Tech: PC vs Mac

Subject: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: kendall
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 08:47 AM

I'm having so much trouble with my PC that I'm tempted to donate it to the local tip, and I'm wondering about the differences between a PC and a Mac.
Without a long technical discourse I would ask, what will a PC do that a Mac won't, and vice versa.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: JudyB
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 09:00 AM

We have both - Charley mostly uses the Mac and I mostly use the PC. They both do most of the common functions you'd expect on a computer. I like Macs and switched mostly because I take work home and I have PCs in the office - though the music-editing programs I use for Charley's CDs are PC-only, as is the database I prefer.

However, Macs do some things differently, and if you're used to saving a file by doing CTRL-S or copying something with CONTROL-C, you might get frustrated (as I do now when I use Charley's machine) because the Apple key you use with S and C for save and copy is in a different place, and the Control key doesn't do what you'd expect from your PC.

There are fixes for that - you can reconfigure your keys to do what you'd expect them to do - but it's a bit of work.

If you were getting your first computer ever, a Mac might be a good choice - and it still might be, but there will be two learning curves - learning how the Mac does things and learning to not try to do them the PC way.

Macs are less likely to be hit by viruses, but that's less of an issue if you keep your antivirus program (and firewall if you have a high-speed connection) current.

What kind of trouble are you having with your PC? What operating system do you have (Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows 95 or 98 or 2000)?

It may be that a Mac would be the solution - but I need to know more about the problem to be sure.

(Sorry about rambling - I'm not a morning person and the coffee hasn't quite kicked in yet.)

Good luck!
JudyB

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 09:14 AM

Macs historically have been more fun to use, less prone to mysterious crashes and freezes, and more bug proof than PCs. There have been exceptions to this general impression, though.

I would suggest you drop in to an Apple store. If you buy a Mac now, you get one that can run Windows as easily as it runs Mac OS X.

I have had pretty good experience with WinXP and Win2000 on modern PCs, but I have had really enjoyable experiences on Mac OSX.

They just brought out a laptop with a dual-processor core Intel chip and a 17" screen that might be what you want. I'd suggest looking them over.

The OS is pretty intuitive.

A

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Rasener
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 09:22 AM

Kendall
If you are used to the PC, stick to it, otherwise uou may have a big learning curve.
If you have problems with a PC, there are milions of resources where you can get help from.
When I was teaching people how to use PC's and the software, I don't know how many times I had requests to teach people on Mac's becuase there weren't the trainers around to teach them. I always declined becuase there wasn't enough business to justify the effort in putting courses together
Count up the number of people you know who use a PC, and the same for the Mac. Whichever is the greater, then thats the one to go for, as they are generally the people who you might go to for help.

A lot of Mac users are using them very proffessionally for their work, such as Graphical designers etc. Te reason is that they have some cracking software for those purposes, but difficult to learn.

Hope that is of some help.

Les

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Grab
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 09:37 AM

Consider price and expandability as elements in your decision too. A desktop PC can be built to any spec you like, and can easily have extra bits retro-fitted to it via PCI cards. Beyond a few simple things like memory upgrades, this simply isn't possible on a Mac.

The upside of this is system stability - most PC crashes are due to dodgy drivers. The downside of course is that some of the more unusual add-on extras (multi-channel sound recording cards, for example) won't work with Macs, so it restricts your choice of hardware (sometimes to zero).

Also software availability. Macs famously have some of the best graphics manipulation and desktop publishing software. But more everyday software isn't necessarily available for Macs - the proliferation of downloads for Windows software doesn't always have Mac equivalents.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 09:52 AM

The learning curve in making the change is minimal and painless from accounts I have heard.

Macs add all the extra bits you can need -- they drive scanners, they have built-in CD burners and cameras, better quality built in sound, card readers, label printers, external drives, thumb drives, etc. etc.
and, as I pointed out above, today's Macs can boot Windows operating systems, and run all that alleged software natively. But to tell you the truth, I have never been frustrated for want of software in a Mac environment, and often find my applications doing things Intel apps wouldn't do. In any case, it is now a moot point.

Very few who switch from PC to Mac have changed their minds about it.

A

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 10:01 AM

What kind of PC do you have now, Kendall? How old, what make and model, and what operating system?

