Hey yall I am a "PC" guy but I do like Apple's technology, I own an iPod touch. But I know absoulutely nothing of Mac computers or computers running Linux. Could someone please enlighten me? What are some of the differences, pros and cons. What do you use?

Adventureboy

True they don't run linux, they run Apple's own version of BSD which is similar.
They are very overrated, working for a reseller that sells both you get just as many problem with macs as pc's, mac users just rate theirs higher. They have plenty of their own issues and hardware breaks down as much if not more than a teir 1 pc vendor.
There really isn;t any advantage anymore to running Mac's other than being part of the 'in' crowd. You can put one of the easier linux distros on a pc and have the same thing, linux has grown up to where it just works now.

Linux is an open system. You can probably download a copy to your PC right now, free. That's the good and bad news. It's open, so you can make it do what you want. It's open, so others can make it do what they want it to, including mess up your PC. Never DL from a website unless you absolutely 100% trust it, and then be wary, because a lot of virus programs won't work on Linux.

Linux is adaptable to what you want it to do, if you know how and can program. Programming isn't all that hard, but if you screw up one little letter in one line in a multi line program - oh no -- you can spend days looking for the problem. Not that all programs aren't like that, but in Windows and I think Mac OS you can't wander in and change a lot of stuff.

I've worked with both MS and Linux, and like both for different reasons. The big reason I use MS now - 95% of programs are written for it. Yes, I know you can get the same results with Linux and some add ons. The best part of Linus tho - few if any people write viruses in it, but when they do - yikes.

I build my own desktop computers, so I've always had a bit of fun messing around with all the different operating systems.

My favorite is Microsoft Windows, just because it's what I started on and it's what I'm used to. I'm using 64-bit windows Vista and Windows 7, and I'm quite happy with them.

My experience with Linux comes mostly from a few computers I built with Ubuntu. The nice thing about Linux is, most of it is free. I mean, the operating system is free, many programs are free....if you're trying to build a working computer for as cheap as possible, it's quite nice. With that said, the biggest problem I found is that, not all programs and peripherals are supported. Along the same lines, sometimes it can be quite complicated to get something to work as it should. Because of that, I just could never see a Linux computer being my only computer.

MacOS is a nice operating system. It looks nice and it's pretty easy to use, even when you aren't used to it. With that said, it isn't without its own quirks and everything Apple seems to carry a bit of a price premium.

All in all, I've really seen no reason to move away from Windows. Windows 7 has worked very well for me and it's compatible with just about everything.

The main setup I'm running now is an Intel DX58SO motherboard, Core I7920 processor w/ cooler, dual XFX Radeon 5770 video cards, four 1TB WD Caviar Black hard drives in Raid 1+0, blu-ray drive, Antec 1200 case and a 1000w power supply. Cost me around $2000 to build with Windows 7, and it's faster than I really need and has had rock solid reliability. (Even with both the processor and the graphics cards slightly overclocked).

To build a Mac Pro with similar features at the time would have been well over $4,000...and it still wouldn't have had everything my setup has. I looked into it, but I just couldn't justify spending over double for the same basic hardware.

I have - and use - Windows 7 at work, Windows XP at work and home, Mac OS at work and home and Linux at home. I have also iPhone, iPad, Android tablets and more as a result of my job (I constantly need to test new platforms and devices.)

In general, they are - if you're just using web sites and doing basic stuff with digital images - identical. Pick the computer you like.

Here's where it gets different.

If you are the kind of person who likes to connect lots of external devices to your computer - game controllers, data loggers, and other fancy stuff, you're going to want to go with Windows based computers (and Windows XP if you really want to be sure it's going to have a driver).
If you're into computer games, no question about it, it's a Windows world.
If you're into selling on eBay, it's a windows world - the eBay applications that let you "mass auction" stuff are windows only.
If you like to be able to tinker with the innards of your computer hardware, it's a windows world (mostly).

When it comes to Mac, it's all about ease of use and excellent multimedia applications. There's no equivalent to Mac OS-only applications like Garageband, iMovie and Omnigraffle, to name a few. Every person I know who uses a computer to make a living - as in they spend their entire day in front of a computer and that's the main tool they use to earn their money - prefers to work on a Mac (even if work gives them a Windows computer).
Macs are more expensive out of the box, but I have found that they are also less fussy and get me up and running faster than a windows computer. I also find Mac computers to have some ineffable "unity" to how they work (same goes for iOs) - there's a lot of subtle and mature user experiences in Mac OS that only become apparent when you're using the Mac for a few weeks. Switching back to windows reminds me of these issues frequently, especially when it comes to file management.

