Apple...a new fruit...

If this qestion has been asked, and I'm sure it has, by all means give me a link and enlighten me. But, if not here we go...

I know nothing about Apple Laptops. But having just purchased a iPad (I'm not here to debate the iPad, PC's, Microsoft, etc...) I've began to notice something...Apple systems just work. I recently returned an Alienware M11x R2 because of issues with Optimus, I'm tired of constant driver updates, Windows updates that fail for some reason, constant issues with my anti-virus being a system hog...blah blah...(again not a challange to any PC fan boy, just my own experience) Anywho, I've noticed that even high end Mac Laptops and Desktops don't see to have the high end hardware I see in high end or even mid level PC's. But I've seen first hand Mac's playing modern high demand games with what sometimes looks like half the system power of a gaming PC. Why is that? What's different with the programing and wiring?

 

Apple's OS X is UNIX based which tend to be more efficient than Windows in utilizing hardware. Apple also engineers both the operating system and the hardware it runs on allowing them to better optimized their code since they don't have to cater to dozens of PC manufacturers producing each their own customized PCs.

Having said that... Have a look at the Mac Pro, not many systems out there offering dual 6 core CPUs with a HD 5870 GPU and 2TB of SSD...

 

Yeah I was thinking of that too. THEY JUST WORK. I just bought mines about 2 weeks ago.
Apples come in X-Small 13" white, Small 13", Medium 15", Large 17". Pick your size and then choose what flavor you want. You dont have to worry about mixing and matching cpus, gpu, boards, etc. Unlike other companies who have 30 different models, 160 configs for each model, and nothing but headaches. It felt like the laptops i had, always had bottlenecks (cpu, gpu, screen, board, etc.)

However I am complaining about the heat

 

Windows still has a serious serious edge on graphics performance, unfortunately.

A lot of that is because game developers spend a TON of time and resources optimizing their code for windows graphics libraries, because that is what most of their customers use.

Still- modern 3d games perform MUCH better on windows than a mac with equivalent hardware. You can even install windows on your macintosh to verify this.

Also, that gap may close as companies are already shifting focus to the mac as a gaming platform. The potential graphics performance of future games in Snow Leopard is basically equity with windows.

 

Well that's because you're not looking in the right place. Mac Pros are workstation class computers. Dell Precisions, HP Z series and Lenovo's ThinkStations provide the same amount of punch. Not to mention that I personally can build a system with 4 six core processors. Well, if I had the money.

It could be that you're seeing Mac gamers running at lower resolutions. Their hardware isn't half bad, but it's not gaming grade. As efficient as OSX may be, it's not a gaming oriented platform. But for most of the people out there (those with console games), that doesn't really matter in the first place. Gamers are a relatively small niche in the sea of computer users out there, and Apple does a good job catering to the mainstream user.

 

still wondering why on earth apple dropped a lower cost gaming card in a workstation and not a proper card like a FirePro or Quadro .....

as for dual 6 cores ..... not a problem. Look at some of the worksataion machines based off 4 12 core Opterion Processors on a Tyan Motherboard

 

Guys, did I say there weren't any? I said there aren't many out there...

 

wel THB there are actually quite a number of them from almost all manufacturers but you dont see them in normal day to day use.

and Mac Pros and many workstations actually make crappy gaming machines due to them more designed for data flow and rendering raw data.

 

Unless Microsoft starts to produce there own computers I feel Apple will always have an advantage.

When I need an update I just go into software update and everything is done for you. Bug fixes, drivers, updates, etc. With other companies it usually ends up being something like "please go to X website/third-party to get the latest update!" then you need up having to go to 10 different places to keep everything up to date. Assuming you don't need to mod the files or whatever. Plus I think other manufacturers get paid by companies to put bloatware on your systems.

 

Starting with Vista, there is the option of getting driver updates through Windows Update. However, IMO, it doesn't always work right. It has, several times, just downloaded a Synpatics touchpad driver that would randomly decide to just stop working. As a result, I personally keep my updates as manual in all of my OSes, though auto is much better for most people.

