SECTION A: On the boxes I have actually run since 1998, I've spent a whopping $750. My current box will run just about anything out there, smooth I'm sure, picked it up for $500, added $150 of extra's to it. Where's your $650 Mac? Prior to my current box I got in early 2000, I was running an overclocked Pentium with 72MB RAM on Windows 95. Picked it up for $100.

SECTION B: Chris, what 1.0GHz computer are you comparing to? Even a Celeron is faster than your Mac at 1.0GHz. It's just a blatent lie, and quite sickening. The only possible answer is your friends went to a discount store IE Best Buy, and bought an E Machine with no RAM, a weak, integrated Motherboard, Bigfoot HDD, and bottom line processor. Even then there is no way now that I think about it. You're running on a 66MHz FSB, which means every computer running at 1.0GHz from the factory has a tremendous advantage over your Mac, unless it's a WAY overclocked Celeron.

How is this scientific comparison done? I've run programs on a 233MHz Mac before, and it was nothing short of a crunchy turd. I'm shocked the old thing will even support your cable modem.

SECTION C: All I see is a bunch of Mac is better, Mac is better, but there isn't a shred of evidence to support that I've ever seen. You linked me up to about a dozen Macintosh pages on their home site, and I gave my technical anaylsis. It's Macintosh at least 1-2 years behind PC's. At least. You can't blame anything on Motorola. According to you guys, they build the fastest processor. It's like you've just decided to pull about a dozen arguments out of your hinder and you think that I'm going to go for them.

To reiterate what you've said.

SECTION D: Macintosh O/S's are the best because:

1. They are more stable (False, Skyler has been running XP for 9mo straight)

2. They are more user friendly (Maybe for the brand new user. Overall, I'd have to say false. Mac O/S's are based on server software, and is far more limited than Windows.)

Macintosh O/S's suck because:

1. They can't multitask.

2. They are very slow.

So which is it, are they the best or do they suck? Make up your mind okay? I can't fault your arguments that the O/S sucks, but I certainly can give examples why it does suck.

SECTION E: Macintosh's are faster than PC's:

1. Their processors are much faster. (The advertised calcuation speed of the Mac is peak speed, not overall. There is no basis to support your position. If the benchmark shows the PC kicking the Mac's ***, you blame it on part 2 (Macintosh O/S's suck because:)

2. Clock speeds mean nothing. (As I explained before. They do matter. If they didn't, why are Mac's now at 1.25GHz??? How about the old arcitecture G4 1.0GHz vs the base G4? Which one is faster? Oh! So clock speed does matter?!!)

SECTION F: Macintosh's are better bang for the buck:

1. PC's break down more, requiring you to spend more money over the long haul. (In truth, the Mac becomes outdated so fast in performance, that it's unable to run the intense software on the market. That and the fact you can usually buy about 3 PC's for the price of one Mac. There is no advantage you could possibly argue here.)

Macintosh's are more expensive, thus less bang for the buck:

1. Since Mac is so much more expensive than the dime-a-dozen PC's, that's why their marketshare is weak. (Nope, their computer is weak, unless you get the very fastest model they make, in which case the price is astronomical)

Again, make up your mind. Is the Mac cheaper (it's sucicide to argue this) or is the Mac far more expensive?

SECTION G: Macintosh's are smaller in the market, but will gain ground

1. Because of so many PC competitors, it's been hard to establish a niche. (Whatever. Look at VAIO. They came into probably the most competitive market in the United States, and they were able to rock it gaining excellent marketshare with inferior computers.)

2. Because Mac's business practices are poor. (Apple has OUTSTANDING business practices. It's the only way Mac has even been able to remain selling at all. It certainly can't do it on the computers merits. Most people look to Apple absolutely in LOVE with the way their management works. For god's sake most of investors agree with me, look at their fricken stock price!!!)

3. Because Mac's are more expensive. (Go back to SECTION F, I can't figure out whether you're in agreement that Mac's are too expensive or whether you think they're cheaper??)

