[ferrija1]

In the end, I just want to say that you really have to have owned both a Mac and a PC to compare them. You can't just have a PC and say Macs suck because you don't have one.

[vinyljunkie]

Originally Posted by ferrija1

you really have to have owned both a Mac and a PC to compare them

well said

[ferrija1]

Originally Posted by vinyljunkie

well said

Thanks, I just hate it when people who don't know Macs are even computers come in here and say, "sorry guys, but you all know PC is better."

[namenotfound]

I've owned a Mac since November '07, but used them for years in school. I started with an Apple II in Junior High. In college I've used a combination of iMac CRT and iMac LCD computers. The Mac I own is a MacBook Pro.

I've owned Windows-based computers since 1999. The computers I've owned were: Sony, Gateway, & Dell.

My first computer was command line based, it was a Commadore64 computer.

So I'm experienced with both Windows and Mac, and I can honestly say for my own personal preference, I prefer Mac. Mac OS X has so many cool features in it, such as "stacks". And the Mac hardware runs Windows XP faster than my Sony or Gateway computer. The Dell seems to run Windows XP as fast as my Mac.

I still say though, that people should STOP with "PC vs. Mac" comparisons, because a Mac is a PC.

[cancon]

Originally Posted by vinyljunkie

Honda vs. Toyota
Ford vs. Chevy
Cingular vs. Verizon
us vs. them
Church's vs. Popeye's
Jets vs. Giants

As is Mac vs. Windows.

In a perfect world, everyone would respect the opinions of all others concerning this. Truth is, I don't care why anyone prefers one over the other. It's their opinion, and that's really all that matters. As long as they don't attempt to push their opinions on me, it doesn't affect me.

Ya love Mac and want no other?
Great.

Perfectly happy with Windows?
Wonderful.

Prefer Unix or Linux?
Beautiful.

But plz don't attempt to convince anyone that your opinion (that one is simply better than the other) is actually a fact.

On a related note, I work in the GIS industry, and finding a spatial data viewer/editor that works well on a Mac (including web apps) is quite frustrating.

It's slightly annoying when people don't have a related point to make, and try to make an argument-destroying comment when they can't take sides. If you don't have a relevant point to make, don't make one at all. Not directed at you, vinyl. This is just bottled up anger from all those who do it. You just happened to be the last one to do so.

[JStergis]

oi! Not this again!

I voted PC


Why?

1. The Availability of them around here and the popularity is huge, because of this I just got 16 of a company's old ones (P-III 866 MHz, the lot of them)

2. The capability to build my own

3. The compatibility with lots of software, one of my main reasons of not looking too much into the mac market is the fact that at least 30% of the software I use won't run on it, and for the software I do have I'd have to spend thousands on buying mac versions.

4. The price- I can build a pc for a couple hundred easy, for 500-1000 I can have a pretty sweet one, to get a higher-up mac, you're looking at thousands easy

5. The interface...most people call it revolutionary and love it, but I CAN'T STAND IT! It reminds me so much of Gnome, which I hate as well. I can't stand having basically a menu on the desktop, don't like how said menu is taken over by whatever app is open, I think it's too pretty and not functional enough and playing with it A LOT, it frustrates me. Saying that, I don't much care for vista's interface either. I like Windows XP/2k's classic theme with the taskbar on the top, it's just so easy to work and not over-prettyfied. The most I'll go is a pretty cool black theme I found online - Royale Noir. I like KDE's layout too, but not mac's.

6. (nitpicky but it's a reason) They're widescreen-happy. The idea of a widescreen computer monitor sickens me! Think about it, you do everything scrolling up and down, why sacrifice that? I'll stick with 4:3 thank you very much. Looking through every single one they have is widescreen, this affects you in all but the Mac Pro, where you could throw on a different monitor.

[namenotfound]

Originally Posted by JStergis

6. (nitpicky but it's a reason) They're widescreen-happy. The idea of a widescreen computer monitor sickens me! Think about it, you do everything scrolling up and down, why sacrifice that? I'll stick with 4:3 thank you very much. Looking through every single one they have is widescreen, this affects you in all but the Mac Pro, where you could throw on a different monitor.

Almost every single Windows-based laptop computer I've seen on sale in the past couple of years have been widescreen

[hewee]

I well not say anything about PC or Mac but I was always thinking how great a wide screen monitor would be and how you can see more. But most I have seen is in the stores and your seeing a desktop background.
Have heard how things don't show up right with some programs but don't know how many programs are effected my this or have I seen it. But this was on some image or I think a 3D image program that all the added buttons etc that are on top, down the side etc were not showing up right on a wide screen. Don't know if it has anything to do with it being a wide screen or that some wide screen do this or all do this. Said also if you want the added space so you can have the program open and then have the added work space to get two standard monitors and use one for the program and other for work space.

