to switch or not to switch

I've always owned PC..I know them and understand them. I like that I can find applications, lots of hacks and work arounds for my particular way of working or current needs, lots of freeware...and with that comes lots of wait, freezes and reboots.

I'm going to buy a new laptop. It will be Core 2. It will have 2 gigs of memory and a lovely 17" monitor. The biggest question for me is, is it time to give up rebooting and switch to mac.

The reasons I wouldn't switch:
- I know PC, Mac is unknown...this will be my only machine and it will be used for work (graphic designer)
- I can't use 2 external monitors...the only reasonable workaround is a large widescreen, I currently have 2 19" monitors.
- It will be a bit more expensive. This only comes from the software, the hardward initially is pretty even. Though I can imagine adding things will be more expensive on a mac.
- I've heard some things can be a pain in mac that are flawless in XP. For example something as simple as reading from a thumb drive.

The reasons I would switch:
- I hate how slow my OS is. It crawls, freezes and I know that I need to reboot at least every other day. My friend who has a mac forgot his password because he hadn't rebooted in months!
- It's fast. This was a 2 or 3 year old macbook and applications opened quickly, I could bounce back and forth. Things that would take my 3 year old desktop a while to go back and forth between.
- I don't play games which seems to be the only downfall I can find.

So all that too say, most of you made the decision to switch or to start with mac? How would you answer these pros/cons. Am I missing any pros/cons?

Thanks a ton!

...I also posted this in the Windows OS section, hope that was okay, wanted to get both opinions.

 

I find Macs to be extremely overpriced for what they are, you would be much better off getting a solid PC and just running unix or linux on it instead of Windows (OSX ofcoarse is unix). There are plenty of Mac fanboys out there that will claim Macs are better for this and that, and plenty for PC's as well. However you will be able to get much better components if you buy a PC over a Mac, and have many more options availible such as multiple operation system options. If you get a Mac you are limiting youself to a Mac, sure they run run XP/Vista in bootcamp or parallels but don't expect the same performance as you would get on a regular PC.

 

Linux is also an option if you're up to it. It will be much more customizable than Windows or OS X; you can even compile your own kernel exactly the way you want it. It has many of the features of OS X such as not slowing down and security, but allows you to run on any PC. Hardware support is really the only glaring thing with Linux, but it's getting better all the time.

That being said, you can now run Windows XP on a Mac through software called BootCamp, which comes from Apple. In light of that fact, if you can get the 17" Macbook Pro for the same as a similar PC, I see no reason why you wouldn't get it. It's an amazing system and will allow you to run both OS X and Windows, so you can decide which you want to use all the time.

 

I'm really not sure what you're talking about. As far as I know, Windows XP runs just as quickly on a Mac as on any other computer with the same specs. A Mac is in fact a PC; it has an Intel Core 2 Duo, a Radeon x1600, and up to 2GB of RAM. A system that like is fast enough to run Windows no matter who makes it. Please enlighten me if you have some information that I'm missing.

 

It's your opinion but what you are describing was true years ago.

The combination of a solid OS, solid out-of-the-box software, and solid hardware will match up with the best PCs out there. Throw in multi-OS compatibility and you have a sweet setup.

 

Notebook ftw, I said nothing about a Mac not being about to run Windows, I said it wouldn't be as fast.

As far as XP being slower on a Mac than a PC it's a common problem. I've done a side by side comparison myself comparing a friends Macbook Pro to my PC with similar specs and XP was slower on the Mac.

Check out this Mac thread:

http://www.macworld.com/forums/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=441891&page=0&vc=1

You just described a PC running Ubuntu Linux


The cheapest Macbook Pro (15") is $2,000

You can easily find a notebook PC with those specs or better for $500 cheaper, and that is a fact. Maybe $500 isn't a lot to you but it is for most people out there.

Go to powernotebooks.com yourself, a 17" Sager system with better specs: 256MB ATi X1600, 1GB RAM, 120GB HD, faster 8x Dual layer DVD drive ect - Costs $ 1521.93

do your homework before accusing my words as being untrue Safer

I am done here.

 

I hate to put it this way but Ubuntu linux is a POS compared to OSX or XP/Vista out of the box. You have to do a lot of stuff to make linux even remotely worthwhile. Linux is not a solution for mainstream users IMO.

Find me a PC that can legally run OSX that also comes with an iLife comparable suite and solid lightweight hardware design.