SECTION Mac Supporters Don't have a leg to stand on: So while you Mac users can't make up your mind, and when you do the PC users have dozens of real life application benchmarks we can point to where even the twice as expensive Mac system with dual processors is far slower than the single processor releases from AMD and Intel. Where you point to stability, we have just as many testimonials about Mac being unstable far more than the PC's as you do about the opposite, and this argument is your main weapon. Where you point to what will be a growing Mac presence in business, we point to an established business community relying almost solely on PCs because they are faster, cheaper, and better. Where you point to industries that are set in their ways using a Mac, I point to false advertising, people set in their ways, and Mac offering HUGE discounts to capture marketshare. Do you really think schools were purchasing Apple products on the basis of performance, and ease of use? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.... continued HAHA's for quite some time, just use your imagination like that concept is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. :) Mac's have a presence in schools because they set their price soooo low, and offered computers that were basically outdated when they hit the desks to gain a niche market. They hope people won't find out about Windows. They pray people will become hooked on a Mac in school. Uh-oh. Too late. Now buyers are exposing kids to PC's much earlier. Thus Apple dropped back it's campaign and PC's are beginning to trickle into the once Apple dominated market. It's already begun.

You know Kell, you are very convincing untill I catch you in a flat out lie, or proof that you are truly clueless when it comes to Macs, I'm not sure which.

You have some serious issues, Kell. In many respects, you are wise beyond your years, but when it comes to seeing the world as anything other than black and white, you are still very juvenile.

This arguement means so much to you that you twist what I've said, lie about facts and history, and base an entire operating systems stability on a 20 year old living in Ojai.

The sad part is that this is an argument you cant win, which I know you can't even concieve, but oh well.

I have not lied once, Kell. I don't need to.

Your "facts" are nothing more than YOUR personal opinions based entirely in ignorance. Macs can't multitask. LOL! I can do more on my G4 simulteanously than you can dream of on your box. You should become more familiar with something before you make a fool out of yourself criticizing it for faults it doesn't have.

God herself (I know, your agnostic) could stand in your face and tell you Macs were better, and you'd start on a rant again. I don't need this. You seem to thrive on it. Have fun playing with yourself, Kell. I'm not going take part in this with an uneducated man.

Take care,
~Chris

Without a shred of data or real life proof to back up his argument, the Mac user backs exercises their right to stand back and lob personal attacks at the PC user, who is armed with technical analysis, data, and contradictory statements made by Mac users.

The end result, the more educated, and well versed PC user shakes his head at the incompetency of a Mac user's arguments based solely on opinion and detailed technical phrases put out by the Mac's home page marketing site to prove his point.

Ego bruised, the Mac user makes up some dream about the PC user getting even the least bit huffy over what has so far been an extremely easy debate to win. I'm not flustered Chris. Your arguments took hours to contruct, and me but minutes to dissolve. It only takes me a couple minutes to make my post, so it's not the most important thing by any means. Actually, I'm doing a load of body work to the 87GT right now. I have to wait for the door to dry, which is the only reason I'm even here.

Btw, I don't base my arguments solely on a professional in a now established and successful PC shop with degrees in computer networking, and years of experience working with Mac's and PC's. I base a lot on my experience (predating yours) on being tech support for hundreds of Mac's, and building PC's, along with self-taught networking wiz's, who are my friends. I was doing tech support for a network of 200 Mac's on an ethernet before you even took your entry level computer courses in 1995. Trust me. Yep, I was tech support for 2,600 people when I was 16 years old, clear back in high school. I learned on Mac's. I grew to hate them, and I made the switch to the far superior PC platform because it allowed me to customize the way my computer ran and worked. I openly admit, I know crap about PC's compared to my friends, but I still know more than most.

PC vs MAC
 

Chris:

What was the 'flat-out lie' Kell told?

I don't have a dog in this hunt as I use my computer like some people use a commuter car. I surf the net and do some word processing, maybe play a few (borrowed) games once in awhile - and thats about it.

I have little interest in Mac's and don't intend to buy one as my 2-year-old 750 Mhz processor Compaq is fine for my needs and gives me almost no problems at all. You guys lose me with some of the arcana but as a bystander who has no strong opinions or knowledge on the subject of PC's vs Macs, the discussion is interesting and I'm sure others appreciate it, even if the tech parts take some time to sort out.

I find that both you and Kell make fairly cogent arguments but when you start accusing each other of ignorance and stubborn allegience to a favorite computer platform, nothing is really learned.