Linux - in particular Ubuntu Linux - is an interesting beast. It appeals to two very distinct audiences. The first is the complete computer novice who will never try to do more than visit a web site and perhaps connect a digital camera to offload images. For these users, Linux is just a platform to run Firefox or Google Chrome, and that's about it. It's the ideal system to give someone who hates computers - you can basically set it up as a Kiosk running a web browser and it won't crash. On the other extreme is the perpetual tinkerer - if you want to totally customize your user experience, if you love twiddling setting and making a computer deeply personal, Linux is for you. You can mess with the innards of every program and with the operating system itself.

It's the middle ground folks - the fairly competent non-expert computer user who will be confounded by Linux.
You can't stream Netflix on Linux (no compatible media player). You CAN install SOME windows applications SOMETIMES with the help of a software pacakge called WINE, but they might not work quite right. Many won't work at all. Forget most Windows games.

External device support beyond printers and digital cameras is weak if you just want "plug and play" compatability. You can always write your own device driver if you can't make your device work. Digital camera support for lower end cameras is iffy. File system navigation is often confusing for people who don't really "get" files and folders. There are some confusing nomenclatures used if you're used to windows file/folder navigation.

But Linux is also free and had ALMOST all the software you could possibly want somewhere out there - if you want to install any software at all. With an Ubuntu distribution, you're almost set from first run. My Linux machines start from a basic installation of Ubuntu linux and then I add in Dropbox, install "Restricted Extras" (So I can play Flash video (Youtube, Hulu, etc.) and DVD's on it - you can't with a "stock" installation, and I use the Google Chrome Browser, which allows me to simply and without fussing synch ALL of my computers (and I have too many) with the same bookmarks, settings and all that.

Nice synopsis Martin.

It's nice to see that this thread hasn't turned into a flaming battle. I mod on a few other forums. This kind of question (mac vs pc, android vs iphone) almost always seems to need moderation.

I usually lock the thread once posters starts making sweeping generalizations about this or that group of users' competency, social standings or motivations.

the other advantage of a Linux OS is no need for activation. When your internet is down or a part of your computer breaks so you swap out a network card for a modem and MSWindows decides it needs to be activated again its a big pain.
My equipped hat applies a lot of disaster recovery to my home computers, I can say that I have a better DR plan than most small businesses out there. Think about your important files you keep and make backups of, I keep a live distro with those so I can boot and read my files outside of the (possible) malware infected pc borrowed from someone else.

In a nutshell, if you are really into computers ... Linux by a mile. If you want a no fuss tool ... MAC by a mile. If you play games, or don't know a dishwasher from a computer ... Windows.

---

IMHO, MAC's are for people who do lots of intensive photo or video editing. And people that believe it gives them some kind of prestige. And for people that want to buy something that just works, with no fuss. For me, they're just too overpriced to be worth it, and I can't "have my way with them" to do whatever I'd like. But they are very good computers.

Linux is for computer knowledgeable people. "GUI? I don't need no stinking GUI!" However, newer distributions have put it into the hands of the less computer literate. And it works well there too. A computer-illiterate person will have no more trouble using a Linux box (with a GUI desktop) than a Windows box - for basic things. However, if that illiterate user wants to play games then they would need to stick with Windows (or take themselves up a notch, to "literate" status). Or if they are used to calling some helpdesk and paying $30 a minute for handholding by someone talking in a foreign language, they should stick with Windows.

Windows is for everybody else. It comes on just about every computer you can buy at retail. When it works, it's great. When it breaks, it's a nightmare. I find Windows to be very user unfriendly, although many say that Windows is the "user friendly" standard. I think that comment comes from people who only use Windows. It's all they know, so of course it is more user friendly than anything unknown.

Windows users generally know Windows, and that's it. Linux users usually know both Linux and Windows (and other OS'es as well). Linux people are often the "local tech support guru" that gets called when a Windows box breaks. MAC users generally don't mingle with other OS users (or vica versa, depending on how you look at it). I don't know why that is.

For general use, I'd say Windows wins. Even if you don't know what you're doing, your next door neighbor might. And if not, they have a cousin who might. And there is no end to paid support options for Windows - including drop-off/pick-up at your local technology store. Windows will probably cost you the most money in the long run. Even more than a MAC (which has a much higher initial purchase price). But MAC's generally don't break as badly or as often as Windows boxes. If you are not knowledgeable enough to fix it yourself, Windows will suck the life out of your bank account.