 

^^ this is true..

OT: DreamColor Drool!

 

The workstation Xeon CPUs are designed for number crunching, database applications, and server operations, not for running general purpose multimedia apps and gaming, like the Pentium class CPUs. Even Arrandales are evolved Pentium class CPUs.

 

There is certainly advantages to a UNIX based OS, but I don't understand you saying you play "modern high demand games" with better performance than a Windows machine when there isn't any out there?

COD:4 is 3 years old now and is hardly processor intensive. Starcraft 2 runs virtually identically and Team Fortress 2 is more of a tech demo than a real contender.

Surely OSX is more stable than Windows to a general user but to say it's better for gaming is a stretch since there really are no games for OSX yet. Maybe the future will hold more promise for Apple but that's not their target demographic anyways so I doubt they lose sleep over it.

There's 3 types of computers - gaming, production and casual.

PC's are optimal for gaming and high-end production as they are cheaper and can run at much, much faster speeds. They are also a lot more stable in terms of OC'ing and aren't limited to one case design (the design of the case is extremely important for heat dissipation).

OSX delivers a far better user experience which is why it's being adopted by industries that require computers but not necessarily technical savvy people. It's great for general use. A Mac with a good DAC is almost required for any design team unless they've adopted pro-tools.

Windows is plagued with driver-disease and it does sometimes get annoying, but the reason for that is the parts in a PC are generally so cutting-edge they aren't even finished. Macs are always developed to an extremely stable point before they are unleashed on the public.

Macs are great for day-to-day use. No question there. When I'm tasked with editing some general photos I'll throw them on my iMac before my workstation desktop.

When it comes down to processing extremely large files (like Photoshop or 3D renders) the PC gets the job every time due to the sheer power it has.

And gaming goes to the PC not only because Macs have a very limited library at this time, but with things like SLI and CrossfireX there's no question as to which one is a better performer in terms of gaming. Add on a screaming quad-core processor that turbos with a real liquid cooling system and a PC will tear up any game to date. It's just unfortunate we're stuck using Windows.


P.S Does anyone know why Mac Pros have no RAID0 option for SSDs? With 4x512gb SSD's surely you'd want to run them in RAID or that would be pointless...

 

Actually I just remembered using Microsoft/Windows update on my old XP system a couple years ago, and it did have a bunch of updates for my soundcard, video drivers, and what not. But they were usually out of date. Wasn't bad but you had to do it manually and it also had to scan your system which on my old computer was like 20mins. Maybe its better now? Or still a wild goose chase?

 

Joke of the year.

 

cuz its a workstation... raid 0 isn't really that safe...

 

ROFL. That's possibly the best thing I've heard in a while. There is NO architectural difference in a current desktop Core i7 and a Xeon. NONE. Usually the Xeon's get more cores because server applications are usually multi-thread aware. Pentium is simply a branding, with even the Pentium's now sharing the Arrandale/Clarkdale platform.

 

CoD:4 runs a bit worse on identical hardware on the mac. Starcraft 2 runs a LOT worse (maybe 50%). Source games like Half Life 2 and team fortress 2 and counter strike source and portal run a lot worse also.

 

Could you talk anymore down about OS X and give more props to Windows? PC Fanboying at it's best.

 

It doesn't sound like you've used more a recent Mac since Apple's latest graphics update some weeks ago. Many people will completely disagree with you. The performance of those games in question are almost on par with Windows now, if not the same.

 

Can you provide any concrete examples? Many people wonder what is behind Apple's "magnificent machines", but the reality is that Apple does not use magical hardware. The differences lie elsewhere.

Apple computers use the exact same hardware as Windows-based computers; the difference is that Apple limits OS X to a narrow range of intensively tested and optimized hardware. The reason for this, Apple says, is that the company can then ensure the user has a relatively trouble-free and supposedly superior user experience due to the tighter hardware-software integration. Meanwhile, Microsoft places few constraints on what hardware their OS runs.