This is akin to a Ford vs Chevy argument so nothing is ever truly resolved (you're not about to sell your Mac and Kell isn't dumping his PC any time soon) but we can all gain from facts presented. I hate to see you simply dismiss Kell even though you're frustrated. As you should know by now, Kell is not easily dimissed.

I would rather see you counter his arguments, if you can. I would also like to see more facts presented, as Sky did. That's convincing and can be checked and evaluated whereas opinions and negative characterizations of each others intelligence and integrity cannot .

Anyway, good debate, so far.

here is a good little link you all.

I hate to prove you wrong, or imply you're wrong, but take a look at this benchmark test. Done by a MACINTOSH website. Unfairly pitting a single PIII vs a dual G4. Their basis of comment? It was unfair because of CLOCK SPEED. That meaningless thing. Oh, also threw in a single G4 450 vs it too. THe PIII kept right up with the dual G4 machine, and wasted the single G4. In Adobe Photoshop!!!

Again, this test was done by a Macintosh site. THe PIII used is an old school technology 1.0GHz non-tualatin processor.

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4ZONE/ph...GHzPCvsG4.html

So I don't see how your pathetic 233MHz G3 could outrun a single G4 450MHz. Do you? If you do, do you think your G3 can take on and keep up with or (since you kill the 1.0GHz computers with your 233Mhz box) whoop a dual 450Mhz G4?

Of course not. My point about you blatently lying has been proved to well above my satisfaction.

Remember, the test was done by a Mac site, using Mac software! Hehehe, against an old school PIII of all things. I bet the new Tualatin, which roasts the old PIII would hang with a mighty dual G4 1.0Ghz.

I guess Im walking in a little late here. Things get to be a little heated.

Chris- Start using some facts, I see things like "my 233 is faster than my neighbors 1000mhz machine" Theres no fact there. My honda is faster than my neighbors mustang. Same amount of evidence. So lets refrain from using worthless statements like that.

You saying that harddrives dont fail in Mac's yet you see it in PC's all the time? False. Guess what? They both use the same parts. Open up that G4 you'll probably find an IBM Deskstar hard drive. Reformat it and you can run it in any PC as well. BTW, the one in my dads G4 just failed after a year old.

I dont think this is a Windows VS OS10 debate, I think this is which computer is faster and can do more for the dollar. And I think its well proven that the PC blows the mac away in a dollar for dollar comparison.

Now as far as the MAC being better in photoshop, the link I posted proved the 2.53 P4 blew away a Dual 1GHZ G4. Now I dont know the changes in architecture on the G4 now at 1.25GHZ. But if clock speed is the only increase you can figure it out easily that it still will not beat the 2.53, and the new 2.8 will put more of a hurt on it.

Saying things like the graphics on your old machine is better than new PCs is 100% false.

I have used a new Dual 1GHZ G4 running OS10.2 and I have to say the graphics are awesome, the operating system looks really nice and is quite user friendly. For never using a MAC before I was able to figure it out pretty quick. Set it up to login to the Windows 2000 Domain controller and print to a couple of network printers. One problem though, we had a Laserjet 2100 and I set it up to print to that printer, with the correct driver provided in OS10 and it did no print correctly. Just a bunch of crap. It did work good with the laserjet 4550 though. Ive NEVER had a problem with a PC when selecting the correct driver. Maybe I was doing something wrong but I seriously doubt it as I setup the other printer just fine.

Citing things from apples site is fine, but obviously they are going to lean to the mac side, why wouldnt they? They are selling them arent they? Its like taking data for AMD's chips off of Intels site.

As far as Windows XP sucking? Its the best windows yet? Why, plug and play works perfectly. Yeah I agree, it wasnt perfect in previous versions of windows. But now you can plug in almost any hardware item and it will find the driver and set it up perfectly. Yeah maybe mac already had this, but it doesnt have nearly as wide an array of hardware available out there for it.

As far as crappy PC's and computers that freeze and dont work right. Think about it this way.... There are hundereds of PC parts manufacters out there. Most PC's are combined with all different brands of parts, are there going to be occasional conflicts? Yes! How many guys modify their cars with all kinds of new parts and are on here with all kinds of tuneing problems. (Not the best analogy but it gets the point across I believe)

Kell has no experience w/ Windows XP? So what, neither do you Chris. I guess this stupid "20 year old up in Ojai" doesnt know anything about it since hes been runnning it just about a year now, including beta versions that were released before it even came out for most people. I guess my location really has a lot to do with what I know about an operating system.