MAC's are for people who have enough upfront money to buy something that generally works, and works well, and doesn't break much. The downside of MAC's is that you better like it the way it comes from the store, because you don't have many options to change it yourself. For a work computer that just needs to work, MAC is probably your best bet, ... UNLESS you work in an environment where almost everybody else uses Windows (which is very very typical). Then you will perpetually be the odd man out, just like a Linux user would be in the same Windows-centric environment.

Linux is really best for computer gurus who like to have things work just their way, and are willing to expend the time and effort to educate themselves. It is also good for the people they support (there's always someone asking you to fix their computer!) If that person asking for help is the typical computer-illiterate and they treat you as their computer genius, just switch them to Linux (where you can trivially remotely support them) and they'll be in your debt forever. Linux-with-a-GUI (like Ubuntu) is just fantastic for your 80 year old Aunt Ethel. Email and web browsing are the only two things that Aunt Ethel knows how to do (and even then, it's pretty iffy).

Actually, Linux has changed a lot, you can just install it and it just works too, the mac has no real advantage over it anymore.
I fix servers all day long at work and a lot at nights too so I wanted something at home that I didn't need to fix or mess with, Linux takes a lot less work.

Well thought out but I need to disagree with a couple of points.



By any reasonable standard I would qualify as "really into computers" and I use all of the above professionally plus a bunch of other systems. Apple's OS X has UNIX (well BSD) underpinnings and is great for people who are "into computers". Heck most of the OS (but not the GUIs or the critical APIs) are even available as open source. If it is a available in Linux the odds are you can make it run on a Mac.

Also


The $ thing is always tough. Recent cost comparisons of equivalent systems show that Apple is usually about the same cost (and often lower) as other brands. The challenge is in the whole equivalent systems thing and a reputation for being high priced. Apple does not have products available to address every possible market segment and generally isn't that interested very low end machines. The sheer variety of PC systems out there means you can almost always find a lower cost system but an honest comparison of capabilities will show you why it costs less. If you don't need those features / capabilities - great but that doesn't make the Mac high priced - just configured in a non-optimal way for your needs.

By the way - thanks to all for keeping this a well reasoned discussion. In the end a computer (any computer) is just a tool (well a toolset). Find what works for you and use it well.

- Eric

Sorry in advanced for anything I say! Just getting that out there.


The Truth behind it is all three OS's And Both Computer types are equal. They will all give you headaches they will all get a virus or malware they will all break and they will all do things well.

To say None of them will do any of that is a flat out lie. Thats like saying a ford will never break down but a chevy will. Its just brand loyalty.

If you have the windows OS install disk you can easily install Windows side by side with linux and enjoy both the worlds happily. There are plenty of websites and forums to help you do that. There is also 100s of linux distros out there.

The same thing will go for linux distros. Brand loyalty and lack of knowledge will make people steer you towards almost anything in the end. Just like everything else in the world popularity does not make it thee best. A Great place to look at distros is http://distrowatch.com/. A Great way to check out linux is downloading whats called a Live CD. A live CD will run the OS off a CD without making changes to your PC. There is one major flaw to this form of running a OS in that with larger full CD size OS's it is slow. This is because it has to read data constantly off a 52RPM Or so CD instead of you 7200RPM hard drive. Without understanding the fact a Live CD will be a slow running OS many people quickly write the OS off as "junk" when it will run just as fast as your current OS if not faster depending on the Distro when it is fully installed to the hard drive.

As well with alot of these comments to say "This is for this type of person and this is for that type of person" is just stereotyping. Today All three OS's are easy to use (This is Depending greatly on which linux distro you use but ones like Ubuntu are just as easy as windows and mac) and will do at the minimal the basics that most people who use computers do.

The power behind the Computer lays withen the hardware not the price and not the OS. To compare a 200$ PC with windows to a 2000$ mac would be like comparing a razor scooter to a Car, there is no weight behind it and leads to bias flamming. Most 5-600$ PCs have roughly the same level of hardware as 1-1200$ macs (Do not fight or flame about this comment please cuz i know it will produce sparks for some).

