ONE HUNDRED!

I hardly ever have to reboot my Mac.

You can't really compare the Mac Pro, which is a workstation class computer, to a personal desktop or a custom built one. The desktop is always going to come out cheaper. It needs to go up against the Dell Precision series, or HP Z series - that's the target audience.

Look at it this way: you don't "just" build a workstation when it comes to the workplace. Maybe if you work for some pokey place that actually doesn't need one, but having one looks professional so you buy it anyway. If you're buying a Xeon PC, theres almost always a reason for it - which is why comparing to anything else isn't a valid argument. I'd love to pit my workstation against one of these "cheaper desktops" in what I use my workstation for. Even though it's 4 years old, I bet it still walks all over an i7 - yes that's a big statement.
Those that just buy a Mac Pro for the fun of it, well... they're idiots.

The problem with the Mac Pro is the hardware is so out of date. If it were updated to Sandy Bridge-E, then it's current price point is perfectly in line with rivals setups. Exactly what Derf said a bit back.


Assuming you did look up the DDR2 memory (Which the earlier MP's used), you need to know the actual cost of FB-DDR2 DIMMS. They aren't cheap, at all. No doubt Apple's would still be overpriced, but not by how much you think. I was looking for an extra 8Gb for my rig the other day, and they were selling around £100+ for 8x1Gb sticks. FBDDR2 is jolly expensive.

Can't complain about the hardware at all. My 2008 Alu Macbook is still going strong. My Dell Inspirion 1720, bought at the same time, is a sorry story. Both have been treated the same way, all the Macbook has is worn port indicators, the Dell has chunks of plastic missing, paint scratched off. I'm only still using the Macbook as I can't find a reasonable priced 13" laptop with minimum 1280x800 resolution.

Hi, pwned unfortunately the 6970m is not very good at all. If you like at the comments, apparently it only runs at 30fps on high, no AA @1920x1080, even a desktop 5770/6770 is better. My 6870 an AMD 1090T manages 60FPS+ throughout campaign with AA and some settings on Ultra. Also not that the 6970m only comes on the 27" Imac which has a native resolution of 2560x1440, so you would have to lower the detail a lot to manage 30fps+ at native. So really my point still stands you can't get any Apple computer which has a gpu capable of playing high end games such as bf3 with high settings, 60FPS+ @1920x1080.

Well, I think it runs pretty good on that video @ 1920x1080, considering that the screen recording is turned on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs5Ysb073Cg
That's a "Wow" for a mobile graphics card.

And that's also as much as you can get for an AIO computer, unless you decide to buy a game console.

lol, a game console would be WAY worse. Did you know that BF3 is locked to 30FPS on consoles.... And that the graphics chip used in the Xbox 360 is closely related to the Radeon X1000 series which is 5 generations old, so the details in bf3 are a lot lower than compared to pc. PC's are still the only way to go for gamers.

It's a very tired discussion, Macs and PCs. Mac OS X is a UNIX variant with a lot of popular software ported to it. Some people like it for it's interface, others for it's reputation as being "stable" and "virus-free". Sure it has less viruses, but it's not any more stable than Windows. Even as Unix-like OSs go I'd much prefer to use Linux if that were my cup of tea. (Linux has more multimedia codecs, drivers, and more customization.)

As far as Macs themselves go, they look pretty but they fail all the time. If you're someone who uses their PC every day you don't want to rely on a Mac. Honestly though since Windows 7 came out I don't even feel there's any inefficiencies in Windows at all, it's a great OS all around.

How is it not more stable than Windows. More like it's as stable. Have you used one at least for a day? Like Linux crashes less... Both Debian and Ubuntu were bad enough to make some apps non-responding, crash them, and in some cases, make the whole Gnome UI hang.

That's it, I give up explaining. Go use both, then compare. I will not reply to this topic anymore.

Why don't you take a look at my YouTube channel where I've uploaded several videos over the past few years on Macs? Like my most popular here which has over 25,000 views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEeWdmwqk2o

That or you can keep assuming that just because I criticize the almighty Apple I must not own or have even used their computers. For the record I own four Macs, three of them have had logic board failures. The only one without any failures is my trusty G4 from 2000. Look on Google, Apple laptops especially have a serious history of failures. Now sure the aluminum casing looks good and feels sturdy but why do the systems fail consistently three months after the warranty runs out? At least SOMETHING breaks, usually the logicboard or the optical drive die, or the display goes haywire. Real quality systems.