So is the G4 faster than a PC in photoshop? It certainly hasn't been proven to me. ALL the older tests point to the PC being faster. I will not accept a test from APPLE on this. Its like believe the cigarette companies when they say cigs dont cause cancer. Is the new dual 1.25 G4 Faster than a 2.8GHZ p4 in photoshop? I dont know, I dont have one to run the test myself, and I havn't seen a test run on it yet. I do have access to a Dual 1GHZ, but I guess those test arent accepted.

Parts failure more on PC. Not true, same components are used. The main things to fail on computers are Hard drives, and Cd-roms, and printers, and same companies make for both.

Another non-relivant interesting peice of information. Last year my dad bought a Dual G4 533, loaded with 1.5ghz of ram for just under 3500bux. Apple shipped him this Dual CPU G4 with OS9.x and it didnt even support DUAL CPU. His second CPU just wasted away while it became obsolete.

Heres something for you mac'ers to look into. A Mac buddy of mine said theres a way to load windows XP on a new G4. Is this true? I dont see how it would be possible but you never know.

Oh yea, BTW Chris, Im 21, not 20, and have had every model of IBM Compatible cpu from he 4.77MHZ 8088 on up. Dont know why my location or age had any relevence in this discussion though.

Shadow- Thats Windows 98, shall we start comparing 2 versions older copies of the MAC OS? So thats completely irrelevent.

Skyler

Obvious Im not serious here, but u gotta see this.

http://www.apple.com/switch/ads/ellenfeiss.html

Maybe if this girl wasnt stoned while using the computer she wouldnt have lost her paper.

Skyler

That's it. I knew this **** was going to happen. I never said you were stupid, Sky. **** this. This is why I don't play games with kids. BTW, for me it was always about the OS. THAT is what makes the Mac so much better. The technicals are just gravy. Every technical point I made was about the new G4, and I still haven't seen anything from either of you about it. But I don't want to. This has sunk to a level I try very hard to avoid.

Jim, this is for you:

I believe it. It's almost to the point where you can't even give them away.

It's a Gateway computer. I have no idea who made the processor, and it's not a lie.

LOL! I see, so documented facts are worthless because they're on Apple's website, but YOUR "technical analysis" is law. ROFLMAO!!! You must be joking, Kell. Please. Just because you don't like the truth doesn't give you the right to dismiss facts in favor of your opinions, and then preach them as though they were fact.

That's all the proof I need. Damn Kell, what was I thinking???

Kell=wrong

You are either ignorant, inexperienced, or lying. OS X is a Unix platform that is virtually unlimited, and can do anything Windows can do, and more.

Kell=Wrong again

Again, you are either ignorant, inexperienced, or lying.

Preemptive multitasking
Preemptive multitasking essentially works like a controller that enables the PowerPC G4 to process several different tasks simultaneously. The controller gives priority to your primary applications, while the PowerPC G4 continues to crunch away at other tasks in the background. Mac OS X uses this controller to monitor the processor at all times. The controller prioritizes tasks, makes sure activities are at peak levels, and allocates resources on the fly to ensure that every task has the processing power it needs.

Processor priorities are set according to the importance of each task. If you suddenly decide to check your email or surf the web while youÕre in the middle of compressing an MP3 music file, Mac OS X preempts the audio compression task and re-allocates sufficient processor power to comply with your most recent request.

Symmetric multiprocessing
All Mac OS X applications and technologies are optimized to take advantage of the dual processor capabilities of the PowerPC G4, because symmetric multiprocessing takes preemptive multitasking to the next level. Mac OS X automatically harnesses both processors, so all of your applications benefit from the higher performance the second processor offers. Mac OS X allocates application tasks to the processors as needed, using (say) one processor to burn a DVD while it uses the other to create a new MP3 file. As serial processes these two tasks could take quite a while to complete, but with both processors in action Ñ processing in parallel Ñ the time to complete the two tasks is cut nearly in half. ThatÕs why complex tasks like image transformations, video compression and MP3 encoding operations are often completed in up to half the time using Mac OS X on a dual processor Power Mac G4.

