What is better?

Morgoth · **Joined:** Feb 2006 **Posts:** 854 **Location:**

I'm planning on getting my major in computer science at college and am also planning on getting a new computer. I was wondering, between windows and mac, whether there was any advantage in using one or the other for whatever programming assignments classes will require.

For the most part, class descriptions point to using UNIX/linux for programming in languages such as C++, java, etc. And it's possible to run these operating systems in either windows or mac, so does it really matter what type of computer I get?

Any advice on this is appreciated.

C1ockwork · **Posted:** Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:07 pm

macs look kewlz

Morgoth · **Joined:** Feb 2006 **Posts:** 854 **Location:**

C1ockwork wrote:

macs look kewlz

yeah, that's why i'm having a tough time deciding

Mr.Ganji · **Posted:** Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:59 pm

Morgoth wrote:

C1ockwork wrote:

macs look kewlz

yeah, that's why i'm having a tough time deciding

Seriously, they dont look that great. Why do people think they look so neat? PCs look just as good and are often better.

Get a PC. Its still the standard os for most companies/colleges and they're WAY cheaper. Dont be one of the hundreds of douschefags who get a Mac jumping the bandwagon or trying to be a rebel.

Reise · **Joined:** May 2006 **Posts:** 6650 **Location:**

Your computer science class will be taught on a PC.

A PC with DOS and Windows.

Macs will be useless if you need to do work in either.

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

Mr.Ganji wrote:

Get a PC. Its still the standard os for most companies/colleges and they're WAY cheaper. Dont be one of the hundreds of douschefags who get a Mac jumping the bandwagon or trying to be a rebel.

How having a different preference to others in operating systems (an operating system, seriously?) classifies one as a rebel and a "douschefag" is completely beyond me. :|

OT: Research what the class requires and maybe search for software that might help you accomplish what you need to do in your class. Compare which ones will provide a better working environment for your needs and make your choice. It's up to you, really. There are many good software choices for both Windows PCs and Macs that could accommodate your needs. Then again, Mac is UNIX-based which you mentioned your class description said they'd use, so that might be a pro for getting a Mac I suppose. You could always dual-boot Windows and carry on with your work if you ever find yourself in need of a Windows-only feature. Like a BSOD! I kid, I kid. Looking for software alternatives for Macs are not really that difficult to find so it's a non-issue.

Jstar1 · **Joined:** Mar 2007 **Posts:** 4757 **Location:**

theres nothing wrong with the mac. The only thing that makes me go

is why people buy it when they know they are going to run into trouble with compatibility issues. Oh and please don't even start with the argument that mac is better because "it has no viruses". Hackers could care less about macs when 90% of the computers out there run on windows. Why make a program to hack 10 macs when you can hack 90 PC's?

Deadsolid · **Joined:** Dec 2007 **Posts:** 1789 **Location:**

What is worse is a person who buys a Mac just because some ahole that works at best buy told them is was better than the other computer they were looking at and then they continue to believe that Mac's are better and not give any reason.

Many arguments can be made that a Mac is more "complete" therefore justifying the price, but everything that a Mac can do, a PC has done two years before and in some cases did not cost half the price.

Stick with a PC. You wont regret it. If you're worried about aesthetics look into Sony. I have a FW and it looks awesome.

To calm the Mac vs PC debate: I have no problem with the actual computer itself (I actually find that the hardware on several of the Mac's to be very impressive), just the way Apple conducts business. That is all.

BlackFox898 · **Posted:** Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:59 pm

Jstar1 wrote:

theres nothing wrong with the mac. The only thing that makes me go

is why people buy it when they know they are going to run into trouble with compatibility issues. Oh and please don't even start with the argument that mac is better because "it has no viruses". Hackers could care less about macs when 90% of the computers out there run on windows. Why make a program to hack 10 macs when you can hack 90 PC's?

+1, my computer science teacher says the same thing about macs and virus's and i couldn't agree more. but for mac, "it has no virus's" is old and most people who use mac know that already by now... hopefully...

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

Jstar1 wrote:

theres nothing wrong with the mac. The only thing that makes me go

is why people buy it when they know they are going to run into trouble with compatibility issues. Oh and please don't even start with the argument that mac is better because "it has no viruses". Hackers could care less about macs when 90% of the computers out there run on windows. Why make a program to hack 10 macs when you can hack 90 PC's?

I'm bored so I'll bite.