Have you set up for regular downloaded updates from Microsoft, assuming you're using Windows? Have you regularly defragged and cleaned up the old clutter, run an anti virus, anti spyware, anti adware program(s)? All of these can help clear up or diagnose problems. If a particular device (printer, scanner, etc.) is acting up have you tried uninstalling and reinstalling it (I have to follow my own advice--the kids' printer is acting up). Have you gone to the manufacturer's site and checked for updated drivers for your equipment?

You don't need to do these things all at once. Arrange them as a checklist and work your way through them as you have time or interest. And then let us know if it is still acting up.

SRS

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: EBarnacle
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 10:50 AM

The question is still: Are your problems hardware or software? It's often cheaper to fix than to replace.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 10:53 AM

Macs are really easy to use, and are very reliable--not hard to learn at all, and very forgiving--The limitations are that not every consumer device is mac compatible(though if you are persistant, you can often find workarounds), there are fewer games available, and there is less freeware--mac is the standard for music and recording and for graphic arts, and it does that stuff better than PC--it is also really easy to create networks of the macs in your home or office.

As to mutlichannel sound recording PCI cards, you *can* get them for mac, but probably won't need them, because most everything want can be connected by way of USB or Firewire--

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: GUEST,Captain Swing
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 05:06 PM

All the people I know who use both PC and Mac ( including myself ) say they prefer Macs. If you want to get a job done use a Mac.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 08:53 PM

If you buy a Mac now, you get one that can run Windows as easily as it runs Mac OS X.

Sort of, maybe, perhaps, soon ...

New Macs are being built with Intel processors. That's fact, and will apparently be true for the immediate future.

A BETA interface is available from Apple that permits running Windows, and Windows programs on the new "MacIntel" machines. This makes the machine bootable with Mac OS or with Windows, but you must have the Mac OS installed for Windows to run on this machine, and it does not (yet) permit running both kinds of programs in a single session. To run Windows only on a MacIntel machine requires additional klugery, only partially developed by a few maverick hackers. Disk partitioning is required, and depending on how you do it, the "Mac OS" should be able to read, but may or may not be able to write to the "Win OS" partition. Apparently by design, the Win OS will not be able to access anything saved on the Mac OS partition (per most recent reports).

The beta program is free from Mac, but is at present "unsupported" by Apple.

Speculation about the prospects for a "MacWindows" interface is widespread, but so far as I've seen nobody knows (publicly).

Some typical recent information:

     Update: Apple 'Boot Camp' Software Boots Windows On Macs: Dual-Boot Apple OS X, Windows XP, 04.05.06, By Mark Hachman and Michael Miller, PC Magazine.

     The public beta of Boot Camp is available immediately as an 83-Mbyte download at Apple's Boot Camp web site, and is "preview software licensed" for use on a trial basis for an undisclosed, limited time. (NOTE the 83 MB download, you'll need a fast connection or a lot of time).

      Bootcamp: End of Apple?, 04.05.06, By Lance Ulanoff, PC Magazine.

     Windows on Mac: Who Wants It and Why?, By Mary Jo Foley, April 6, 2006, eWeek


There is little justification for arguing which is "the best machine." With a Mac, at least until sometime tomorrow or the day after, you had the assurance that the machine was built strictly to the standards set by Apple, while there have been, and are, numerous "clones" of Windows machines that may have various "idiosyncracies." ("Buying cheap," done to excess, can cause problems with Windows.)

Similarly, in the past virtually all Mac software – regardless of who created it – came to you directly through Apple or under their rigid control, while almost anybody could produce and sell software "for Windows," with or without strictly conforming to Windows coding standards.

Macs had a large initial advantage for some kinds of graphics work, largely through incorporating support for PostScript page processing from the beginning. This allowed them to establish some dominance in art and publishing. The difference is now virtually a non-issue, unless you work for some place where they've "standardized" on one or the other; and with Adobe's greater attention to Windows, many professionals now consider the Windows versions of Adobe publishing software slightly more usable than the Mac versions. The differences probably aren't large, and most users don't need these programs, or don't need the features where the difference matters.

For the majority of useful program types, there are excellent choices available for either OS. Now, and for the immediate future, the area in which Mac users complain that they are shut out is in "gaming." Many of the currently most popular games are Windows only; but as a musician you don't have time to play them anyway(?)(?)(?)(?)(?)(?).

Take your pick.

Be sure that software for what you want to do is available and affordable on the OS you choose.