 

Now those are your opinions. OS X is Unix, yet you say Linux which isn't so different is not a solution for mainstream users? lol

Well I guess you should mention that to all the businesses, workers and consumers that run/use Linux. Ubuntu is but one of many Linux operating systems available.

now, I am really done here, good night.

 

OSX and linux are similar in their fundamental design, but at the end of the day OSX is a far more complete OS than any form of free linux, particularly Ubuntu linux which is touted as being one of most easy-to-use.

I highly doubt recognized businesses are running Ubuntu linux, or any form of free linux. Maybe you can tell me what they are running?

 

I've been using Linux as my only desktop OS for the past 4 years. I enjoy it a lot and it's definitely my preferred OS. BUT it has still a lot of limitations, including hardware support (biggest problem!) and the availability of supported software. That's why I believe Linux is the future but not (yet) the present. (just my opinion)

 

Parallels is an emulator. Of course Windows will run slower under it than natively.

Apple has made a decision to not allow BIOS compatibility with Windows. I wonder why.

 

OS X and windows run differently, namely mac os x runs more efficiently. And in the words of Jim Allchin (co president of the platform and services division at microsoft) "I'd buy a mac if I wasn't working for microsoft" If Microsoft's own employees don't believe in their own product, who will?

Anyway OS X can do much more with the same hardware, and since Apple optimizes their hardware for OS X (or vice versa, doesn't matter) mac works much more efficiently. Sometimes, less is more.

 

That would be the same Jim Allchin who can't carry an articulate verbal conversation in an antitrust case.

I wouldn't bother quoting marketers. Instead I wonder what Dave Cutler (father of Digital's VAX/VMS operating system) and Michael Abrash (formerly of id Software) would say of their creation, along with the contributions of others including Charles Simonyi.

As for "Anyway OS X can do much more with the same hardware, and since Apple optimizes their hardware for OS X," I can only reply that they must have done a heck of a lot on very short notice when Steve handed them the word their OS was no longer going to run on Motorola processors and related chipsets.

 

First of all, the link you provided is speaking of disk performance. That could be attributed to several things. Besides, as I said, by the time you get to the level of hardware that you can get on a MBP, who cares if it runs a little slower? It's pretty freakin fast.

This is true, and I'll be honest here. The thing is, the MBP starts out with a 2.16 Core 2 Duo, and only goes up from there. The Sager you linked to only has a 2GHz C2D. Now don't get me wrong, there's not going to be a huge difference, and IMO it's not worth $500, but with the Mac you also get amazing Customer Relations support, an 802.11n wireless card, Bluetooth, a 15.4" screen with nearly the same power (though the 128MB card does suck), and a 1" thick laptop made out of aluminum. For some people, form factor, weight, and build quality have just as much to do with a notebook as raw power. Not saying the Sager is a poorly built-machine, but it's nearly 1.8" thick and weighs over 9 pounds full loaded.

Did I add that you also get a built in camera with the MBP?

And for the size and performance, the Macbook is an amazing machine for only $1100... less if you're a student.

This is a matter of opinion. I use Ubuntu on a daily basis and find it far easier to use than Windows. When Windows gives me access to thousands off applications across world just by clicking check boxes, works with all my hardware out of the box (no drivers needed), and tells me when I need certain codecs or applications, then immediately brings them up for download (and installation), I'll consider it the "easy" system. Ubuntu 7.04 has all these features "out of the box," so Windows seems to be the POS IMO.

Your views on "out of the box" seem to differ from mine; you're probably thinking pre-isntalled from the factory. I consider "out of the box" to be a fresh installation on a clean hard drive. So if we're discussing that, Ubuntu will recognize all my hardware except my graphics card "out of the box." Windows won't even recognize either of network solutions (wired or wireless), requiring me to keep a driver CD on hand. Factor in the fact that Ubuntu is FREE, and your argument doesn't hold salt with me. I challenge you to give Ubuntu 7.04 a try next month when the final version is released, then tell me about the "out of box" experience. $.02

 

You are right, perhaps i should have clarified my version of 'out of the box'. I've tried Ubuntu Linux v6.something and even other distros, my experiences were a little different. Ubuntu is very cool for what you get for free, it's amazing. When their library of compatible/recognizable hardware gets large enough, i will reconsider. It sounds like Ubuntu is on it's way there, but i still think i will wait.

 

Wow, a little off topic? Let's try to answer the OP's questions.

