|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Nov 14, 2010 18:44:16 GMT -5
No. I never said that. I compared shelf product to shelf product. There is no evidence that a modded out PC is better than a modded out Mac either. except for the fact that PC has a more products/programs, that a lot of stuff is harder to acquire for a MAC etc... That is why shelf comparisons are better. Because they are set hardware that give consistent comparisons. You start modding your computers out and it stops being a contest of PC vs Mac and instead becomes a You vs another builder. I disagree, because in the end I built a PC, the other guy built a MAC and the result isn't him having a better computer. And I have a lot more easier access options for expanding my computer. It's a contest between me and another builder if we're both building PCs or both building MACS.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Nov 14, 2010 18:47:31 GMT -5
No. I never said that. I compared shelf product to shelf product. There is no evidence that a modded out PC is better than a modded out Mac either. except for the fact that PC has a more products/programs, that a lot of stuff is harder to acquire for a MAC etc... That is why shelf comparisons are better. Because they are set hardware that give consistent comparisons. You start modding your computers out and it stops being a contest of PC vs Mac and instead becomes a You vs another builder. I disagree, because in the end I built a PC, the other guy built a MAC and the result isn't him having a better computer. And I have a lot more easier access options for expanding my computer. It's a contest between me and another builder if we're both building PCs or both building MACS. It does not matter what has the greater variety, only the highest performing hardware. That is right. YOU built a better PC than the other person. Just like I said, it stops being a contest about Mac vs PC and becomes a YOU vs another builder.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Nov 14, 2010 18:54:37 GMT -5
It does not matter what has the greater variety, only the highest performing hardware. except the Hardware doesn't have better performance once I put all these individual pieces of hardware together. Ergo you can't say MACs are better. And having greater variety is an indication of quality because it means you can do a lot more with your purchase. And it's still not me versus another builder since the end result is a PC if I'm building a PC and a MAC if I'm building a MAC. If we are to prove that MACs are better then we have to have to be shown objectively that when a professional puts the appropriate effort into a MAC, that the MACs always come out on top. Such is not the case. The only time a MAC does better is when zero effort is put into giving the PC the necessary elements it should always have anyway.
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Nov 14, 2010 23:02:28 GMT -5
Such is not the case. The only time a MAC does better is when zero effort is put into giving the PC the necessary elements it should always have anyway. But wouldn't that mean that the only time a PC is better is if zero effort is put into a MAC, and more effort is put into a PC?
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Nov 15, 2010 0:39:23 GMT -5
But wouldn't that mean that the only time a PC is better is if zero effort is put into a MAC, and more effort is put into a PC? Absolutely not... if you want to your computer to do more then basic functions you're going to invest in it anyway, in other words put effort in it. At which point, if you put an equal amount of effort on your PC it will equal a MAC at least or beat it. The only thing MACs have over PCS is when you take them out of the box with no personalization whatsoever. And to me, I much prefer having a lot more room for expansion and upgrade, then what having what MAC offers out of the box and then hitting a ceiling on how much I can expand on my computer.
|
|
|
Post by greenlantern555 on Nov 15, 2010 10:52:13 GMT -5
But Crom, all you are saying is that PCs are better and you aren't saying how. Yes, Macs are idiot proof, but what's wrong with that? Isn't that the point? To make things easier.
PC's don't have more products/programs! Mac has everything that PCs have and they are better. Word sucks ass. With Excel you have to be a genius. Outlook is pointless. The only thing good is powerpoint.
If Macs were so bad then why do people Hackintosh? I mean, if the programs are so great *cough* Vista *cough* then why do they want OS or even Safari?
Macs have longer battery life so you don't have to always have the charger on your computer like I see EVERY PC owner do.