And the OS is definitely not more stable than Windows. I swear I've used Option, Apple, Esc thousands of times in all my years running Macs. Trying to open more than five tabs on Safari? Oh all of a sudden it quit. Or how about starting a video chat in iChat? Nope. Really, at least the stock applications in Windows don't crash. (Aside from Explorer every now and then but that's quite rare.)

Breaking my promise, I'll reply here to finish this.

I looked at some parts of your video. In the description you even wrote:

Not sure what you wanted to show me with that video. ???

Macs have the same, if not less, frequency of crash as Windows. I can swear, even standard apps can crash on both systems. Internet Explorer crashes. Safari crashes. Not everytime, but they all sometimes do.

And about the failure rates, not sure what you mean, here is the first picture in Google Images:


Also I see you are fine about Linux crashes.

Where did I say in my post Linux was more stable? I say I would prefer to use Linux over OS X then I put my reasons why in parenthesis, stability wasn't one. Or where did I state the video I had linked had to do with crash rates? You said "Go use both, then compare.", replying to my post. I made it absolutely clear I have been a Mac user for over a decade. You keep taking everything I'm saying out of context.

I must say I'm surprised the failure rates are that low, but as I said I use my computers almost every day. You've used the MacBooks, you know how hot they get. It's clear they don't have the cooling they need and they crap out over time given heavy use. Ask any professional who's used Macs they'll tell you the same thing, they're ovens.

Now comparing Windows 7 and OS X Lion, Lion crashes more in my experience. Same with Leopard and Snow Leopard. Both aren't constantly crashing or anything but when I do get crashes it's more frequently on the Mac. And I do need to correct myself, I mean the stock applications minus Internet Explorer because I haven't used IE in several years.

For the video: OK.

I don't know about you, probably you're unlucky (or trying to install Lion on ancient hardware). Proprietary operating systems don't crash all time whenever you are trying to do something, or else they wouldn't be on the market for long.

They are computers. Processors get hot. Or do you think Macs are so perfect, that they shouldn't give off heat, just like any other CPU in working state?

If you're using Linux, why wouldn't you then just write how it crashes too... except that all systems crash (because of the nature of computer processing), and you are just exaggerating.

It doesn't crash all the time but when I do get crashes it's more often on OS X than Windows. I'm not running ancient hardware either, the MacBook Pro I use is from February 2010. Logicboard died last October. Same thing with my 2007 MacBook Pro and 2004 PowerBook G4. Always a logicboard failure, and they always run MUCH hotter than normal laptops. SMC reports temperatures of up to 80c when I'm not even doing anything intensive. It's pretty ridiculous.

And I don't use Linux much really, I just said I prefer it to OS X.

the repair and additional device costs are much higher on the mac side just my 2 cents.
Virus secure are just the old PowerPC or 68040 macs.

Guys I believe I'll take the trophy for the hottest laptop because its an HP tx2z - 1000 touchsmart laptop. This baby is running at a whooping 95 Celsius and could fry an egg if i wanted to.



WINNING.

My MacBook Pro hardly goes over 70C when playing memory and GPU intensive games. It should be noted that I've overclocked my GPU too and everything is dandy. I've NEVER had the misfortune of getting a kernel panic, because I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING; I do the same thing in Windows, insta-BSOD. As for Apple using generic cheap chinese parts, are you F*CKING KIDDING ME, have you ever looked inside a Mac? As for Apple overpricing their hardware, I'll give you that, I bought generic chinese non-Apple certified WINBLOWS RAM and they work great on my Mac; myth busted. Any ol' hard drive will work on a Mac as long as it's SATA. SSD's on the other hand, require patching of OS X system files to get TRIM working on non-Apple SSD's. I've had my Mac for quite a while now and it's never given me a problem. I had an old desktop which ran Winblows and it used to give me headaches constantly, drivers keep crashing, some hardware conflicts with other hardware, hardware mysteriously dies out after a few months; I just couldn't take it anymore and switched over, and boy am I glad I did. Also OP, you claim not to be biased, but look where you're posting it, it's obvious lots of people will agree with you.