To most people who simply "use" a computer The main differences would be the looks, File architect, menu layout, and program choice. Switching from one OS to another is easier then people make it out to be! Once you stop saying "Why isnt this more like windows" or vice versa and start calmly exploring the OS it becomes more fun and less of a aggravation. The best way to do this is to keep your current set up and use it for important daily tasks that you want done fast and use the new set up to "explore and have fun". Learning how to do one thing at a time helps greatly such as browse the web with the different software or how to play and organize music so on so forth.

Personally i prefer Linux and windows and HATE mac. That does not mean i will not help a person consider moving to mac if they really wish too but the first things i usually inform them on is the "Myths" behind the Product.

[Opinion oriented paragraph warning]

Macs are not magical mystical obelisks that will solve all your problems in the world. They are often overpriced for the hardware you get. They DO get Virus's and malware! When moving from a 10 year old PC that has not seen one ounce of maintenance A brand new mac will "Blow" windows away. The truth is the same computer with a reformat of the Current OS on it will blow its old self away! Even the most inexpensive Currently selling PC would blow it away. Its just a matter of taking care of your computer as with any OS. Times change, hardware and OS's evolve, and get better and better especially within 10 years.

[Opinion oriented paragraph Ended]

The First step to Checking out other OS's and Computer types is to ask others about them. The second step is to ignore the obvious magical properties people imbue on their personal choice and extreme Flaming of the one they do not like. After you have Done this and cherry picked what data points you wish to believe from what people have said the most important thing you can do is go out there and try everything before you make a purchase!!!!!! In the end its about what you like about what you experienced when trying them out! All three OS's can be easily checked out. Going to a local store like a best buy and trying windows and mac computers on display and Going online and getting a Live CD of linux is more important then opinions of others in the end.

Mac user since 1990, currently on a MacBook Pro.

Holly wars, huh?

IMO, Mac is for glamour dummies (sorry, no offense). Single button mouse. Single menu. Single way to do things. Very restrictive on what user can and what can not. Low quality of community support (on the forums). Absolutely unjustifiably overpriced core and peripherals.

PC+Windows7 is a way better everyday tool, which you can easily tailor to your needs, extend, upgrade, dispose.

I use a two button mouse on my Apple.

I also run windows for a couple of programs on it too.

Consumer reports always likes customer service for the Macs.

Things have always seemed more plug and play for the Apples than
xp pc's I have used. And there are fewer viruses created for Macs.

South Park's contribution to the discussion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-22EpQOm8c

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but belittling those that make different choices is offensive even or especially when you say "(sorry no offense)".

My Mac easily handles a 3 button mouse (and I need one to properly use Xwindows and BSD) and other user input devices. Singe Menu is due to specific User Interface standards based on human factors studies and a philosophy that is focused on the consumer. More important than the single menu is the guideline that every possible command be reachable from the main menu, not hidden away in context sensitive menus or magic key combinations.

Macs are in no way restrictive to users or developers. They are different. I can do things on my Mac out of the box that no off the shelf PC or Windows install can do. I have a lot of Mac specific tools and software available for me and I can easily download and compile a huge library of UNIX (and some Linux) tools. If I can't find what I want I have the developer tools (compilers, frameworks, IDC) available for free, both the Mac OS ones and the ones familiar to Linux users.

Community support for OS-X and Mac is very very good but it is a bit smaller and you need to know where to look. You generally won't find it on typical computer forums because most Mac users will be in the minority and get tired of the put downs. Most people are pretty good but the Windows installation base is huge and it only takes a small percentage to ruin a good environment. Of course the Mac zealots are hard to take too (and yes Apple does make mistakes, no company is perfect).

The price thing is tired and flat wrong in most of the market segments where Apple chooses to compete. It is very hard to match the capabilities of some Apple computers at any price while others compete very well on price with the Windows equivalents. Apple does not have offerings for all segments so you can always find a cheaper computer, if you want to. I can always get a knockoff swiss army knife for less than a wenger too. If it works for you great, doesn't mean it will work for everyone.

My computer background basically goes UNIX geek since the 1980s - CPM etc. before that. DOS, Windows(3.x-7), Macs and various embedded systems floating around in there also. I also work in system design for complex embedded systems using both COTS and custom processors (chips not boards), controllers and communication links. Design always involves making trades and the ones we make at work would produce horrible personal computers but are needed to support our requirements.

Personally I am most productive on a Mac since it makes a nice (affordable) substitute for my hugely expensive UNIX box while providing me a nice GUI for accessing typical office tools. I have coworkers who prefer PCs with Linux or Windows. End of the day they are just tools and we all get the same basic job done.