Macs aren't a bad computer just because their owner is a Jackass.
|
|
|
Post by NexusOfLight on Nov 15, 2010 11:54:17 GMT -5
But wouldn't that mean that the only time a PC is better is if zero effort is put into a MAC, and more effort is put into a PC? Absolutely not... if you want to your computer to do more then basic functions you're going to invest in it anyway, in other words put effort in it. At which point, if you put an equal amount of effort on your PC it will equal a MAC at least or beat it. I think we're all a bit confused on what you mean when you say "beat a MAC." So let's establish some common ground here. As Erik pointed out, when someone builds their own PC to go against another computer, it's not so much as what computer is better, but more so about who actually built the better machine. To my knowledge, MACs and PCs all are made out of the same parts. We got harddrives, RAM, processors, graphics cards, monitors, mice, keyboards, etc. So you building a PC out of those parts in a better way than someone else makes you a better computer builder than that other guy. It's you as a computer builder against someone else as a computer builder, or in this case the people building MACs for people to buy off the store shelves. It's like saying my mom makes better cupcakes than the people who sell cupcakes at the store. Baker vs baker, but according to you, the fact that a better baker (or better computer builder) makes a certain type of thing, that thing is inherently better than everything else that's out there, which by all means probably is, but the reason behind it is not because the ingredients or parts were made better, but because the person putting it together did it better, y'see? Now, if I understand what everyone else here is saying, when comparing MACs to PCs, they're not really saying who has the better parts, they're comparing which of the two companies puts out better products for people to buy. What has better "basic functions" as you called them. It's still builder vs builder, but the two builders in question are the two companies themselves. Naturally, if you customize them and put effort into either of them, you'll get what's best for you, but that's not what's in question. What's in question is which of the two put together better computers.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Nov 15, 2010 12:33:02 GMT -5
It does not matter what has the greater variety, only the highest performing hardware. except the Hardware doesn't have better performance once I put all these individual pieces of hardware together. Ergo you can't say MACs are better. And having greater variety is an indication of quality because it means you can do a lot more with your purchase. And it's still not me versus another builder since the end result is a PC if I'm building a PC and a MAC if I'm building a MAC. If we are to prove that MACs are better then we have to have to be shown objectively that when a professional puts the appropriate effort into a MAC, that the MACs always come out on top. Such is not the case. The only time a MAC does better is when zero effort is put into giving the PC the necessary elements it should always have anyway. Are you willing to back that up with actual benchmark tests? It seems like you are spouting opinion rather than facts. I provided you with two separate studies. If you are going to challenge them, I expect you to provide evidence of what you are saying. Also, if you construct a computer at home, I could make the argument that you are not making a PC at all. You are making a computer based on a PC. In any case, I expect you to back up your claims. If you cannot, please make sure you emphasis that this is your opinion and not proven facts.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Nov 15, 2010 14:55:33 GMT -5
But Crom, all you are saying is that PCs are better and you aren't saying how. Yes, Macs are idiot proof, but what's wrong with that? Isn't that the point? To make things easier. No, the point is to have the absolute best performance and room for expansion. And MAC doesn't deliver that. Idiot proofing is irrelevant to anyone who's moved beyond the barest minimum of relevant computer knowledge... PC's don't have more products/programs! Mac has everything that PCs have and they are better. Word sucks ass. With Excel you have to be a genius. Outlook is pointless. The only thing good is powerpoint. This is so untrue I'm tempted to upload a pick of a guy laughing at you. But I won't because I like you. Walk into any normal mid-town future shop, any normal mid-town future shop. I guarantee that for every MAC product/part, there is 3 different choices for the PC. Yes there is more selection and it is more accessible. That is a plain fact. The only way to get every MAC product out there is to travel to that one Applestore in the area or order online. And MAC also keeps it that way on purpose, because they are douchebags. If Macs were so bad then why do people Hackintosh? I mean, if the programs are so great *cough* Vista *cough* then why do they want OS or even Safari? Because of: 1-Some can't get everything they need to make their personalized computer from MAC products, so they get multiple platforms for different functions 2-They don't actually know how PCs work 3-They are too lazy to actually learn how to use PC products or basic computer knowledge they should be learning anyway 4-Because Vista is was not created with the idea that idiots will be using it. Macs have longer battery life so you don't have to always have the charger on your computer like I see EVERY PC owner do. I don't know what PC owner's you've been seeing but if that's what you've observed then your section of observation isn't the majority. Macs aren't a bad computer just because their owner is a Jackass. They are when their owner can use a MAC's internet connection at anytime to access private information, whom he will use in manners that are not only unethical but also illegal and is now in federal court trying to win the right to use your private information to whatever use he pleases. Erik-El-El: It is my opinion, based on what I have observed. I have always been stating nothing more then my opinion based on what I have observed. also, that you say you've presented studies doesn't make you more right unless those studies unilaterally prove MAC superiority at all levels, something you haven't come close to doing. All you've successfully shown is that someone with zero computer knowledge has a less steep hill to climb with a MAC then a PC. very different.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Nov 15, 2010 15:11:53 GMT -5
@crom:
If you read both studies, you would have seen that the benchmarks and other performance tests proved that Macs were slightly better off the shelf. So they did prove that I am right.