I think a Mac would fit well for your situation. It may cost more than an equivalent PC, but you will get the ability to run OS X and Windows among other things like an iSight built in, FW400 and 800 ports etc. Another thing is productivity. Not to bash Windows, I really like Windows, but I find myself doing more work and less tinkering in OS X than I do in Windows.

One thing that I was confused about was your mention of dual monitors. While it is true that you cannot run two external monitors off of a MacBook Pro, I do not know of too many PCs with a dual head card either. On a side note I run dual monitors by using the MBP as one and an external as a second.

I think switching may be good for you. It is just a cost to benefit ratio you have to think about. For me it was the best decision I have ever made. Go check them out at an Apple Store or another retailer in your area. See if you even like them.

Oh one more thing. I think both MBPs are by far the most portable in their class.

 

There aren't as many laptops with dual heads, but they exist, specfically the Dell m90 and Toshiba 100/105.

I believe the M90 at least also has firewire.

I don't really care about the iSight.

I've played with the Mac...works just fine. Of course I've played with the new PCs...they work fine too...the problem is after I get them home and use them for a few months. And of course I can't use either side by side.

The main reason I would switch to Mac is because 'they don't crash' and because I won't have to reboot all the time...I'm just not sure if that's hype or reality. The great thing about a PC is that if it does crash or hangup, I can find a fix. With a Mac, I'm typically going to need to bring it in (2 hour drive) for repair.

 

When you say crash, I am not sure I understand your meaning. I would say all three of my machines, 2 PC's and a Mac crash about as often, nearly never. Now when they do crash, the Mac does so much more gracefully. I can usually just close the program and the rest of the OS is fine. Windows usually requires a restart. Other than that both are very stable.

 

Yes, the M90 does feature dual heads as well as Firewire. The problem is that only one of the monitor outputs is DVI, whereas the other is VGA. That's not really a problem, but I'm not sure if it can actually drive both of them at the same time (I've never tried). AFAIK, it can only drive one external monitor at a time.

In addition, the Firewire port is only a Firewire 400 port, not 800. The MBP now features a Firewire 800 port as well as a Firewire 400 port, so that's something to consider. Not to mention the M90 is about the same price as a MBP and the only thing better about it is the video card. Believe me, I have one, and there are a lot of times when I wish I had gotten a MBP instead.

 

More of a program locking up...or slowing down to a crawl.

 

Well, I've had mine crash. But, I feel I have a lemon. Just haven't gotten Apple to replace it. I hate needing a machine so much, but I use it for work and school, so even going 3-4 days without it is killer. I only have a linux box at home, so I can't do a few things I need to do in OS X (such as Flash and photoshop work).

Oh yeah, be prepared to be labeled as an idiot and someone who has no possible intellectual value to input into discussions if you buy a mac. I cant' tell you the number of times idiots on these forums say something how mac users can't vote, or that we're all fanboys, so our valid opinions and facts we can post can't be true.

 

Hey, I think the topic spun off in another direction but here's my take
I'm a PC/Mac user for the past 6 years. Now I've finally bought my own Macbook Pro for Graphic design work, video and sound editing.

1. you can use 2 monitors with a macbook, but you'll need something like the Matrox Dualhead2go. My friend uses his powerbook with a 19 and a 23", but the resolutions isn't as high as it could be on the 23. two 19" monitors should be possible with the MBP. http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/gxm/news/pr/2006/mac_release.php

2. I don't know how much experiences in XP differ, but it has had reviews as being stable and fast, possibly faster than a comparable pc... Some say this is total bunk. .For those people that say it's no where as fast - They should double check their registry to see if XP is using both cores and not just 1. It's easy to fix. Still, there are some known issues with XP..and work arounds.. it appears to not be a perfect marriage. I wish I had examples or proof, but I haven't installed it myself. But I've seen people complain about the Keyboard illumination not working...things like that.

Now you do pay more for a Mac, if you're strictly comparing numbers. The thing is you can't compare them to dell because it isn't fair. Macs are a higher quality and look nicer, plus run OSX. It costs more for a reason. If you don't care about quality and looks, ease of OSX and other perks, you wouldn't have a reason to get a Mac. But the money you spend is worth the premium. You could also spend as much or more on a Sony Vaio for similar quality.

Personally I love the way OSX files and sorts. I work with huge databases and never get lost. Windows XP always left something to be desired for me. Maybe Vista will be better, but OSX is very strong. You should spend some time at an Apple store if you can and see what you think. There's plenty of places to find freeware for Macs also, like tucows.com macupdate.com majorgeeks.com and don't forget Widgets