Why Macs are the Best!

[port5900]

@winlux
Come on man you cant bring a SGI Machine into this conversation. Thats like comparing God to a human. I would kill(no i wont) for a SGI. You my friend know good stuff -=)

@HomerJ
Very good points.

[HomerJ]

@winlux
Come on man you cant bring a SGI Machine into this conversation. Thats like comparing God to a human. I would kill(no i wont) for a SGI. You my friend know good stuff -=)

@HomerJ
Very good points.

Yeah, the truth is that the things best-suited to specialized applications (graphics, servers, etc) are not available to you or I.

For graphics, Macs and standard x86 PCs are pretty much equivalent. Some PCs will be better than some Macs, some Macs will be better than some PCs. The ones that will be better are simply the most recent ones, regardless of whether they are Apple or not. Obviously, high-end SGIs are the best, but chances are no one here can afford one.

For servers, non-Macs are probably a little better, since they generally have more memory and can take more modification (adding more hard drives, memory, other upgrades). However, a high-end SPARC machine is probably best-suited to this. Good luck buying one, they can cost more than most people earn in their whole lifetime. If you're gonna go for a cheap SPARC, don't. Just build your own PC far cheaper and better. For a low-end server, non-Apple x86s are probably best, seeing as they are the most cost-effective while still allowing for some real power.

Macs and PCs are just cheap, low-end hardware when compared to what's out there. However, they both use the same hardware now, and non-Mac PCs are much cheaper and more upgradeable. So, I would go for a PC.

[winlux]

@winlux
Come on man you cant bring a SGI Machine into this conversation. Thats like comparing God to a human. I would kill(no i wont) for a SGI. You my friend know good stuff -=)

Well let's face it, movie studios have big bucks, so me and you having an sgi is impossible (not really but almost) that's why we have linux. They have more money, they get better toys. simple as that, although without joking if I was in a company like that and have the budget, there will have to be more reason for me to use linux than it's cheaper and free and, and. I still stick with the fact that I think they use sgi.

@homerJ
I agree on the SPARC, they are well suited, I think RISK processors would be alright as well if they still make them (haven't been looking at cpu's for ages.) But a cheaper alternative to an extent is the XEON processors, they are pretty good as well for this type of applications.

[HomerJ]

Well let's face it, movie studios have big bucks, so me and you having an sgi is impossible (not really but almost) that's why we have linux. They have more money, they get better toys. simple as that, although without joking if I was in a company like that and have the budget, there will have to be more reason for me to use linux than it's cheaper and free and, and. I still stick with the fact that I think they use sgi.

@homerJ
I agree on the SPARC, they are well suited, I think RISK processors would be alright as well if they still make them (haven't been looking at cpu's for ages.) But a cheaper alternative to an extent is the XEON processors, they are pretty good as well for this type of applications.

Yeah, generally RISC processors (like MIPS, SPARC, PA-RISC) are targeted at high-end applications, CISC (like x86) are usually cheaper. If you look at past desktop architectures, they were almost all CISC: VAX, m68k, x86. While high-end computers, like SPARC, MIPS, or high-efficiency like ARM are all RISC. I think it has something to do with CISC being cheaper, but RISC scaling better, but I am no expert.

But RISC isn't a specific architecture, it stands for reduced instruction set computer. They have simpler instructions, that perform less work instead of lots of larger ones doing more work. SPARC, MIPS, ARM, and x86 are examples of architectures.

Intel Xeons and AMD Opterons are nice for middle-range machines. Xeons are also beyond the price range of most normal consumers, Opterons are more affordable.

[SrSarah]

I have both PC and Mac. The virus issue is a very real one. The amount of effort or $ spent dealing with virus/hacker threats for a PC annoys me. I've yet to have a serious problem with the Mac. I'm also can't think of a time that my Mac did the equivalent of the blue-screen bomb.

[port5900]

@SrSarah what version of windows are you running?
and here are some tip for avoiding viruses:
Stop downloading things you don't know about.
Stop going to the "Free Wallpaper" "Free iPod" web sites
Use AVG anti Virus not Nortons and install Adaware.
Windows does not sit there and catch viruses, its the user who lets them in.

[Sohail]

Yeah but Macs hardly have any viruses i've survived on my Mac for 5 years wothout any anti virus programs or anything!!

[DeadBattery]

I agree. Getting a Trojan on a Mac is way less of a possibility than Windows getting a virus.
I like their new iMac. Maybe I'll get one someday...

[callumacrae]

I love Mac's. They are faster, and they look cool.
They cost too much

[winlux]

The thing is that if you do not run anti virus you wont know if you have it or not! But there are still root kits etc. One thing that is a problem is linux mail servers. You may not get a virus as such but you may very well send out tons of viruses with your e-mail.