What I have presented had nothing to do with computer knowledge at all actually.
If you want to present an argument for expansion and absolute maximum performance possible, you need to at least look at both sides of the argument less you want to be seen as incredibly bias (too late by the way).
More selection does not mean better products. I can point out several PC graphics cards that are absolutely worthless. Sure you get a lot of variety but a lot of it is crap.
In any case, my point was already proven. NeXus summed it up in his last post as well.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Nov 15, 2010 15:15:49 GMT -5
In any case, my point was already proven. NeXus summed it up in his last post as well. No, you haven't because anyone can get a PC that will perform just as well or better then a MAC, he just has to shell the money and time for it.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Nov 15, 2010 15:20:40 GMT -5
In any case, my point was already proven. NeXus summed it up in his last post as well. No, you haven't because anyone can get a PC that will perform just as well or better then a MAC, he just has to shell the money and time for it. Your point has nothing to do with what I am talking about at all. If you are going to build a computer at home, fine. I do not really consider it a PC but rather a computer based on PCs. I feel the same about a home constructed computer based on Macs. It goes right on back to builder vs builder, not computer vs computer. If you want to compare, get hold of Gateway, Dell or whatever else is out there. If you want to compare at home built computers, that is fine as well. Just present the data to support your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Nov 15, 2010 15:37:17 GMT -5
Your point has nothing to do with what I am talking about at all. If you are going to build a computer at home, fine. I do not really consider it a PC but rather a computer based on PCs. And I don't understand why you see things this way. If it runs under a PC format, uses PC programs and hardware, and operates like a PC why isn't it a PC? This position makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Nov 15, 2010 15:44:46 GMT -5
Your point has nothing to do with what I am talking about at all. If you are going to build a computer at home, fine. I do not really consider it a PC but rather a computer based on PCs. And I don't understand why you see things this way. If it runs under a PC format, uses PC programs and hardware, and operates like a PC why isn't it a PC? This position makes no sense to me. Because it makes no sense to treat them otherwise. Because you can make a home made computer that is essentially a Mac. That does not make it a Mac. It is a computer that is based on a Mac. Therefore the same should apply to PC. I am willing to indulge you though as far as allowing you to prove your point. Compare the best of both PC components and Mac components if you want. Provide me with the facts, hard data. Show me the numbers. The benchmarks. I am not unwilling to see reason but you need to present some first.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Nov 15, 2010 16:10:30 GMT -5
Because it makes no sense to treat them otherwise. Because you can make a home made computer that is essentially a Mac. That does not make it a Mac. It is a computer that is based on a Mac. Therefore the same should apply to PC. How is it not a MAC or PCS if that's what your building and it performs, does all it's functions the same way as an MAC or PC (depending on what you're building) and uses PC or MAC programs only? When an object has all the characteristics of category of objects it is to be classified into, then it is one of those objects. Hence, if I'm building a computer that has all the characteristics of a PC, its a PC. As to evidence: here's a link for how to build a very good PC for gamin needs for just 647$ dollars. Optimal performance for it's price range. Nothing but PC products to booth www.maximumpc.com/article/features/how_build_awesome_pc_647Here's a link for PC building two pcs up to the range of 3600$ based on 2009 available parts, couple pages long with all the info: www.maximumpc.com/article/features/dream_machine_2009_how_build_best_pc_any_budget?page=0,1 Here's also a nice guide step by step: www.maximumpc.com/article/features/build_perfect_pc_stepbystep_illustrated_howto_guide
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Nov 15, 2010 16:19:50 GMT -5
@crom:
So based on that, when MM takes the form of a human, he is actually human for the duration of his transformation? Fictional reference I know but based on the theory you just proposed, that would be the case.
