Mac vs PC
- Thread starter Nixy
- Start date
Well, it all depends on how much data you want to store on your home directory, how many programs are you going to install and how much data are those programs storing.
It all comes to 3 main directories:
/home
/usr
/var
If you don't have a mail server, databases or web services then the var directory will be relatively small. As for the usr directory it will remain small if you keep the installed programs count small.
With that size of hard drive and assuming personal use (i.e. small var directory), I'd leave a 10GB partition for the / directory, about 2GB for swap and the rest for /home.
Leaving the /home in another partition will save you the trouble of backing up in case you must install another distro or reinstalling the current one.
GrandCaravanSE
Active Member
what operating system are you used to?
Update, I dumped Parallels for VMWare, it connects to the internet fine. I can't get my built in isight to work in windows but I don't like windows anyway and finally found a MSN client for mac that supports webcam so I'm good. Just this week I finally got everything all set up so I can access my work desktop via VPN from OSX (before I was accessing through windows in vmware...that was a nightmare). I'm very happy with my Mac 
BeardofPants
New Member
Cool beans. 
All I have to say is: Vista sucks dirty ass.
I liked the stability of W2K. Compared to Vista, XP rocked (for Windows). I do like various flavors of Linux and I have a dual boot right now. The one thing about Linux that irritates the hell out of me is that many people I know who use it are Linux snobs (just like the Mac users can be snobs). They stick to the erroneous belief that in order to use Linux a user must know Linux inside and out. If we are ever to push Windows down from the 98% OS market there needs to be a version of Linux that is ready to go for the PC right "out of the box". One way to do this is to get manufacturers onboard. Acer, Dell, whoever... get them to have a version of Linux that the user can install with minimal instructions rather than force them into a shitty version of Windows (Vista).
I've worked with a Mac before but I just hate the whole proprietary aspect of a Mac. A PC is so much more versatile. I am not married to one OS with a PC and if something breaks, I am not paying Steve Jobs one cent for the reasonably priced PC part replacement. Macs tend to be highly over priced for what you get and the only reason for that is because it's all proprietary.
I liked the stability of W2K. Compared to Vista, XP rocked (for Windows). I do like various flavors of Linux and I have a dual boot right now. The one thing about Linux that irritates the hell out of me is that many people I know who use it are Linux snobs (just like the Mac users can be snobs). They stick to the erroneous belief that in order to use Linux a user must know Linux inside and out. If we are ever to push Windows down from the 98% OS market there needs to be a version of Linux that is ready to go for the PC right "out of the box". One way to do this is to get manufacturers onboard. Acer, Dell, whoever... get them to have a version of Linux that the user can install with minimal instructions rather than force them into a shitty version of Windows (Vista).
I've worked with a Mac before but I just hate the whole proprietary aspect of a Mac. A PC is so much more versatile. I am not married to one OS with a PC and if something breaks, I am not paying Steve Jobs one cent for the reasonably priced PC part replacement. Macs tend to be highly over priced for what you get and the only reason for that is because it's all proprietary.
JJR512
New Member
1. "A PC is so much more versatile." In what sense? A PC can do everything a PC can do. A Mac can do everything a Mac can do, plus, with either dual-booting or a virtual machine program, everything a PC can do.
2. "I am not married to one OS with a PC..." Nor are you with a Mac. You can dual-boot OS X or Windows XP or Vista. Through virtual machine software, you can also use some Linux OSes, too.
3. "...and if something breaks, I am not paying Steve Jobs one cent for the reasonably priced PC part replacement." Apple doesn't make most of the hardware in a Macintosh, so if you get a replacement part, you're not paying Steve Jobs anything, anyway. In fact, many parts can be replaced with PC components, anyway. Memory? The same. Hard drives? The same. Most PC monitors, printers, mice, computers, scanners, and speakers work with Macs, too.
4. "Macs tend to be highly over priced for what you get and the only reason for that is because it's all proprietary." It's actually mostly not proprietary, and, looking at the facts, they're not all that overpriced at all.