Who would run into what compatibility issues exactly? What exotic (non-proprietary) format is out there that can't be ported to Macs or Linux machines? (and soon Google Chrome OS)

Maybe I'm thinking of this the wrong way, but I would think someone planning to steal personal data like credit card/bank info would steal from the person who bought the $2000 computer instead of the person that bought the $800 computer. I would think a thief would prefer the Mercedes over the Toyota. Then again, maybe that's just me! Not only that but usually the more experienced hackers do what they do for recognition, not money. What better way to gain recognition than to make some sort of unstoppable Mac virus?

We're at a time when the pros and cons between OSes is so marginal that it's all based on personal preference. I may have agreed that Windows was better 10 years ago but the arguments for it hold very little ground in the current time. It's like asking what one's favorite color is and trying to weigh the pros and cons of why this color is better than that color. It's pointless and silly. I like replying to these threads because it never ceases to amaze me how rabid people get (especially in gaming forums) over something as trivial as an operating system and why people shouldn't get this OS over that OS because it's horrible and if they get it then the terrorists win, or something.

Kirkaldi · **Joined:** Jul 2008 **Posts:** 3083 **Location:** nyc

Windows hands down. If you don't like the interface, customize it.

Mcclane · **Joined:** Nov 2007 **Posts:** 1027 **Location:**

ezos · **Joined:** Mar 2009 **Posts:** 26 **Location:**

Get a beefy laptop and run windows7 on it when it comes out. You can then run VMWare and install every other operating system you need/want to play around with.

LaloHao · **Joined:** Nov 2007 **Posts:** 1987 **Location:** Mexico

ezos wrote:

Get a beefy laptop and run windows7 on it when it comes out. You can then run VMWare and install every other operating system you need/want to play around with.

Phil

lol
are u serious?
imagine a laptop wit w7 {slow) + vmware (more slowness)=epic fail

Reise · **Joined:** May 2006 **Posts:** 6650 **Location:**

Fug_Dup wrote:

Maybe I'm thinking of this the wrong way, but I would think someone planning to steal personal data like credit card/bank info would steal from the person who bought the $2000 computer instead of the person that bought the $800 computer. I would think a thief would prefer the Mercedes over the Toyota. Then again, maybe that's just me!

Luckily it is just you.

People with crappy computers get their credit card numbers stolen ALL the time.

You don't need to get hacked for it to happen either.

Azilius · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 4236 **Location:** CS:GO

Fug_Dup wrote:

Maybe I'm thinking of this the wrong way, but I would think someone planning to steal personal data like credit card/bank info would steal from the person who bought the $2000 computer instead of the person that bought the $800 computer. I would think a thief would prefer the Mercedes over the Toyota. Then again, maybe that's just me! Not only that but usually the more experienced hackers do what they do for recognition, not money. What better way to gain recognition than to make some sort of unstoppable Mac virus?

Just because someone buys a PC doesn't mean they're poor..and just because someone buys a Mac doesn't mean they're rich. And Apple re-released their statement about virus security.

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

Reise wrote:

Luckily it is just you.

People with crappy computers get their credit card numbers stolen ALL the time.

You don't need to get hacked for it to happen either.

It was mild sarcasm on my part and perhaps I should have made it more clear.

I was pointing out the flaw in Jstar's argument which stated that hackers do not prefer to hack Macs because there are few of them. The idea that Macs do not get hacked into simply because there's too few of them is a very old and tired claim. But even so I would still argue that because a computer is crappy it doesn't mean it's not safe. I've had 10 year old computers running Linux and security was the least of my worries. It's not at all about the hardware, that's actually irrelevant for the most part.

Azilius wrote:

Just because someone buys a PC doesn't mean they're poor..and just because someone buys a Mac doesn't mean they're rich. And Apple re-released their statement about virus security.

Statistically speaking, that not actually the case. Taking the car example again, it would be like saying Mercedes owners are not necessarily rich and Toyota owners are not necessarily poor, which I think we can both agree that's not always the case but statistically(!) the results say otherwise. The anti virus statement has always been there and will always remain as long as the Mac anti-virus market (albeit small) pay Apple a small fee for promoting their software. Like I have stated before, as long as it's people that control what happens in a computer, no (current) operating system is safe but in general some are more secure than others because of their architecture.