Multithreading
Mac OS X enables dramatic performance increases by breaking down complex processes into sub-processes, known as threads, and executing the threads in parallel across two processors. For example, if you were creating a transition between two clips of video, the process would include decoding the first clip, decoding the second clip, rendering the transition, and re-encoding the transition back into the original format. On Mac OS X, the system can decode the two clips at the same time, one on each processor. And afterwards, while the transition is rendering on one processor, finished frames can be re-encoded on the second processor. Because threads are processing in parallel, you can complete a process in significantly less time.

Kell=Wrong yet again

Ignorant, inexperienced, or lying. See above.

The performance advantage of the PowerPC G4 starts with its data pipeline. The term Òprocessor pipelineÓ refers to the number of processing steps, or stages, it takes to accomplish a task. The fewer the steps, the shorter Ñ and more efficient Ñ the pipeline. Thanks to its efficient 7-stage design (versus 20 stages for the Pentium 4 processor) the G4 processor can accomplish a task with 13 fewer steps than the PC. You do the math.

Kell=Wrong

You haven't been right yet, why stop now? BTW, Macs ARE the best. :)

Here's where you twist my words around for your convenience. MHz numbers are virtually meaningless EXCEPT among the same type of chip, made by the same manufacturer. For example, two different P4's can be accurately compared, but a Celeron and a P4 can't be, even though they are both Intel chips. If you can't even use it for measure among chips made by the same company, how in the hell do you think you could possibly compare them across two different platforms? You can't, so stop try to.

That reminds me, Kell, you haven't shown one shread of evidence yet. You keep talking about benchmarks, but the only one I've seen so far with the new G4, have the G4 smoking the P4. Go figure.



Sure there is. You're wrong again! People keep their macs an average of 6 years because they keep on working. If they didn't handle a new app, they'd be replaced, but they do just fine. You also aren't troubled with the inconvenience of having to replace the motherboard this month, and your hard drive a couple months later. The one thing I do agree with you about, though, is that PC's are definately disposable.

Just like the Cobra and the Mach 1, huh?

Wrong again. The $1699 G4 is faster than the 2.53 P4.

You are either a bold faced liar, or dumb as a box of rocks. Apples screw-up's are the only reason Windows had a chance. Among other things, they wouldn't sell licenses to other manufacturers to build their parts or similar machines, like IBM did. If they had, Hewlit Packard, Compaq, et al would all be selling Mac clones. Apple is the first three chapters in every business classes book of things not to do. Do some research for a change, Kell, this is very common knowledge.

There's 4 lies right there.

Whoops, there's another one.

It's fascinating the way you get everything backwards, Kell. Are you Dyslexic?

If you are, get someone else to read these articles to you. They deserve your attention.

How about a positive review from PC Magazine, in which they point out how simple it is to network the two platforms effortlessly.

Hehehe, or this article from the Boston Globe that pretty much shuts down your arguement regarding the Macs strengths, Kell.

Oh, and this one backs me up too, Kell. It's an article from the Post Gazette, confirming that Windows is still a very unreliable OS, whereas OS X is virtually flawless. Yeah, I must have made that one up, too.




I had the proof, you had the opinions. Oh, I'm sorry, is this more of your fictional writing?

LOL!!! Don't flatter yourself. I have a Mac, it only takes me minutes to do what it must take you hours to do.

Oh, okay, then it's okay for me to base my opinions on DOS?

Get real.


Take care,
~Chris

Jim-

I'm glad you're entertained by this, but I'm not. The only reason I wrote this last one is because you said something. I'm not into this. Honestly, they both work, it's really a matter of preference, which is why neither one of us can ever "win". Unfortunately, Kell isn't able to see that yet.

I am.

Take care,
~Chris

Cmon guys, I never ment to turn this into a **** slinging contest. I thought it was a friendly debate, and I never got riled up about it. Except for a minute there. Chris, I'm not personally attacking you. Maybe this has got outta hand.

Skyler

Okay, you're best suited to answering car questions Chris. Keep out of the computer world until you get a clue.

The Mac is setup to execute processes in less steps than a P4. It's true. Only a P4 executes 3 times as many tasks at once. Plus P4's new trace cache allows it to predict processes even before the commands are given with NO delay. Meaning while the Mac is waiting for the next bit of information, the P4 has a constant data stream and is saving 1-2 processes each cycle. Furthermore, since P4 has an insanely high clock speed, it processes each cycle faster than the G4.