Tools are tools and while I like SnapOn and Blackhawk wrenches the Craftsman and Stanley ones work OK also. If you don't know why I like SnapOn (or Apple computers) better than Craftsman (Windows PCs) then your needs/expectations are different than mine.

-Eric

I guess I'm just having a bad day because I can't let this pass. The power behind the computer is the software. The Hardware in modern computers is very very fast but all it really knows is TRUE, FALSE, MOVE, ADD, SUBTRACT and a variations there of (and yes I am grossly oversimplifying). 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.

The computer most of you are using is astoundingly, amazingly capable compared to early personal computers. Memory size/speed, disk size/speed even networking capability greatly exceed professional workstations only 10 yrs old and outperform nearly all the original "super computers" so we can surf the net, play flash games on facebook and edit our pictures.

Computer capability is more than just simple #s like GHz or GBytes. Fitting everything into a low power, light weight, sturdy package like a laptop pushes the envelope. Different constraints but similar challenges for desktop or server solutions. Component selection is also based on statistical models of predicted reliability and little things like circuit board design can have huge impacts on "usability".

So I can easily find PC Hardware down around $500-$600 because someone will make design trades to fit that market. Those trades mean they gave something up to get to that price. If that works for you great, but it does not make the alternative overpriced. In every recent evaluation of apple laptops I have seen, they have been priced nearly identically with equivalent PC laptops. Can I find a 15" PC for less than a 15" MacBook Pro - yes, the question is what are the differences and can I live with them. For a lot of people (and businesses) the answer is they can but that doesn't invalidate those that make other choices.

Sorry to rant - tried to keep it informative.

- Eric

I don't know, I definitely see a price advantage when it comes to Windows computing in general. It isn't because windows computers necessarily loose anything, it's more because they're manufactured on a significantly wider scale and have a greater level of competition among companies that support the Windows platform in some way.

I mean, when you want a MacOS based computer, you are basically stuck with Apple. They essentially have no competition, so they can charge whatever they want for their package. If you want a Windows based computer, there are literally hundreds of manufacturers out there competing for your money (or you can build desktops yourself and save a lot of money there). If anything, it's easier to get a Windows PC with exactly what you want than a Mac.

For example, lets say you want an internal Blu-Ray player/burner on your computer (as I did when I built my computer). With a windows based computer, it's no big deal. Plenty of companies out there are willing to build you a windows based computer to your specs which include a blu-ray player/burner, or you can toss one in and it will work fine. If you buy a mac from Apple, you can't even get an internal blu-ray player (never mind a burner), and even if you buy an external one there are compatibility issues since MacOS technically doesn't support Blu-ray.

Software may be the power behind computers, but software only really allows a computer to do what the hardware can support. If you can't get the hardware you want or need to begin with, then whether or not you can get the software doesn't really matter.

A valid point on scale and margins. PCs are commodity items and there has been a huge race to the bottom for prices. Most consumers won't see or care about the tradeoffs required to support that business model but they do happen and can (not will) have noticeable impacts..

Building your own pc - the trades are your time vs your money and for most people you won't be making your own chips or boards but buying off the shelf configurations. Saves quite a bit of money but it does impose constraints. Eg it is a bit challenging to build your own laptop.

Blue ray -as I said, Apple isn't addressing all market segments. If the market for blue ray gets large enough a third party may step in but if not we have choices.

Lots of choices is a good thing, competition is good too.

-Eric

I'm absolutely delighted with my MacBook Pro (13"). It's used primarily for Internet, word processing and photography. I'm not a computer geek or tech, am just an average computer consumer (who does not hang out at coffee shops caring if my laptop is glamorous).

The Apple Store buying process was delightful, didn't even have to stand in line at a cash register. I bought the $99 "One on One" service and have made good use of the knowledgeable teaching. Am going to pay them some more visits to learn how to revamp my website (which a friend who was a programmer put together a couple years ago). I don't need "community support" -- If there's ever a problem with my MacBook, I'll just pop over to the Apple store and drop it off.

Computers -- Windows-based, Apple, Linux -- have come a long, long way and are miraculous compared to several years ago or earlier. I paid $1000 less for my Apple than I paid for any previous computer so that was my price comparison more than contemporaneous competition.

With my first Apple so far being such a pleasure compared to all my previous Windows systems, I'm inclined to stay with Macs (and i-Pads and i-Phones).

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