The sum of the differences between Mac OS X and Windows (or the Mac vs PC debate, if you prefer) is attributable to the differing design philosophies of the two companies; Apple prefers to exert greater control over what users can run (hardware/software), while Microsoft takes an approach that conforms with one of Gates' most famous statements years ago: that the company's goal should be to have Windows running in every home.

As a matter of personal opinion, the reasons for these differing philosophies is extremely complicated and beyond me, but I do believe that Microsoft's approach is largely motivated by money. As for Apple's motivations, I can't say. Jobs is an eccentric man, and eccentricities are difficult to understand.

Which platform is better? That question is irrelevant. It's like asking whether a Phillips-head screwdriver is better than a Robertson. They're both tools in a toolbox; use the right tool for the job, and you'll likely have a better experience in using computers in your day-to-day life. It truly is that simple. My signature attests to this fact.

I'm not sure what examples you can provide to back up this claim, but in any case OS X is a derivative of a derivative of Unix. While it has Unix 03 certification and is POSIX compliant, significant changes have been made to the OS for Apple's obvious purposes. Aside from the superficial changes, the XNU kernel is based on the Mach kernel developed at Stanford University for research purposes.

OS X is very much Unix-like, but it isn't Unix. To say that it is based on Unix is also a stretch, given that it is a distant relative. It is, however, Unix- like.

 

If that was the reason I'd expect the Mac Pro to support much higher level RAIDs then... RAID 10 would be optimal.

I don't know how that's a joke. A computer running two brand new 5970's in CrossfireX is bound to have problems as new software is released, so drivers for Windows are constantly being released to combat that.

Macs don't really need driver updates since there's no new hardware-intensive applications like games being released every few weeks.

So if you don't like updating drivers and don't game, Macs win.

I never gave any props to Windows. It sucks. Windows 7 is a huge improvement, but OSX is still much more user-friendly for general users who want to do things like manage photos, surf the web and listen to music (sort of, iMacs have no sound card option).

But that doesn't change the fact that a Windows machine can be much, much more powerful and thus get work done much faster for much cheaper. And if you play games, OSX is immediately out of the question, since there are very few games that run on OSX.

In a perfect world Apple would stop focusing on developing computers and sell their OS as a stand-alone. Having the ability to install OSX on any computer would boost their sales by a huge amount.

 

i think the real reason is they just haven't gotten a good RAID controller yet that can run the SSDs. The RAID card they sell right now will run pretty much any RAID you want, just not with SSDs.

 

Thank you. Now I'm convinced, you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about, period.

 

I like the way you presented your facts and your logical reasoning that support that statement.

 

Because Apple and Microsoft honestly are two different companies....

Apple builds a "platform" for you to buy into...they engineer the hardware specs, drivers and software so they can make it all work together

Microsoft is a "software" company that sells an OS that must intermingle with as many components as possible between MS itself, the hardware vendors who design their own hardware/software and then of course there are the drivers by said companies. So the real issue isn't necessarily MS but the manufactures who build these systems...they simply put hardware and software together with some drivers and say hear you are...and Apple knows this which is why if you notice they aren't trying to grow by leaps and bounds, they are just trying to get more market share but the problems you've seen with some of their more recent products just shows this can happen to anyone, in fact Apple is "now" the most compromised company in the world in terms of hacks...all you have to do is become popular to gain attention and certainly Apple has accomplished that

this is not a simple black and white issue and I've personally configured windows xp/7/vista boxes that are rock solid to this day because I provide support for the ones I build .... once you get good drivers, and the "stable" programs that people need/want....it's just as solid as OSX

one last thing....look on ebay for used mac machines and you'll see they are just as fallible as any other....laptops with cracks, dents, dings, scratches they have "told" is just "normal" no big deal...hmmmm

 

Not sure what you really mean by that. Apple's engineers do not alter the hardware in any way. They just pick certain parts and only need to code for those specific ones. Macs provide a very mid ranged computer experience for what is essentially a top end price. It's a better system than PC building when stability is the goal, but limits the user because...

