hmm, it seems that all the scientists lie/don't know better (i went to a local college, and they all had macs). i know that windows is getting better, but i guess macs are just staying the same. oh well, i never really use macs anyways, hopefully i never will have to. i like windows better :p.

*waits for the linux lovers to come and flame*

I think that the Mac OS is totally done by Apple and doesn't have anything to do with Unix.

One of the things that I don't like about Apple computers is that they only have one mouse button (the old ones are this way, I'm not sure about the newer ones :confused: ) I don't know much about them though, I never really ran into them much. They do seem to be more user friendly though.

If Apple hadn't have screwed up their business by not opening up third party software development much, me might be talking on Macs right now :D

The OSX kernel is BSD, Unix. If you can ignore the cute GUI (an interesting system called Darwin, which also runs on x86), and managed to get yourself to a shell prompt, many of the same commands and programs you'd find on a *n*x system. Same syntax, same everything.

The "I hate Apple because they only have one mouse-button" argument annoys me the most, especially nowadays... All current Apple computers have USB, and support for practically any USB mouse on the market, including Microsoft and Logitech mice. For the past few weeks, I've had an iBook, on loan from my school, so I've become pretty farmiliar with the hardware Apple uses. Any time I needed to, I just plugged in my MS Intellimouse Explorer, and it worked perfectly, never had any problems, whatsoever.

Now, on the software side, I have a different opinion. MacOS (including OSX) sucks. Plain and simple. They focus on making it look pretty, and being easy for computer-illiterate people to use, but by doing so, they alienate savvy and hardcore users.
"OMFGZ!! THE ICON!! IT'S BOUNCING!!!"
Umm.... right... I still don't care...

PPC isn't bad at all, but the operating system still sucks...

Recently, I saw an RC5 benchmark which had a 1GHz G4 whooping the %%% of a 2.4GHz P4, which I would have to say is pretty respectable.

And, in response to the statement that being closed to third-party development killed Apple... well... if they had enough support, Apple would act just like Microsoft... but they dont, so they have to look like the underdog, the rebels... which is BS, IMHO...

Horray, that was about $0.06 worth of talk...

Edit:
Oh yes, I should point out that the day I recieved my iBook, I installed Debian/GNU Linux on it... As I said, I can't stand and form of MacOS... :)

Well at Purdue (the non-local college I went to) the regular labs were all Gateways and Dells and the higher end labs were sun workstations. Not sure where you went to school but to say that since your school uses Macs that the rest of the world does is incorrect (honest, look at thes sales figures). Most (definately not all) buisness users will be running some form of windows. For performance, you and I could each come up with a test/application where one or the other would excel past the opposing machine. There are very few apples to apples tests for these machines that I have seen.

It pretty much comes down to two things (in the PC vs. Apple realm) that I can see:

1) If you want a computer that you buy and plug in, and never change. Or, a computer where you can run it out of a cardboard box (like one of them in my room now) and have it work fine. Changing hardware and modding cases...2 things I enjoy.

2) Software. 'nuff said

The purely RISC architecture of the G4 processor is far superior than that of the AMD/INTEL Processors. Many, many more operations in a second can be performed on a 1ghz G4 than a 1.8ghz AthlonXP or a 2.4ghz Pentium 4.

Graphics programs that are used (modelling, video editing, photoshop (kinda)) rely on the processor to do all the rendering needed. Photoshop becomes a mere speck to today's processors, but Macs are still very, very good for digital video editing. The video subsystem on a 2d level serves just as a method of putting the image on the screen. Sure, some video cards do have some fancy features, and they will speed up modelling programs that use opengl to pre-render their images, but come time to render it, and the processor is used extensively.

There are so many ways around Mac software...for about 60 bucks you can get a copy of Virtual PC, and if my source was correct they have a XP version ready...Your Mac runs like windows, and runs windows and mac programs...


Id take a G4, OS 9 (X needs work...) with Virtual PC over most PCs that have the same power

I'm not saying that it doesn't work at all, but from my experience with Vitrual PC, it's nowhere near WINE or WINEX...

And, I have a terrible opinion of Windows XP, so I might just as well stick with Linux on PPC...
For my purposes, there's nothing Linux can't do...

Lol that totally slipped my mind, but still to the point :)

Btw your sig says "Jamacia" :D

Personally, I have an Intel. However, I don't think I would ever buy another system with an Intel. For now though, I must deal, because I am too poor to upgrade:(

I would never buy a Mac. Maybe just because I am a geek, but I think a Mac is for non-intelligent life forms. How simple do you want it? Everything is self explanitory in windows, I can't imagine it any easier! I have the same opinion of AOL too. Why would you want something so simple, that basically controls you, and you have no options or control over.

Not that I like macs, but they used to be the be-all end-all in the PC market until Bill Gates stole all Apple's ideas.

They're still superior for media purposes, but that's about it now.

This argument is getting less and less true. For example, Steve Jobs (CEO of Apple computers) is also the CEO of Pixar (the animation studio that put out Toy Story, Monstors inc). Pixar's own redering and graphic design program (Renderman) won't run on a mac, but it is designed for Win XP.

i just learned how to play MOH Allied Assailt online.....this has no real relevence but I thought you all should know.

Re: AMD or Intel
 

I just voted intel because i've never used amd.

Re: AMD or Intel
 

AMD all the way. On computer I have now, I saved about $200 by going with the AMD chipset. It may run a little hotter, but I don't care..I run my computer with the side off anyway. I have an AMD T-Bird 950MHz at home and am running an AMD 3000+ on my computer.
Eric