OT: I apologize for being part of the massive derailment of your thread. =[

Azilius · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 4236 **Location:** CS:GO

Fug_Dup wrote:

Statistically speaking, that not actually the case. Taking the car example again, it would be like saying Mercedes owners are not necessarily rich and Toyota owners are not necessarily poor, which I think we can both agree that's not always the case but statistically(!) the results say otherwise. The anti virus statement has always been there and will always remain as long as the Mac anti-virus market (albeit small) pay Apple a small fee for promoting their software. Like I have stated before, as long as it's people that control what happens in a computer, no (current) operating system is safe but in general some are more secure than others because of their architecture.

OT: I apologize for being part of the massive derailment of your thread. =[

I don't think statistics matter in this case anyway. If someone is going to steal your credit card number they can probably find out about your income one way or another (assuming it's just not some fail phishing website..).

Also..Apple retracted their anti virus statement once already so it won't 'always be there' since it's already been..not there -.-

ezos · **Joined:** Mar 2009 **Posts:** 26 **Location:**

LaloHao wrote:

ezos wrote:

Get a beefy laptop and run windows7 on it when it comes out. You can then run VMWare and install every other operating system you need/want to play around with.

lol
are u serious?
imagine a laptop wit w7 {slow) + vmware (more slowness)=epic fail

I have a halfway decent dell, dual core with 4 gigs running vista ultimate (SLOWER then w7) and can toggle between redhat9 server08 and tiger with no issues.

CrimsonNuker · **Joined:** Aug 2006 **Posts:** 13791 **Location:**

Mac = Arts
PC = Comp Sci

Reise · **Joined:** May 2006 **Posts:** 6650 **Location:**

Fug_Dup wrote:

Statistically speaking, that not actually the case. Taking the car example again, it would be like saying Mercedes owners are not necessarily rich and Toyota owners are not necessarily poor, which I think we can both agree that's not always the case but statistically(!) the results say otherwise. The anti virus statement has always been there and will always remain as long as the Mac anti-virus market (albeit small) pay Apple a small fee for promoting their software. Like I have stated before, as long as it's people that control what happens in a computer, no (current) operating system is safe but in general some are more secure than others because of their architecture.

OT: I apologize for being part of the massive derailment of your thread. =[

What statistics?

I'd assume people with money would buy a machine that's got bleeding edge hardware. You can easily go over the price of a Mac if that's your goal. In other words, as far as who owns what based on their financial situation, those who are more well off should have a monster PC, not any old Mac.

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

Azilius wrote:

I don't think statistics matter in this case anyway. If someone is going to steal your credit card number they can probably find out about your income one way or another (assuming it's just not some fail phishing website..).

Also..Apple retracted their anti virus statement once already so it won't 'always be there' since it's already been..not there -.-

Of course, no argument there. But like I mentioned before, I guess I didn't explain myself very well in the whole stealing paragraph. It was in reference to Jstar as a hypothetical.

Whoops! I read that incorrectly, sorry. To my credit, it was 1 in the morning when I read the reply and I was half asleep.

But you'll probably see the anti virus thing come back up when another vulnerability is found. I know I've seen it return before (as it did last time when it was retracted as you mentioned) to remind customers to get off their high horse and secure their computers.

Reise wrote:

What statistics?

I'd assume people with money would buy a machine that's got bleeding edge hardware. You can easily go over the price of a Mac if that's your goal. In other words, as far as who owns what based on their financial situation, those who are more well off should have a monster PC, not any old Mac.

Oh, you have clearly underestimated Apple's power of overcharging for their products, lol. I think a "topped out" Mac Pro will probably run you upwards $25K, and that's without the monitors. That's with 2 quad core processors of your choice and 32 gigs of RAM (and will cost more if you want a specific brand of RAM). I'm not sure if there are other mainstream brand computers that would retail for higher but 25 grand for a computer seems like a lot to me. But I digress, that's not important. There were a few studies conducted in 2008 comparing the Mac users versus the Windows users and iPhone users versus all-the-other-brand's users (this was before the $99 iPhone *cough*). It showed that statistically, Mac users were more financially secure and more productive. The cellphone study also showed similar results. I can try to find the sources if you want to look at them yourself. Speaking as a broke Mac user, I personally could care less about the demographics of an operating system. Again, I still think that this whole argument is going to lead nowhere very fast as most usually do. =)

Reise · **Joined:** May 2006 **Posts:** 6650 **Location:**

Quote:

It showed that statistically, Mac users were more financially secure and more productive.

I want to see this.

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

Reise wrote:

Quote:

It showed that statistically, Mac users were more financially secure and more productive.