1) They cannot choose top-of-the-line parts. There is no support for SLI or CrossfireX.
2) They cannot upgrade these parts. They are limited to the products supplied by Apple.
3) They cannot connect PCI-e devices such as Auzentech sound cards.
4) There is no option to select what case you want for cooling purposes. In the iMac case, you are stuck with very limited selection in connections.

OSX drivers seem very stable since they are never pushed close to their breaking point but if there was software for Macs like Futuremark and games like Metro 2033 we would start to see it fall apart quickly. The same can be said with Windows, though, as people will never really run into a driver issue while not using a hardware intensive application.

Apple consumers figure "Well, my $500 Dell PC is plagued with problems, runs slow and can't do much. I will now save up some money and buy a premium Apple computer which won't have the same problems." Of course, upon receiving it, it runs astoundingly fast and everything is great. This is how they built up such a strong name in the first place.

But, consumers generally avoid >$1000 PCs due to the fact that they are either unaware that high-end PCs exist or are intimidated by the fact they are usually branded as "gaming" PCs (which are notoriously unstable for GAMING, reasons mentioned above). A high-end Windows platform will be just as stable as OSX for day-to-day use. Essentially they could still serve the same function, a computer is a computer!

 

Wait a second... what?

 

dum dee, dum dee, dum dee. Oh, wait, I know what I was thinking....

This discussion has (as this topic always does) disintegrated into a "PCs are better than Apple products -- No, they're not, you don't know what you're talking about" mud-slinging competition.

I hope the mods lock this one down soon - the same story over and over gets tiring

 

Just as soon as I get an answer to my question.

 

me too ... I was wondering if he meant high end audio cards???????

 

What I meant was if you want decent headphone sound quality from a Mac you need an external DAC that runs on firewire for another couple hundred bucks (or USB, but there aren't really enough USB ports for that).

There is also optical output on iMacs for surround sound systems but it is greatly inferior to the quality you would need to get good quality audio from a surround sound system.

Either way, a DAC is almost required unless you use tin cans as earphones!

I really like how this is the only section of NBR that seems to approve of biased and uneducated reviews. If someone were to compare a Toshiba laptop to a Dell laptop with researched facts on another section of this forum, there's no problem. Here, if someone mentions Windows in the same paragraph as Apple, they're immediately called a "fan boy".

I guess this truly is a testament to the powers of corporate identity and product branding. People can completely ignore fact and research to defend their chosen brand.

I think that Apple users should be putting the pressure on Apple to at least keep up to date with the newest technologies. If they believe their products are perfect as-is then they will never see a reason to change them.

As it stands right now, if Macbook Pros were at least comparable to other high-end laptops of that price range or if OSX was installable on any computer, I'd be sold in a heartbeat.

 

When you configure your mac, it just comes with sound... you do not have multiple options of what sound device you want to choose. Thats what it sounds like was being said.

no.. its the simple "fact" that you believe what is being said, or you are saying are "facts." Too many people come in here spouting off "facts" that are nothing but 100% pure opinion, and they cannot understand the difference.

 

Seriously now.

Seriously now x 2.

Seriously now x 3.

Here's the thing, latest and greatest tech... looks like Intel ( et al) has you in the throes of their "corporate identity and product branding." Think about it. Many two year old notebooks are underutilized by their owners who aren't running resource intensive programs. If you're mostly browsing the web, using Office, picture editing, music, etc (in that vain) what do you need the latest and greatest for? To shave off a few secs or fractions of a sec to this or that?

This isn't a defense of Apple. It's a retort to the oft proffered argument against Apple's prices versus specs. Sony, Panasonic, HP, etc. has/had systems that were/are "overpriced" based on their specs. Big deal. If they don't sell, those systems get discontinued.

There's more to any one system than just its "specs."

Can't afford or justify the price of tech, don't buy it. However, you don't have to validate your reasons or worse, disparage others for their preferences and choices.

That said... THREAD CLOSED.

If I got paid 5 quid for every thread I've closed because they degenerate into this sort of thing... well... I'd have a 5 more quid. And that's saying something. Not sure what though.