It's time for a new computer, which means lots of research. I've spent the past few days surfing internet forums, reading computer and computer part reviews, and building mock machines and getting prices. The main question? Mac or PC.
I've split the last decade equally among them, owning two of each, so at least I have a lot of first hand experience to go on in making my choice. My last computer was a PC, it was a sweet machine I bought for a good price, and I enjoyed it a lot. But now, I'm wondering if its time to alternate again to Mac.
There is a huge hate on for Macs in the internet community. This is not surprising, since they only represent less than 10% of the market, they are the red headed step children among netizens. Not to say that all the criticisms are specious, but everyone wants to believe what they have is the best, and the vast majority of Mac haters have obviously never owned one. I spend a lot of time on the net, so the Mac hate inevitably rubs off on me a little, so I thought before buying a new computer I had to honestly review the pros and cons of buying one.
Pros (For me)
- Macs have a wicked and intuitive OS. First, it's super stable compared to Windows, Ive never had crashes or freezes, and everything just works right. For example, when I tell a program to quit, it quits, no "this program is busy, try again later" message, or multitude of other small but annoying features. As for stability, many a time with PCs I found myself on tech forums looking up how to deal with an OS problem. Usually it was a problem common to thousands of others using Windows, which helped in finding solutions, but it doesn't say much about Windows as an OS. Sure, I learn something, but its often a lesson thats only applicable to Windows, and over the years, hours spent on tech forums add up as wasted time. Its very rare even among dedicated mac haters to criticise the OSX, they usually stick to the hardware or price.
- Also, OSX has a stronger defense against viruses, in part because it had good security, and in part because its not worth most hackers time to make Mac viruses, since they are small minority. My last computer, a PC, got quite a few viruses and I paid for anti-virus software, plus I used some free stuff, based on reviews. It always took a month or so for the anti-virus software to finally get updated with a vaccine to new viruses I got. Hackers always seem to be a step ahead
- Macs comes fully loaded with useful software. This is not as big an advantage as it used to be, since there is a lot more decent freeware and PC users can pirate all the software they need now, but its still a pain. With Windows, you are given a skeleton and have to spend a couple of days downloading all the applications you need, even the most basic ones, like file compression software or PDF viewers.
- Well planned architecture. PCs are generally the latest parts, thrown together in a box. Frequently there are PCs that look like they would dominate a Mac on paper, but when tested in a lab the Mac is clocked at better speeds and performance in every test. Even independent computer magazines (or PC magazines) report this in their lab tests. iMacs are consistently given excellent reviews by pretty much every computer review site or magazine out there. There is a gestalt effect from the well planned out Mac that beats PCs with newer high-tech parts.
- Aesthetic. They do look nice, and are clean and compact. Its not that big a deal to me, but worth mentioning.
Cons (for me)
- Old tech. Its old, even when its newly updated. This is the opposite side of the double edged sword of the well planned architecture I mentioned above. The downside of having a well planned out design is that you can't use the latest parts. This is the biggest downside for me, and the one the Mac haters criticize the most (rightly so). Right now, the last iMac update was in April 2008, and even then it was built with technology already months old. So, as of right now, the iMac is using tech over a year old (Penryn processor), pretty bad in computer time. I could never feel right if I bought that one, especially with the i7 nehalem chips out, using DDR3 RAM, or the Phenom II. With computers it just seems wrong to buy one built with parts over a year old.
- Price. I would end up paying around 300 dollars more just for the Mac name. Its bullshit.
- No right click. I know, I can do everything by holding down "ctrl". But why? Why not a right click mouse? Being intuitive and user friendly is their whole MO, yet no right click? WTF!? I know its small, but it seems like keeping single button mouse is more tradition than anything else.
- Less software. Just like there are less Mac viruses, there is less Mac software. Though switching to an Intel processor greatly reduced this problem, some software, especially games, arn't available on Mac. Could be dealt with using Bootcamp, but thats a pain. I hated not being able to use a software on a Mac that I could run on a PC.