Get the best price available on an up to date machine with current software of either kind; and you'll likely be good until the world changes enough to make something else necessary. (give it two weeks, at least)

John

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 09:14 PM

Traditionaly, 90% of ALL PROGRAMS were written for IBM processors.

Only the most commercially marketable trickled down to MAC, at an increased markup in price.

The entire world is going through another re-generation with everything moving to 64 and dual processers.

The advice I have been given given from pros is....make do with what you have, or purchase a temporary $500 laptop with programs installed .....but do not consider any purchases "permanent" or "major" until after January 2007 (which means summer 2007) and then go top end....to take you through the next decade.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

running win98 and a few visits to the Library of Congress requires a scan and defrag....and I keep dual disk less than 50% full for speed.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 10:59 PM

Personally, I think that's a crock.   Phtotoshop[, Pagemaker, Word and scores of other programs were written for the Mac first. Thousands more were written for both platforms. Waiting with a mediocre computer until 2007 is a form of self abuse, imho.


A

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: GUEST,Terry K
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 02:14 AM

Well well, how remarkably relevant. As a PC user for 20 years, I bought a Mac two days ago. I still have a fairly valid PC which I will keep with business stuff on it, but over the last few years the regular freeze-ups and general slowing down have frustrated the hell out of me so I decided to change. I know it's probably all fixable and I run spyware and maintenance tools regularly, but Mac owners have convinced me that none of that is necessary with their machines. We shall see.

First impressions - I'm still at the total confusion stage of course. What I'm looking forward to is not to have to subject myself to the frustration of things Microsoft - particularly Office Pro.

cheers, Terry

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 05:53 AM

You could try Linux or VMWare on your PC instead of binning it. Both platforms seem more stable than windows and desktop versions of both are available free. Trouble is it's another learning curve but Linux is certainly quite simple. VMWare - once installed - will run windows as a virtual machine that will be more stable than the original!

Hope this helps.

Dave

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: kendall
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 12:22 PM

My E Machine is about three years old. I have xp.
My main problem is with Outlook express. It is contantly asking for a error report. I go to updates and I'm told they are automatic.
I dump my cookie jar, I defrag and do disc cleanup on a regular basis.
Thanks to all, but I'm afraid the whole system sucks.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 12:35 PM

you can easily do without Outlook Express....there are a number of **GOOD** replacements for that.

But if you just don't want to deal with whipping your errant PC into line, a MAC might be the way to go. It will take a little while to adjust to some aspects, but it is harder to 'break' a MAC.

A comparison might be between a stick shift and an automation transmission car. If you grew up with stick shift, it seem natural....if not, go automatic. A MAC is closer to automatic.

Me, I just am a hobbyist collector of wild and interesting PC programs, so I have learned to do all the things necessary to keep a PC safe and functioning.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Cath
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:02 PM

For me there is absolutely no argument. I am now on my 4th Mac and I wouldn't have anything else. I have had this one about two years now and have had absolutely no problems.
As already mentioned, all these extra bits and pieces you can get for PCs but not for Macs just aren't necessary anyway on a Mac.
I'm on OS X and I can automatically open most documents from PCs and if not there are usually ways round it.
I have to use a PC for a voluntary job I do and I hate it - it really doesn't compare with my Mac even though it is a new sooper dooper wireless lap top.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:06 PM

DON'T buy a MAC until they've installed the Intel chips, and got the bugs worked out!

Till then, dump Outlook and get a decent mail reader.... Get Mozilla/Firefox....

http://www.mozilla.com/

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:39 PM

A Mac with an intel processor capable of running windows becomes just another PC.

Apple will be buying components like processors and system boards from the same suppliers everybody buys from and putting them into its own box, just like everybody else does.

At that point it is pointless to compare MACS and PCs as if there were significant differences. You need to compare MAC PCs with Dells and Gateways and Compaqs and...

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:53 PM

For most purposes, there isn't much difference except that the Mac will be more reliable, easier to set up the way you want, will need *much* less maintenance, and will have a user interface that gives you less eyestrain. This goes for all the *common* applications like word processors, spreadsheets, graphic software and software to do stuff over the Internet.