You seriously need to read about some of this stuff before you run your mouth off.

I know you don't play games... with anybody, because your computer can't even run them anymore. Skyler and I have both asked how your junky little 233 was able to beat a 1.0GHz PC AND I PROVIDED BENCHMARKS to prove what you were saying was completely and utterly ridiculous.

I looked at the two benchmarks or so the Apple site had on it. Unlike you, I actually took your arguments into consideration. Then I came back with why they were so flawed. In memory testing, Apple was comparing Mac SDRAM vs PC SDRAM, which is great, if you're doing a comparison on 3 year old PIII. The P4 doesn't use SDRAM. Your processor benchmark didn't show a P4. The encoding benchmark was a farse. Like I stated before, and I have to re-state again. It was run on a "codec." Do you even know what that means? They ran the benchmark on a piece of a program that the Mac was specifically tailored to be fast on. Yet when the whole program is tested READ THE BENCHMARK LINK POSTED BY SKYLER AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD. Since you NEVER bothered to read the BENCHMARKS posted by Skyler, or the BENCHMARKS posted by me, which have full applications running, not just pieces of them. Your benchmarks were pathetic. EXACTLY like saying my near stock 87GT would kill Skyler's Saleen in a race by looking at our 60ft times both cars having street rubber. It's completely and totally skewed, just because my car will probably launch better cause I can get traction. But NO, can't look at the obvious. Can't research anything. Just get all peeved when you're PROVED wrong. Completely, totally, and utterly dead wrong.

Take a look at my analysis. It tells exactly why the G4 is inferior to the P4. Mac NEVER did a comparison. Just talked about their chip. Here, http://arstechnica.com/cpu/01q2/p4an...4andg4e-2.html read up on it if you think you can actually follow it. Better yet, read the whole article before you start running your mouth.

I see I was wrong several times because I posted examples, and real life experiences. While you were right because you just plain said so... LOL. It's called a debate. Not an argument. Thanks but your magazines are politcally biased, and news media like that are generally hardly experts. The technical information I posted is real comparisons, by real technical people.

Oh. One more thing. Learn some modesty. You've been absolutely hosed in this debate. You keep on digging a hole.

Skyler- Me posting that link was completely irrelevent. But it Does fall on the same path as what you posted here:


I thought this whole post was going to be a good subject to talk smack between the PC's and MAC's. As you Skyler and PKRWUD do talk to each other a lot and seem to be able to take sarcastic remarks as a joke real well(which is a good thing).
It seems as this subject has turned into a schit slinging, peker sizing contest.
Yes this subject does get touchy but everyone knows what each other chooses for their machine and that is fine(to each their own).
Kell- I don't know you too well but from previous posts on almost all subjects that I have seen you post about, you take things way to serious and need to calm down.
This was supposed to be fun.
With that said I will always keep my MAC no matter how slow it gets. Everyone can keep their PC as that is what they choose no problem by me.


::::I quit this subject until people can calm down a little and take some sarcasm::::

Tone is difficult to tell over the internet, Shadow The only reason you no longer like the thread is it's very sour for the Mac user. I was the first to lightly push a couple buttons, but I think it became pretty obvious who was hot under the collar, and it wasn't me.

I'm not super riled up or anything. I enjoy a good debate. You confuse anger with persistance, and well constructed arguments. All to often I find people automatically assume a disagreement must result in hurt feelings and a derogatory argument.

The idea I'm all ticked off has been brought up numerous times, on numerous threads. Just because my arguments are overpowering doesn't mean I'm upset. It does get me a little upset when people choose not to debate me, instead arguing, and never giving my research even the credit of taking it into account. I like to have some facts and data when i make my debate. I like to make sure I have my bases covered when I hear my opponents rebuttal (which is why I gave PKRWUD's posting of the Apple owned website it's fair review.) I read those pages, most of them completely unless I knew the information was not relevent. I then dismantled the information and used it to make my position stronger. It took me but minutes because the site's information was actually to my advantage. My main opponent didn't even bother to read the initial posted benchmark link. Apparently he didn't even take the time to look at several more links to information or benchmarks. He simply dismissed it. I took the time to look at his argument, and gave due respect to his position. He dismissed me, got upset, and took his chances that I would not be able to support my position. In fact I was able to support my position extremely well, I think. While at the same time pressing some buttons in the hopes he would research the information we both have access to to support his position better. It never happened.