Conclusion
There is no way I am going to buy that dated April 2008 iMac, its just too old for the price. I could get a PC computer with an i7 2.93 GHz processor, 12 GB of DDR3 RAM, Radeon 4870 512 MB video card, 500 GB hardrive, 24 inch monitor for the same price, and more than twice as fast.
I am going to wait until February, there is rumored to be an iMac update then. If they have a good setup (i7 processor would be freakin' awesome, but unlikely) I'll probably get an iMac. If they don't update in February, or the update sucks, I'm going with a PC using the setup I described above. I hope iMac updates, but if not, its two PCs in a row for me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hey James, what is your price range. I love putting together computers, you should definately go PC, unless you don't want to play games that is :) But generally PCs out perform Macs when you equate $to$
4870 is an excellent choice for a video card. Dont bother using any crossfire or multi GPU, it just doesnt have the benefit vs price. with this build you would need a 64bit OS though. So keep that in mind. MSI make a decent AMD/ATI motherboard as well. I use a K9ANeo Platinum. However you would only need one PCIe slot.
http://i35.tinypic.com/mhgcy.jpg
I guess I am one of those who are less than enthused (I don't want to say hater because - in the end - what do I care - people should just be happy with whatever they have) about Macs and have never really used one.
I don't know if I am just incredibly lucky, or that I take better care of my machines, but OS stability and viruses never seem to affect me. I even run Vista, and by all accounts - according the the Internet - I should be having a terrible experience, but I am not.
As for viruses, I wouldn't pay for an antivirus, AVG fulfills all of my needs. Other than that, I run Crap Cleaner every now and then, if I am really bored I'll run Windows Defender or Ad-Aware through a cycle.
One thing that often gets neglected, however, and this is something that Macs are good at, is keeping registries clean. I always like to have a program to keep my registry files tidy and help me control - and understand - what is running on my machine.
In terms of the hardware synergy Apple has, don't you think that is somewhat overstated now that they have moved to Intel processors? Back in the day when they made their own hardware and everybody raved about how well it worked together, I could see that being true. Now, however, you can build your own machine, using all the same parts as a Mac, run OSX (I believe people do this and call them 'hackintoshes') and it is pretty much the same -- or so I've heard.
I too am in the process of planning a computer - once I get a job I'll be able to buy it. I am the opposite of Reed insofar as I like Intel (not only the tradition that follows through Gordon Moore, but I think their research is more cutting edge - and I like to support that even at a premium)and nVidea (probably because, from what I understand, they work better with Intel, also I've had good results with them).
I am torn about what to do. On the one hand I want to make an absolutely sick rig with an i7 and three 280s running in SLI. The more I think about it, though, that is pretty wasteful - not only in terms of upfront cost, but power consumption. I'll probably stick with the i7 since its new architecture sounds like it is going to be the standard for awhile and settle for a high end 260. Also, since DDR3 is here - I may be convinced to give it a try. I will have to look into that, as I am not exactly sure how much better it is.
Well, I said a lot there. Isn't building computers fun!
Anyway, good luck with your decision. Keep us posted, since I always like to hear about new computers.
Reed, I'll keep AMD in mind for sure, but those i7s get some damn good reviews.
Mark, I'm not even sure on how to take good care of my machine, other than not spilling drinks on it and using anti-virus softwares with good reps. :) But that was my point, with Mac, its already taken care of. Low maintenance, stable.
Also, wasn't security the one thing Vista got props for amid the other criticisms? I thought they had good security. That may explain your lack of viruses, I had an XP system.
Maybe the Mac hardware synergy is overstated, but I read the lab testing at a couple of computer review sites (non-mac sites) of the latest iMac against PCs with better hardware on paper, and the PCs were slower.
So there is still something, don't know what, that makes iMacs worse on paper but better in practice than PCs with similar (even superior) hardware. They make it with love?
Yeah, heard of the Hackintosh, was thinking about it, but don't want the hassle.
I'll probably get a Vista 64 OS. If iMac gets an i7 in February though (maybe a 5-10% chance), for me its a no-brainer.
Post a Comment