A Mac has all the characteristics of a PC as well. It has a processor, a hard drive, RAM, a graphics card and an operating system. Based on your theory, a Mac is also a PC.
What do these links prove? How are they relevant to this discussion?
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Nov 15, 2010 16:21:29 GMT -5
@crom:
I also wish you would address my entire counter-arguments rather than just one or two sentences from each one. Without addressing them, I assume you have no counter-argument for them.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Nov 15, 2010 16:30:00 GMT -5
It's simple Erik-El. Both MAC and PCs are computers. A MAC is a computer that uses MAC products: that is software, hardware, programs, components, you name it.
A PC is a computer that uses PC software, hardware, components, etc. That's what defines a computer as PC.
Ergo if the computer I build falls squarely under one or the other, then it proves I've built a PC specifically. As to the links, they include all the spechs for each of the components as well as the prices and how to build them.
Look at the end product within each of the price ranges. I've shown one in the 650 range, one in the 1500 dollar range and one in the 3600$ range along with all the info on what each has inside them.
And these computers are not worse then MACs within these price ranges, as well being pcs, I am still left with far more room for expansion and customization because that's a tried and proven area PCs beat MACS.
And so, from my view as a gamer, nerd, university student and general geek. I cannot believe that MACs are actually better when with minimal effort I can put together something that will perform just as well if not better using nothing but PC products.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Nov 15, 2010 16:38:14 GMT -5
@crom:
That is great that you believe that. Where is the proof? Where is the unbiased tests? The numbers do not lie, exaggerate or fabricate. That is what I am interested in.
Since you are a student, you can chalk this up to an all out technology comparison. Who knows, maybe you can even apply the study to one of your classes. In any case, I provided proof of my claim. I have yet to see such things from you. To be honest, I have seen hate speak and you admitting that you cannot believe that Macs are better, which is admitting bias. You even said one of my studies was shit-canning PCs because of some Mac conspiracy or some such.
|
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Nov 15, 2010 18:21:24 GMT -5
This is all ONLY if you build it yourself. i personally am unable to do so and so are most people. When talking about stock, Macs are better. I've never owned a PC I didn't build or highly upgrade. It's the reason I favor PC's over laptops. My curent PC is the only tower I've ever boght as a whole complete unit. The sales person I dealt when getting it kew me, and asked why I was buying this crap. It was on clearance and well below cost, and when I said to him that the motherboard was decent and the cost of the unit was less than the motherboard and power supply combined, he understood. Obviously I upgraded everything else (and ended up with a free burner/rom, card readers, hard drive {since I added two more} and one of 3 ram sticks) The PC I had prior was 10 year old. It was a pent III but had the top of the line motherboard I could get at the time. I needed this to support the sound and video cards I was importing (since they weren't available in Australia at the time, the sound card was the model behind a creative IR live with full front interface- basically made my computer a sound studio). That mother board had 3PCi inputs and 2 PCI express 9well ahead of it time) and could support up to 5 50gb hard drives (no operating system at the time would have even recognised a HDD that big). I can still do things with my Pent III that many modern computers can't. The only reason I updated was that it had reached the end of it's upgradability. There was nothing larger in any spec that would interface with the mother board than what I had in it available. That's why it's always best to build your own.
|
|