A Windows PC runs Microsoft Windows. After actually purchasing Windows XP Pro about 9 years ago, Microsoft never sent me a written apology and redeemed any cash back to myself for having to live with Windows 98SE, ME (remember that abomination) for about 2 years. I hate Windows 7 (don't have time for the learning curve as it tries and fails miserably to get that Mac OS-X feel but is harder to break than previous incarnations because MS just made it harder to look under the bonnet for its end users) and Vista so I am still working with XP Pro (which finally achieved some stability after service Pack 2 release), which again screwed up my computer up installing the SP2 for yet another clean install back around 2005. No more money will be wending its way back to MS. Lesson learned.

A Mac runs Mac OS-X (various releases) - generally fast and stable simply because Apple limit what hardware and software can be bolted on so generally remains sharp and responsive like a newly installed Windows OS. Apple use the same hardware commonly available on run of the mill and or high end Windows PCs so despite the slick and well designed overall effect, from a hardware perspective there is nothing special about the Apple Mac. Apple Mac not having BluRay support for example shows its detain for its customers who want their PCs as an entertainment hub. Apple probably think their customers wouldn't lower themselves to watch a HD movie on their entertainment system using a Mac when high end audio visual manufacturers such as Marantz and Krell are around.

A Linux Box runs various Linux operating systems such as SUSE (mostly freely available). You can get a reasonably decent PC for zero cash outlay by dumpster diving around the local refuse skip and installing Linux on the parts recovered such as the motherboard, processor, memory etc.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter, its how fast your Broadband connection is (90% of the time, the other 9%, well you might as well get a proper games console). The free dumpster dive Linux box will have faster web page access and can probably even view BBC HD iPlayer content with a 50Mbit/s Cable connection compared to a $22,000 Mac (yes I priced up the highest spec Mac on their website) with a 256kb/s ADSL connection (which will struggle to play a low resolution Youtube video).

Current PC is a Intel 330 Atom processor, Ion motherboard, 2 Gig of RAM, 64Gig Flash boot drive and 500Gig content drive running XP Pro with BluRay drive, T-class Audio Amplifier, DVB-T card (pulled from another PC) etc. (yes it plays BluRay movies unlike the Apple Mac and is completely silent and idles @ around 25 Watts power so no 1000W power supply causing rolling power blackouts and can be powered by a Solar PV power supply setup come summer time, with the appropriate PSU design for automobile use)

I'm now currently considering a cost effective USB SDR Short Wave radio project setup such as this;

http://www.g8jcf.dyndns.org/

For those than want to run xp on a mac, I have had good luck
with http://www.parallels.com/. It just runs in another window.

Also if you want to try window 7 or unix on your pc, you can do
both at the same time as xp. Give you a chance to figure things
out without having to delete xp from your box.

This is all from my knowledge and understanding so grain of salt.

From my understanding Hardware only knows On and off Or in other words the Flow of current going to transistors (and all Chips are is arrays of micro transistors) Its the software that does the rest.


"Software is what makes or breaks a computer and the funniest thing about the relationship is that software has grown so fast to completely erase the amazing speed growth in the hardware."

If by software you mean OS The only way a OS can make or break hardware (The computer) Is if it can or can not utilize the full potential of the hardwares capabilities. This goes greatly into technical stuff but in short if your OS cannot do what the hardware can you are missing out. In a quick example Windows XP cannot handle more then 4 gigs of ram when most of todays Mobos can handle more then 8.


"Computer capability is more than just simple #s like GHz or GBytes."

Yes it is just that simple actually. A 900mhz single core CPU a good deal of currently made Netbooks is by far not comparable to a 4Ghz Quadcore on a desktop currently sold. A 500GB HD will not hold more then 500 gigs, That is a capability limit that a OS Cannot solve, only more hardware. The more you do the higher you want them simple Numbers. The less you do the lower the numbers and even further less then comes your OS Choice in which case Linux Distros that Run fully in Ram.

"outperform nearly all the original "super computers" so we can surf the net, play flash games on facebook and edit our pictures."