Then on the Mac Pro they have these monitors.
Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
Apple Cinema HD Display (23" flat panel)
Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)

They are all the widescreen format.

[JStergis]

Originally Posted by namenotfound

Almost every single Windows-based laptop computer I've seen on sale in the past couple of years have been widescreen

True, but there are still SOME without (I'd say maybe 1/8 of them are 4:3s), Apple has none whatsoever without, I don't think (after looking around their site) they even have a single 4:3 monitor, so you'd have to buy one separate for a desktop machine and for an imac or laptop, there's nothing you can do.

Anyone agree with my theory on the widescreen? It just doesn't make sense. For TVs, fine, but for computers, the only way I'd see it making sense is if you do animation or video work where you are scrolling across more often. For anyone else, most things are up-and-down (electronic publishing, word processing, browsing the internet, file management...)

True, it fits our field of vision better, that's why for TVs I have no complaints, but for computers, it just makes no sense. I think when I'm that close to something I tend to focus on one thing anyway. Right now I'm focusing on maybe two lines, right where I'm typing. The whole "field of vision thing" doesn't work in monitors.



...anyway it's 1 AM and I'm off to sleep. Reading my last two posts they aren't too coherent. I repeat things quite a lot, like the phrase "doesn't make sense" in this one. Must be a sign I'm tired. Don't really feel like proofreading them, I'll just reply again with a more meaningful response next time I suppose.

[namenotfound]

As for the height, you can get a bigger widescreen
I'm currently on a Dell with dual screens, one is 4:3 and the other is 16:1 (a widescreen's number is 16:1, if you're gonna use numbers for "standard", then you should use numbers for both)

The 16:1 has the same resolution in height at the 4:3, so I'm seeing the same height on both screens. The only difference is I'm seeing more width on the 16:1

Also, if you prefer a 4:3 ratio, *most* 16:1 monitors support 4:3 resolutions. If I wanted, I could put 1024x768 or even 800x600 resolution on my 16:1 monitor. But those are tiny compared to what I have

[JStergis]

Originally Posted by namenotfound

As for the height, you can get a bigger widescreen
I'm currently on a Dell with dual screens, one is 4:3 and the other is 16:1 (a widescreen's number is 16:1, if you're gonna use numbers for "standard", then you should use numbers for both)

The 16:1 has the same resolution in height at the 4:3, so I'm seeing the same height on both screens. The only difference is I'm seeing more width on the 16:1

Also, if you prefer a 4:3 ratio, *most* 16:1 monitors support 4:3 resolutions. If I wanted, I could put 1024x768 or even 800x600 resolution on my 16:1 monitor. But those are tiny compared to what I have

A widescreen isn't 16:1, it's 16:9 (16:10 on occasion). Think of how ridiculous a 16:1 screen would look. I just never thought to use both.

Doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose to go buy a much more expensive say 22" widescreen instead of the 17" 4:3 you would have gotten originally.

While it's true you can use smaller 4:3 resolutions on a widescreen, that'd be a horrible waste of money, and you'd have annoying black bars on the sides of the screen.

Doing the math, a widescreen display has significantly less surface area than a 4:3 monitor. A 19" widescreen has the same height as a 15" 4:3, yet they try to squeeze tons more pixels in that area making it appear to have plenty of height, but in reality it's just distorted and smaller.

according to my math, a 19" widescreen would have dimensions of 11.4 inches for height and 15.2 inches for width.

A 19" 4:3 would have dimensions of 12.4384... for height and 14.3626... for width

This makes a widescreen have an area of 173.28 sq. inches and a 4:3 have an area of 178.65 sq inches. You lose a slightly over 5X1 inch square with a widescreen.

[TechGuy]

I think we're getting a little off-topic. Might want to start a separate monitor thread in another forum.

[cancon]

Originally Posted by TechGuy

I've always been a PC man myself, but to try to avoid making this thread identical to every other "Mac vs PC" that's been out there, let's add some news:

Originally Posted by TechGuy

Alright, let's stick to a news topic here rather than just do the regular Mac/PC bashing.

Originally Posted by TechGuy

I think we're getting a little off-topic. Might want to start a separate monitor thread in another forum.

See anything in common?

[JStergis]

Originally Posted by TechGuy

I think we're getting a little off-topic. Might want to start a separate monitor thread in another forum.

Good Point

http://forums.techguy.org/random-dis...10-vs-4-a.html

[tech.jk]

It depends on wat u want... if you want more style, and graphics, go for a mac. but if you want more programs, and more PLAYABLE games (GO WINDOWS!!!) you really should go for a PC/Laptop...