AFAIK, Acer, Asus and Dell sell PCs/notebooks/netbooks with Linux preloaded.
IDLEchild
Well-Known Member
It's true MACs use 98% of the same components as a PC but the difference between MAC and PC is how easily can you make repairs to it. I am no expert at PCs yet i've changed hard drives, added memory and changed CD drives...how easily can that be done on an imac?
Cnet has a step by step process of how to change a HD on an imac and the process is not for any layman at PCs.
There is a difference between opening a case, swapping out parts and opening a case, removing the screen, disconnecting internal wires to get to the HD. Mac pros are an exception but how many owners of Macs own those!
Also I love the $900 for 8gb of memory. Classy Apple, very classy.
"2." and "3." are answers to "1.".
When I was out looking at Macs the parts (and the original computer) were far more expensive than parts for the PC. I chose the PC because it was more reasonably priced. If you put a non-Mac "blessed" part into a Mac you violate your warranty. So you pay extra for those parts with the Mac "blessing".
I have a friend who uses Linux OS with a virtual Windows XP. The virtual Windows XP isn't working so well. I don't know how well it works with Mac OS X.
Two to three and a half grand for a MAC laptop is overpriced to me. If I can buy a brand new PC laptop for $600 or less with the same computing capabilities I'm getting the PC laptop.
I didn't pay 2 grand for my Mac, I paid a little over one grand. Running Windows XP through a virtual machine on my mac works fine. I rarely use it because I own a Mac for a reason...that said, someone who wants to run windows with more demanding programs can install it on bootcamp so the Mac can dual boot. Bootcamp comes with any new mac, I never bothered to install it because I don't need the full capabilities of my computer when I'm in windows.
Mirlyn
Well-Known Member
In my experience, XP (and most MS OS's) runs much faster in a VM--regardless of the host OS. I have a client who has his desktop running Debian and runs XP in a VM just so he can use Outlook (Exchange).
Don't forget, OSX doesn't just run on mac hardware.
I've had it running on a basic intel desktop board. Not 100% perfect, but definitely useable.
IDLEchild
Well-Known Member
Then you underestimate your friend. A lot of people, like yourself, wouldn't touch a laptop.
I find both platforms have their own merits but I can't stand how Apple price gouges on upgrades.
But generally I really can't stand Apple fans. I have a friend who gets annoyed when I call her MAC a PC because she doesn't want the word PC anyway near her Mac...that is idiotic.
Also I love asking the question "Why is MAC better for graphic design than a PC?" to Apple shouters. I have yet to hear an answer that wasn't laughable lunacy.
JJR512
New Member
So it sounds like your problem is more with the design of the iMac than anything else. Someone like you probably wouldn't get an iMac, you'd get a Mac Pro. And that's fine. No one computer is for everybody, the iMac is no exception. Personally, I like having a separate tower, too, and when the iMac first came out, I thought they were butt-ugly. They're getting nicer each rev, though. I'd consider one mainly for the price.
But consider that the average person buying an iMac is not someone who would make his or her own repairs to a computer even if it was easily possible, PC or Mac, it makes no difference. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a poor choice for the millions of people that have already bought one or are looking to get one. They don't care that they can't easily get inside of it; they know that's what the warranty is for, that's all that matters to them.
I agree with you about Apple's pricing for memory. I wonder how many people they're fooling into paying those kinds of prices. Of course, as you know, you don't have to buy memory from Apple.
I don't know if that's true for most parts, like memory or hard drives, and in any event, the prices I have seen for "Mac" memory and "Mac" hard drives were the same, or very nearly so, as the non-"Mac" version, which was exactly the same part in a differently-labeled box (except for hard drives, which are the same part but formatted for Mac as well).
In any event, when the warranty runs out, you don't have to worry about that anymore. I don't know what the desktop standard warranty is, but for laptops, it's one year, so I would only assume it's the same for desktops. How much upgrading are you really going to need to do within the first year, anyway? It probably would have been cheaper to just buy an upgraded computer in the first place.