As someone already pointed out, games are an exception; Windows machines are better supplied with games. The other main exception is sound processing software. Some of this is *not* available on Macs, and if you're already committed to a particular package, you might end up stuck. I have the opposite issue - the main program I use is BarFly, the ABC processor for the Mac, and there is nothing comparable on Windows.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:04 PM

Kendall -

If you're having trouble with error messages in OE it's most likely that the problem is with your ISP/email service rather than with the program. OE is intended to be used as a POP3 email service, and few of the "free email" services, and not many of the "low cost" email service providers fully support POP3, if they permit it at all. They expect you to use html mail, which doesn't work with OE.

If you use html mail, they can put their adds and popups where you have to see them to get your mail. With a POP3 account, you don't get all that trash. They seem to not like letting you do it your way.

I've used OE for years with Win 3.11, Win95, Win98, Win2K, and WinXP and have NEVER had a problem that I can recall that raised an error message because of something that OE did or didn't do as it was supposed to. I have had a lot of "errors" caused by ISPs insisting that their advertising was more important than my email, and trying, openly or covertly, to prevent me from using OE.

You could have a problem with your connection setup, but most likely it's because your email service doesn't fully support POP3 and OE. If that's the case, then you either need to find another service, or just give up OE and eat their adshit via html, and view your email using your web browser. You're fairly likely to have the same sort of problems if you try to use a "real email" program with a Mac (I'm assuming Apple has one?). If you give in and use html mail, the problems should be the same for either kind of machine/OS.

FOOTNOTE TO 25 Apr 06 - 08:53 PM: I neglected to note that the bootstrap program on which I commented up above allows you to run Windows on the MacIntel machines. It does not include windows You still have to buy Windows separately, and that will remain true when the next Mac OS comes out with bootstrap - or equivalent - built in.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: kendall
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:23 PM

I hate to dump a perfectly good PC just because OE is such a problem. Looks like Clinton's suggestion makes the most sense at this point.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:45 PM

get Mozilla/Firefox...AND get Mozilla's Thunderbird for separate, standalone email.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:48 PM

(I have about 6 programs that will check my email to tell me what is there and allow me to read it (or delete spam), but I tell all but one to 'leave mail on server' after being looked at. That way I only have one place where a complete list is stored.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: JudyB
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:51 PM

I agree with Clinton - replacing Outlook Express seems a good thing to try first. I'm currently using Eudora, but you do need to choose between paying money or seeing ads, so it may not be the best choice any more. I use the Mozilla Firefox browser - haven't tried their mail program, but it looks good. I may switch this summer.

JudyB

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 05:47 PM

Eudora, also, was written and acheived its early fame entirely on a Mac. Clinton's advice is good if you want to save the cost of switching, but if you get TOO disgusted, drop in at an Apple store and see what they can show you.

A

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Dug
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 06:23 PM

"A Mac with an intel processor capable of running windows becomes just another PC."

Sorry Russ- that's absolute rubbish and it shows that you haven't got much Mac experience. The key to Macs has been and always will be the operating system. The interface is sexy- it's a simple as that. PC owners may like their computers as tools- Mac owners just love their computers. That's a fact- now ask yourself why.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: EBarnacle
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 08:57 PM

Lady Hillary has Outlook Express on her XP machine. She has no problems with it. I chose not to use OE because of the time it takes to send mail. Besides, I don't trust any program that automatically downloads everything.
I am quite happy with Hotmail and my free Yahoo. They work well and don't fight with each other.
Ultimately, the call is yours.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 09:58 PM

Dug:

Thanks for gettin' it said.

A

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:03 AM

I'ts fairly obvious that the existence of "a way to run Windows on a Mac" has confused the issue here.

You cannot just buy a new Mac with the Intel processor, install Windows on it, and run it as a PC.

You MUST HAVE the Mac OS INSTALLED, and also for now you must install the experimental, unsupported, uncertified, and unwarranted bootstrap utility, before you can install Windows on this machine.

This is still a Mac, and you can't buy the machine without the included Mac OS. You must separately purchase Windows and install it yourself. While there is some assurance from Apple that Windows will run on the machine, as a dual-boot machine there are serious limitations on how much sharing of working files and data the two operating systems can do.

No one in a position to know has as yet commented on whether Windows runs with all functions at full availability when run in this environment.

Apple has commited to including their dual OS software, currently called "bootcamp," in their "next OS version." They have not yet said that Macs will "come with Windows."