A somewhat expensive PC with Windows XP made in 2000 with no upgrades Can easily do all these things. In fact a moderately priced PC from 2000 can do all these with a decent graphics card for 50$ or so of that year and a gig of ram added today. I can put together a computer that will do all this for 150$ from a computer Expo running Just free old ubuntu.

"Those trades mean they gave something up to get to that price"

Id like to know what you think they gave up when the hardware is almost always by the same exact manufacturers as Apple Computers. In fact all 500-600$ PCs currently sold by the popular Brands are pretty darn good. Just cuz apple doesnt sell Computers for less then a grand does not mean PCs for less are giving anything up in terms of quality or usability. For most people the hardware difference is negligible in small doses of reduction. a 3ghz dual core will seem just the same as a 4ghz quad core when all you do is flashgames.....


When hardware difference matters its in large noticable differences in numbers coming right back to why the numbers matter most. In my opinion people who will easily tell the difference are the ones who do video editing and gaming with all settings on high. The idea that everyone needs a high end computer to Use the internet and play coffeebreak games is long embedded into societies thinking from marketing. Its the way of thinking for more people, they need the biggest fastest most expensive and what the tv says is the best just cuz its a statues thing. The only times i see people reasonably think out a expensive computer for their needs is when they figure they will not buy another for the next ten years since they do so little on it and wish the computer to handle the next advancements 10 years brings. Look at the internet today and think how it would be to use dial up to load these multiple megabyte websites.

This discussion is ranging a bit far, even for by Around the Campfire.

If anyone really wants some gory details on processor and board design cost trades PM me and I'll see if I can find some non-proprietary references.

For the rest of it I'll try to provide a high level example. The design trades for a laptop are different than for a desktop. A laptop can have very similar numbers to a desktop (advertised processor clock speed, amount of memory etc.) and it will cost more and still still be much slower in reality. Of course if you really need a portable system you won't be looking at the desktops.

That is a macro level example of trades that every manufacturer makes for every system/price point they want to sell. The devil is always in the details and a lot of the details easy to understand (i.e. how many USB/network/PCI ports) while others are esoterica like thermal design/analysis, statistical analysis of faults (detected and undetected), board layout to minimize emissions and susceptibility, processor design trades include pipeline depth, managing look aheads, core management....

Intel's fastest performing chips / motherboards are not the one with the fastest clockspeeds. Of course comparing server class systems to desktops or laptops is also kind of like trying to compare athletes from different sports. They each excel at some things and not others.

On the SW side of performance I was speaking of SW in general but the OS has a lot to do with how the user perceives performance (and how much of the hw capacity is available to the application). Using Windows as the example, the OS consumption of computing resources since Windows 3.1 is staggering. I used 3.1 on a 386 way back when memory was measured in Kbytes and the OS fit on a couple of 800k disks. It felt reasonable for "exploring" the local computer. Fast forward to Windows 7 and running on a 386 is laughable - we now require 1 GHz processors, 1GB of ram and 16GB of disk space for the user to do the essentially the same thing and it doesn't feel all that more responsive. Some of this is due to how Windows prioritizes and schedules multiple tasks and some of it is that the OS does a lot more (which any specific individual user may or may not need). We now have prettier colors, live/background indexing etc. but feature creep is consuming hardware gains as fast as they can be made.

I have been very careful in how I phrase the cost comparison discussion since it seems to always lead to bad places. Being blunt - you can always, always find a cheaper computer than Apple's lowest cost machines, especially if you are willing to build one. However, if you select a specific Apple Computer (say the 15" laptops?) and do a feature by feature comparison, there are some models where is difficult to find equivalent capabilities (including weight, screen resolution, battery life etc.) for a significantly better price. Not true for every product but all I am trying to point out is that Apple is well priced with quite a few of the products.

Only the end user can evaluate a value proposition. For home use I prefer Macs, and I can do things on my Mac that I cannot do for an equivalent price using Windows or Linux. Macs clearly aren't the answer for everyone but they are a good answer for a lot of people.

- Eric