The $600 PC laptop doesn't compare directly to a $3,000 Mac laptop and I think you know it.* It doesn't compare anymore than it compares to a $3,000 PC laptop. You're talking about two different leagues here. Are the cheapest PC laptops cheaper than the least expensive Mac laptops? Yes. Same is true for desktops. Apple does not play to the bargain-basement market. That is a strategic marketing decision on their part.
But by using this same faulty logic, I can say that PCs are overpriced. There are PC laptops on the market for over $6,000. No Mac laptop with a standard price anywhere near that high (adding all possible hardware upgrades to their top-end 17" MacBook Pro gives you a $4899 price tag). Therefore, I conclude that PCs are overpriced.
* Show me a $600 PC laptop with a 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM, 320GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm, 17-inch 1920x1200 pixel LED-backlit display, NVIDIA GeForce 9400M integrated GPU and 9600M GT discrete GPU, 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW), backlit keyboard, battery that lasts up to 8 hours and can be recharged up to 1,000 times, weights 6.6 pounds and is less than one inch thick. Those are the specs for the $3099 17" MacBook Pro (I had to upgrade the 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo for $300 to get to your $3000 price point; with this CPU, it's $2799). Show me a $600 PC laptop that can match this, and that's a challenge.
I don't really like fanboys of any type, although I know lately, I probably come across as an Apple fanboy. But even though I try to correct and educate where appropriate, I do not believe myself to be a true fanboy. I would never say PCs suck or PC users are stupid or anything along those lines. Windows is a decent platform and there are many things about Windows I still like better. (Keep in mind, I only switched to Mac a little over a year ago, after being a Windows use since 3.0, so the MS experience is still fairly fresh in my mind.) While Vista had more than its share of problems, visually, it was a nice OS, and I don't think it's currently still as crappy as its first impressions created. I think Windows 7 will probably be a very nice OS, and I will probably buy a copy to replace XP in my Boot Camp and VMware virtual machine.
Ultimately it's about tools to get the job done. I had problems getting the job done with Windows, so I switched to Mac. (I could not upload photos to a Microsoft photo sharing site through Microsoft's browser running on Microsoft's OS, despite multiple downloadings and installings and updatings, and finally got fed up.) As for graphics design, and the other things Macs are supposedly better for? I don't know, I haven't really tried most of that stuff, and I haven't been in the Mac world long enough to know the history. And it's in the history where I believe the answers are located. I think years ago the desktop publishing, photo editing, and graphics arts softwares available for Mac were far better than their Windows counterparts. While the differences may be minimal now, I think the image maintains, as well as the large existing user base of people who just won't switch because what they have already works just fine, so why bother. And they are right to not switch. After all, if you'd been using Mac software for years, would you now switch to Windows just because the Windows version of your software is almost, or equally, as good? Of course not.
Inkara1
Well-Known Member
I think it goes back to the days in the 80s when PCs were running DOS and not so much Windows yet. The good graphics and page design software back then was written for macs and old standards die hard.
It might also have something to do with the way they handle colors (gamma correction) and the whole 96 dpi vs. 72 dpi thing that's also not much of an issue anymore.
IDLEchild
Well-Known Member
I never really said they were a poor choice. I was just remarking on how it was mentioned that making upgrades to imacs was as simple as upgrading a PC.
I like Apple's approach to it's PC's and software. When you have one company running the show on both hardware and software sides then of course it'll just work. I also think Apple has the most incredible industrial designers out there but the thing that makes Apple good is what makes it bad.
It's too limiting. It's too much of a status symbol as opposed to an actual threat to windows. Those who are fans of its products seem to lose any and all commom sense. They love harping on and about "You never have to worry about viruses" ofcourse you don't. Same reason the stuck up chick doesn't have to worry about greasy guys hitting on her, the girl that gets around is attracting them...
Everytime I am prepared to buy one I realize how a similar PC would cost far less. Yeah Vista is a resource hog but windows 7 looks promising.
If win 7 is a dud then I am going to Apple.
IDLEchild
Well-Known Member
Just mention to them that photoshop CS4 64 bit version is only available for windows despite OSX being 64 bit.