I want to see this.

So I just discovered that the studies now cost $749 to view in detail lol. I guess the iPhone study was leaked because it can be found really easily. Maybe it's available to someone else who saved the study before it was locked away but I'm not having any luck.

Here's part of the iPhone study that I found:

Spoiler!

The Mac study showed similar results to those. The obvious problem with that information is that we don't know in what circumstances the study was conducted which would help.

Here's the link to researcher and the actual study:
Source: http://www.forrester.com/rb/research
iPhone study: http://www.forrester.com/Research/Docum ... 22,00.html
Mac study: http://www.forrester.com/Research/Docum ... 44,00.html

Azilius · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 4236 **Location:** CS:GO

Fug_Dup wrote:

Oh, you have clearly underestimated Apple's power of overcharging for their products, lol. I think a "topped out" Mac Pro will probably run you upwards $25K, and that's without the monitors. That's with 2 quad core processors of your choice and 32 gigs of RAM (and will cost more if you want a specific brand of RAM). I'm not sure if there are other mainstream brand computers that would retail for higher but 25 grand for a computer seems like a lot to me. But I digress, that's not important. There were a few studies conducted in 2008 comparing the Mac users versus the Windows users and iPhone users versus all-the-other-brand's users (this was before the $99 iPhone *cough*). It showed that statistically, Mac users were more financially secure and more productive. The cellphone study also showed similar results. I can try to find the sources if you want to look at them yourself. Speaking as a broke Mac user, I personally could care less about the demographics of an operating system. Again, I still think that this whole argument is going to lead nowhere very fast as most usually do. =)

25,000$ on a mac..did the study also say the reason they had so much money was they didn't go to school? Over paying is one thing but holy shit -_-

32gb of ddr3 ram isn't even over 1000$, and a quad core cpu runs 200-400..oh my

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

Azilius wrote:

25,000$ on a mac..did the study also say the reason they had so much money was they didn't go to school? Over paying is one thing but holy shit -_-

32gb of ddr3 ram isn't even over 1000$, and a quad core cpu runs 200-400..oh my

To the contrary, the Mac group actually had an overall higher education. True story.

That specific setup is what a fully loaded Mac Pro would cost. When I mean fully loaded, I mean it's nowhere near anything what an average user would use but I was just making a point that if you want overpriced hardware, I don't think there are many that come close to Apple. I'm pretty sure such setups do not sell very well for obvious reasons but the point is that they're available. As for the hardware you specified, it's a bad idea in general to buy computers with max RAM because the company tends to overcharge you for it, which is why when buying computers one usually gets standard RAM and upgrades it at home with less expensive RAM. Apple is no exception to that rule and their RAM tends to be very pricey. The Mac Pro comes standard with 2 quad-core processors. More specifically, they come with two Intel Xeon X5570 "Nehalem" processors which currently run about $1k+ each (according to various sources).

CrimsonNuker · **Joined:** Aug 2006 **Posts:** 13791 **Location:**

inb4 Priam goes macrage.

Jstar1 · **Joined:** Mar 2007 **Posts:** 4757 **Location:**

Fug_Dup wrote:

...

funny how you say the argument over an OS is trivial but here you are writing huge paragraphs to get your point across.

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

Jstar1 wrote:

funny how you say the argument over an OS is trivial but here you are writing huge paragraphs to get your point across.

What's funnier is that you ignored the words directly before that. =)

I wrote:

I like replying to these threads..blah blah

May I suggest using NeclearSilo's TTS tool to help get rid of that selective reading.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=113769

Anyway, my main goal for replying is to hopefully enlighten people who have these common misconceptions of OSs (not just OS X) that have spread over time. Claims like "Windows always crashes!", or "Macs can't right-click!", and "Linux is really difficult to use", stuff like that. I do admit that I prefer Macs, but I also recognize that that's my choice just as someone may prefer Windows, and I'm okay with that. What I argue over, however, is those who don't think it's okay or a good decision to use another OS simply because they have a bias or don't like it. That's the kind of argument I find to be trivial and pointless. I'd much rather have constructive posts than take part in subjective arguments.

lavapockets · **Posted:** Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:50 pm

Reise wrote:

Your computer science class will be taught on a PC.

A PC with DOS and Windows.

Macs will be useless if you need to do work in either.

^this

Social engineering ftw - weakest link is always the slab of meat in front of the screen.

Silkroad Online Forums

What is better?

Who is online