There is some talk about Apple and Microsoft cooperating on a new OS for Macs, that could be a "Windows with Mac appearance features." Nobody but the Apple/Microsoft people know publicly whether this is real. Guesses range from 2 to 4 years, if it happens, although it could appear quite suddenly. This speculation is based on a documented "exchange of money," implying a partnership or cooperative venture; but there is NO INFORMATION publicly known about what agreements have of have not been made.

The original Macs used the Motorola MC68000 series processor and from the first appearance of the Mac hardly anyone argued that the Intel 8086 processor used in early PCs was as good a processor. The x86 processor was a lot cheaper, and good enough for what the PC market needed.

When Motorola dropped out of the competition to keep building better/faster/more powerful processors, Apple went to IBM processors. IBM has provided improvements through several generations of processors, but apparently the small market share retained by Apple has caused them to lose interest in dumping money into trying to keep up with Intel and AMD in processor design just to support Apple. IBM can't, or won't, supply a "next generation" processor that Apple can use to keep up with what they want the new Macs, and the new Mac OS, to be able to do.

Intel claims to have processors and supporting chipsets that will permit Apple to make a "better" next-generation Mac, and appears to be willing to support Apple's goals for the next few generations. This does not mean that the Mac will be "just another PC," or that it will be "PC compatible" in any full sense of the term within the next few generations.

The need for a next generation Mac may come partly from the large number of extremely popular games available for Windows that can't be run on current Macs. Anyone considering a new machine for which gaming is to be a core/critical usage should be aware that this is the most extreme and most demanding application extant. Most Windows-designed machines have a very difficult time meeting the demands of the more sophisticated games, and are best played on machines specifically designed for game playing. It is remotely possible that a Windows that's a pimple on a wart on a "foreign" OS will match the capabilities of a "designed for play" Windows PC; but it's more likely that users will at least be able to play in slow motion, just like on a more mediocre Windows machine.

A principal reason for the earlier success of Macs in certain fields was their incorporation of full PostScript capability in the first machines, and the early cooperation of Adobe in application development. It has taken Windows quite a while to catch up.

Just as with Motorola and IBM, Adobe has recognized the larger market in PC machines, and all of the critical programs are now available in PC versions that are equal to, and arguably in some cases better than, the current Mac versions. This includes Photoshop, Pagemaker, Framemaker, PDFs, and Illustrator as a minimal list - to the extent that those programs remain identifiable in the new CS Suites. (Quark Express is the only major publishing/graphics program I'm aware of for which I have not seen detailed comparisons for the current Mac vs Windows versions - simply due to lack of personal interest.)

Very few people use enough features of any program that's now available for both kinds of machines to need to worry about which is better. The "betterness" is in features that have no meaning to ordinary mortals. (And few of us can afford the programs in which it really matters.) There remain a very few specialized programs that are available only for Mac, or only for PC. If one of these is critical to you, then your choice is obvious.

If you don't have a known critical reason based on a specific program you can only run on one or the other then there are two ways to pick which to run:

1. Which is the cutest (whether it's you, your wife, or your best friend who picks).

2. Which gets the most for the money.

If the choice really isn't obvious, you could just flip a coin.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Rasener
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:51 AM

The last time I heard about Microsoft working together with a company to produce a duel boot system, was when OS2 was going to be the B all of future development. However Microsoft and IBM fell out, which caused major repercussions in the industry. I can still remember the company I worked for at that time, investing huge in OS2, and I was already teaching companies OS2. It went pairshaped of course and was the downfall of Lotus 123.

Microsoft will work with Apple until it suits them and pull the plug and go their own route.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: NH Dave
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:54 AM

Back in the good old days, Macs were easier to learn, had lots of neat programs and applets, and a GUI, Graphic User Interface; but much more expensive to buy, because Apple was the only place with new Mac chips. Later on, you could roll your own Mac to your specs by using chips from a disused Mac and standard cases, power supplies, and all. After a while, Microsoft came up with a long array of Windows versions that gave PC users the Graphics Interface and mouse seen on Macs, and stolen from Sun Microsystems, I believe.

Today the folks who use Macs the most are people heavy into music, graphics, and computerized typesetting/layout design, Like Bat Goddess. Additionally, currently Macs occupy 5-10% of the personal computer usage, which means that common Windows programs will take a bit longer, if ever, to be ported over to Macs. I also understand that several popular Windows programs run much slower on the Macs, but I can't tell you which ones. As to the statement that Word came out on a Mac before it came out for Wintel machines, I believe that to be false, for just as there was WordPerfect before Windows there was also a version of Word for DOS, which predated Macs. Because Macs cover so little of the computing base, there are a few less virii and other nasties out there, but the same can be said for Linux.

