is just a simple example...Mac gets you at hardware and always have and will.
they use the same CPU's, same hard drives, same video cards ( with different firmware, god forbid they be compatible with anyone else) etc. They of course have different motherboards, like most out of the box company's( ie dell, hp, acer etc).
next time look up some prices....you'll see the difference. - jrm125, on 10/19/2009, -10/+28Check your market share, report back when someone cares.
- MattBlackCat, on 10/19/2009, -23/+41"You still have registry and DLL"
SO F****ing WHAT ! - Altotus, on 10/19/2009, -14/+32Actually, that's very true. As a matter of fact, when I had bought the Mac I have on my desk at home, that's precisely what I had done, and there was an identically spec'd Dell combo with 24in monitor, but it cost almost $250 more.
The thing is, though, that going the Windows route gives you much more room for skimping on bit and pieces. Slower bus speeds are popular on Windows PCs, for example -- and you can go a long way not buying a large IPS LCD display. You've simply got more options to cut corners and save on the cost. With Mac, you may have cost parity based on spec, but you have fewer options to make concessions (and the iMac's use of SO-DIMMs means that the high-speed memory they use costs quite a bit).
I went Mac anyway, thought. The form factor was appropriate for the office, it consumed less than half as much electricity as any similarly spec'd PC I could find, I prefer UNIX and don't play many games, and I do a lot of A/V stuff in addition to comp-bio -- so, basically, the Mac was an appropriate choice. It might not be for everyone. - Greengoo, on 10/19/2009, -4/+21Are you retarded?
- themastersb, on 10/19/2009, -5/+22If it turns out being like what XP was to ME then Windows 7 will be a huge success.
- imronburgundy83, on 10/19/2009, -0/+17Best part about this article? I realized I can use my old student email address to download Windows 7 for $30!!!! Thank you pcmag.com!
- MacParrot, on 10/19/2009, -1/+17Apple COULD do it except they would have to first quickly transition to a software only maker for computers. What killed them in the original attempt was trying to have it both ways.
- bradleyland, on 10/19/2009, -1/+17The costs aren't the same. Period. The proof is in the financials. Apple makes margins that are twice to three times as high as Dell.
I'm an Apple user, but I'm not under any delusion that I'm buying at any kind of cost advantage. I bought an Apple computer because I prefer OS X, I like the aluminum unibody construction. I'm willing to pay more to get what I want. - mizatt, on 10/19/2009, -0/+16Ever heard of Steam?
- CressCrowbits, on 10/19/2009, -10/+25"The taskbar took its inspiration from the Dock"
WTF? The taskbar appeared in Windows 95. The Dock in OSX - 2002.
In fact, if we're going to be petty, both of them ripped off RISC OS from 1988.
http://www.khantazi.org/Power/Acorn/RISCOS.jpg - virtorio, on 10/19/2009, -3/+18You gotta watch those pesky "registry and DLL".
- Locastus, on 10/19/2009, -2/+17Not from the ground up, as Windows 7 is built on the Vista kernel, but pretty much everything else has been tweaked and MS reckons the software footprint is smaller than Vista.
- mrBitch, on 10/19/2009, -7/+21@ gamepr0, RE: " .. as much as it does sound like *****, the hardware is better quality. And I don't mean the CPU, GPU or RAM with that, they're identical. I mean the case, the macbook pro trackpad (i'd easily pay 100$ extra for a PC with the macbook pro trackpad), and maybe others I'm missing... there's difference in hardware."
I have to agree about the trackpad. Since I bought this MacBook Pro, I never would have believed that I could use a notebook WITHOUT needing to plug a mouse into it.
The trackpad is just THAT good. - ohplease, on 10/19/2009, -4/+18Sorry I run my games at 1920x1200 with DirectX10+ levels of graphics on an ATI 4890. Are you telling me I should go back three years in graphical horsepower and quality? Also, how people can play an FPS using a tiny joystick to aim vs a mouse is a mystery to me.
- Elranzer, on 10/19/2009, -0/+14Service Packs don't usually get a new taskbar. But that's about it.
- ohplease, on 10/19/2009, -6/+20You're calling your foxconn manufactured mainboard and generic PC parts top shelf hardware? ***** seriously?
- darkism, on 10/19/2009, -9/+22No debate here: Digg users are still firmly fellating Steve Ballmer.
- GoldenChaos, on 10/19/2009, -0/+13Yeah. CS4 does have a funky issue where if you try to save with the file browser visible (as opposed to minimized) the program will crash, but otherwise it's been peachy for me. I'm hoping Adobe releases as update that fixes the saving issue.
- Phatlip012, on 10/19/2009, -6/+19Wake me up when Microsoft releases an OS for $30 or when a PC comes loaded with applications as diverse and good as the iLife suite (which comes with every Mac).
Look, I'm not denying that Macs cost more. I'm just trying to make a point that there are other factors you have to take into account. I think if you do a fair assessment you'll find that Macs don't really cost all that much more.
-Windows User
-Mac User
-Linux User -
Show 51 - 100 of 544 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 