Do I consider it time lost? Nope. I think the debate has given a large group of people the ability to learn about the advantages of a platform I consider superior.

PKRWUD mentioned earlier that I could sell ice to an Eskimo. He's right. If I believed in the product I was selling, which requires a good deal of information for me to evaluate.

Yeah, I really enjoyed it actually. It was ment to be a debate, not an argument.

I learned a lot more about both platforms!

Skyler

Mac vs PC, Round 9,297
 

All:

Thanks for the information and for what it's worth, I enjoyed the debate.

I've debated both Chris (PKRWUD) and Kell (Unit 5302) on a few hot-button issues (drug legalization, religion) before and although it was intense, it was also intellectually stimulating because a worthy opponent forces you to think hard about your position and defend it with logic, not simply emotion-driven opinion.

In this case, I've long been curious as to what causes the chasm between Macintosh and PC fans and I've never seen a real debate over the facts before.

Admittedly, as a near-bumpkin in the world of computers I'm easily dazzled by the tech stuff but one thing is clear; just as aftermarket manufacturers for performance auto parts can play around with dyno HP numbers (by using a part on an otherwise stock engine and increasing performance or using the part on a highly modified engine and showing big gains - at 6400 RPM) so can computer manufacturers play around with the OS and other components to reach a desired number in performance and make their product appear superior. Understanding that simple fact of advertising, one must be very careful to evaluate the data and the source for it.

While I believe there may be a certain measure of equality between the two systems - depending on the application and many other factors - I would still buy another PC over the Mac. Then again, I'm reallya low-end user and all the bells and whistles are of only marginal interest to me anyway.

I agree with Chris that when the smoke clears it seems to be a personal preference and apparently once the decision is made to go with either the PC or the Macintosh there seems to be a real need to justify that choice. I understand that and I see a lot of it in the posts here. No one wants to be wrong. I empathize.

On subjective issues such as politics or religion, that's possible but with issues based on hard data such as computer performance it becomes difficult to escape conclusions - except that so much of the data is skewed by slight changes in the comparisons. As Kell said, his stock '87 5.0 may have a better 60-ft time than Sky's Mustang (due to putting down less power) but that doesn't mean it can beat Sky's Mustang in the quarter. One test doesn't determine the total usefullness and value of a computer product.

I'm not picking a winner but I've been educated here and for my next PC purchase (a few years away, at least) I may well contact some of you guys for up-to-date info and advice (along with Dan McClain, who advised me on my last PC buy).

It was fun for us bystanders and I'm leaving the thread open for any further comments but please avoid name-calling. It doesn't enhance anyone's argument and it takes down the tone of the discussion where it unfortunately does just become more about egos than information. I prefer information, especially on technecial issues. I suspect most members who care enough to read the thread feel the same way.

That said; thanks to all for the effort - and the information.

Kell; good to see you back, even if you are at variance with another prolific member. Keeps the board interesting.

'Don't be a stranger'.

HEY !!! Be careful how ya talk about my E Machine She is very sensative with XP installed ! She can hear you and I don't need anymore problems out of her.

BTW, Did I tell all of you today that, " I love you all"?:p

Ok sorry Ill go back to my beer and leave all of you to it. This is very well done though and I am learning alot
my .02

Hey Chris, how fast is your G4?

Skyler

I totally agree...I've been using Macs for MANY more years than a PC (learned on a Mac, only had a PC for less than 2 years now) but when it comes to the casual internet user/gamer, a PC is a far superior choice than an Apple. More software, more updates, etc. Now...for Photoshop and Illustrator, I'd choose my Mac ANY DAY OF THE WEEK over a Dell, Sony etc.

No. Mine has crashed more times than I can remember, and the one that my dad bought 6 months after mine is absolute trash as well. I don't know enough about computers to say why (rather be chasing butterflies :D) but I've had NOTHING but trouble with my laptop. I finally got a Dell...dude ;)

LOL That's exactly what this argument is, a CPU pissing contest :D...It crops up every few months, and its always the same people defending their products...who really cares?

Just chalk it up to the other guy missing out on something great, and give it a rest :) I've tried both, and love aspects of both brands. Do I care about helping someone else out that doesn't want my help? Not a chance in HELL :D