At one time Macs were more often used by Liberal Arts folks who really didn't want to have to know about the guts of their computers; and Apple made the cases difficult enough to get inside, that there was little chance of them ever learning about how they worked. MS DOS and Windows, on the other hand were used more by technicians and engineer types, the ones who a few years earlier had modified older and affordable cars into something their makers wouldn't recognise, with performance to match. Today most decent middle schools teach their students enough about computing to construct their own web sites, and almost any other computer literacy achievements, and usually on Windows machines.

What most people with any sense have done is to jumk many of Microsoft's programs for doing whatever they like to do, and gone to third party developers for software and hardware. I used Netscape for years as a browser and email client, and have switched over to Mozilla's Firefox and Thunderbird, for browsing and email. People who have used Windows, Excel, PowerPoint while paying the big bucks to start, and only slightly lesser bucks to upgrade, now have the option of using Open Office, an open source MS Office equivalent, that is completely free, although they do troll for and won't refuse donations. Open Office is available free, for Windows, Solaris Sparc stations, and Linux, but not for Macs according to their web site, http://distribution.openoffice.org . Star Office is available for $ 69.95 downloades, $ 99.95 as a packaged product, and may be installed on five machines for no additional charge.

Up until very recently I felt quite capable on Mac operating systems, having sold them for a few years some twenty years ago. With the advent of their system 10, and perhaps my expectation that everything should be open to the user, I find them very difficult to configure, and although many hardware manufacturers offer their wares for Macs, with the lower user base, these Mac items tend to be more expensive than he same product for Windows. Microsoft's Plug and Play, or Plug and Pray as some detractors claim, makes it a lot easier to hook up hardware like a printer, scanner, or mouse to a Windows machine without bothering to download the proper driver for your hardware and your version of Windows. This same complaint can be made for machines using Linux, where getting and installing the proper driver isn't all that easy.

If I were doing it all again, I'd probably still go for the Windows machine, since you can pick up brand new desktop machines for less than $ 800.00, and my new hp Laptop, while not bottom of the line, only cost me $ 1195.00, and it came with a keypad, like a desktop machine. Although I started out on desltop systems made for me by my local computer shop, my last three machines have been laptops, if only for their portability, and smaller footprint. With the advent of a Windows machine in a keyboard, like the Commodore 64 and the Apple IIc, and the flat screen monitors, this is getting to be less of a selling point.

Another advantage of the Wintel machines is the ease of finding a dealer, or having one built to spec by people like Dell and Gateway. Here in one of the three largest cities in my state, I can buy Windows machines in five local discount houses in town, but have to go to a neighboring town to find the only Apple dealer in about 50 miles. The insistence by Apple that only Appple dealers may sell Macs deprives me of the advantage of comparsion shopping for a better price, and juggling specs to get the most desirable machine for a price I can afford.

Like anything else, try playing with the machines you see on display and ask the sales folk what they think of both brands. Of course if your nearest Apple dealer isn't nearby that may decrease any chance that you might have of getting a better price elsewheres, the way you can with a Windows computer.

Dave

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:06 AM

I second Eudora or Mozilla thunderbird. I use both. Eudora is really a sweet program and would be my first choice. I use several email programs to parse out my email addresses, though in this day and age it's easy enough to manage them all in one program. The Eudora I use is the free one that has an ad in the lower left corner, so it is full strength except for that. You can find out from people like BillD about spam filters that are free if you want to filter more than your ISP does already.

SRS

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: Aaron Aardvark
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 06:23 AM

I am well-acquainted with both systems and also with Linux.

I use and run a large system of PCs (because in business we more or less are forced to) that work with virtual Windows machines inside a Linux server environment.

At home, I much prefer the infinitely better, more intuitive and hassel-free working environment of the Mac. Mac OS X and its updates are essentially built using Unix/Linux principles.

A large percentage of professional musicians and artists use Macs for their ease of use in those applications.

Aaron

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:00 PM

A Mac is not so much a computer as a religion.

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:24 PM

For those interested in the interface of Mac and Windows, including user comments on the various options for running windows applications on Mac--check MacWindows--

Subject: RE: Tech: PC vs Mac
From: GUEST,Bardford
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:29 PM

A few software titles for Mac .