I HATE IT IT WHEN PEOPLE USE CAPITALS AND BOLD TEXT TO RAGE AT PEOPLE. Now with that over, your argument has quite a few flaws.
Firstly 70C is quite toasty, for a laptop, most laptops today never goes over 60C even with an overclocked gpu.
Secondly, it's more likely you're doing something wrong, or your hardware has problems than it being Windows itself. I personally haven't had a BSOD from Windows in a over 4 months, and my last BSOD was when I was OC'ing my desktop.
Thirdly, would you at lest tell us what parts Apple does use, instead of raging without proof about Apple not using cheap chinese parts.

Fourthly:

Thanks for telling us that Macs work with normal hard drives -.-.
Finally, I agree that the majority of BetaArchive members certainly use and prefer Windows PC's over Macs, but the OP intended to advertise his website, not gain the support of people who prefer Windows over Mac. Plus he did list a bunch of sources if you see the article on his website.

I think it's time for this thread to be closed, before this flamewar get's any worse. I personally don't support Windows over OSX or vice versa, but I do support PC's vs Mac, simply because the better value and customization they offer.

70C?

I can run games such as Modern Warfare 3, Crysis 2, Minecraft, and other CPU/GPU-intensive games and my "winblows" laptop (an Acer Aspire 7540) never gets over 60C. MacBooks are *notorious* for having overheating issues caused by a poorly-made heatsink that doesn't completely make contact with the CPU die, leaving an insulating pocket of air on lots of MacBooks (one of my friends is a Mac die-hard, he owns a couple dozen MacBooks, the majority have had this issue). Thus where the 'penny fix' comes in where you shim the heatsink with a penny.

As for Apple using cheap generic Chinese parts... it's Foxconn hardware. Built by the same people who build... every other PC. Ever. Forever.

I have been using Windows since XP, and I have never experienced a BSoD except for one occasion where I was testing hard drives and one of them sorta... exploded. I have also been running that entire time with no anti-virus software whatsoever.

I am typing this on a Mac (ok, it's a Dell with OS X, but I can't afford a Macbook).

Please don't argue points when all you have are opinions, anecdotal arguments, or no sources/proof.

I actually think this topic should be stickied as it seems to more or less be the "definitive" Mac vs. PC thread. If anyone takes issue to me uploading that report to my site, I can re-upload it to Google Docs.

NO! Don't even think about this. I hope moderators actually know what they are doing.

That's just the thread with people's opinions. Anyone would just end up buying what they like.

I can actually say something here from personal experience. Back in the 7th grade, all the school had to give us were iBooks (don't remember the model, sadly). They were blistering hot to the touch two minutes after starting them up and they were constantly overheating (mine overheated probably over 100 times in the one school year I owned it). Was always a pain, because we kept having to get replacement batteries every few weeks because they would stop working due to the high temperatures. Eventually, the whole computer just fried itself like an egg in boiling water and we just used our home desktops instead of getting a new one like the school insisted we should do.
If I would have known about that penny fix back then, I totally would have used it. But I suppose we'll just have to live with slightly-melted wood gloss on our dining room table.

I think you are wrong. I had always used windows and then got a mac. The switch wasn't that hard. I still use windows and can go back and forth like that. I have friends that don't even know what a mac is and can work it fairly well within minutes. As for being better than a PC, take a windows OS and run it on a mac and it is pretty likely it is going to run faster. Those are my thoughts, Hope you enjoy them.

Wow really? Have you looked at the comments above? It's obvious that everyone agrees if you want the fastest computer, it is NOT a mac. Nor is it any other OEM pc. If I could custom build a computer for the same price as a Mac or any OEM pc for that matter (not on sale), I could guarantee you it would be faster. And I mean a LOT faster. So your post about Windows running faster on a mac shows you obviously don't know much at all about computers in general. Infact a custom built computer for the same price could run OS X faster than a mac.

Wrong. So your post about OS X running faster on a PC shows you obviously don't know much at all about Hackintoshes in general.

Go read what is an SMC device and its emulators are (and if software drivers are faster than an actual device).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Man ... Controller
http://www.assembla.com/spaces/fakesmc/wiki

I think you're the one with the misunderstanding. The SMC is for controlling the system's hardware (ie, power, fans) it doesn't really have any affect on performance.

Custom-PCs can run much faster than Macs. You literally cannot own a Mac that compares to a high-end Hackintosh with an Ivy Bridge 3770k clocked at 4.9GHz and a GTX 580. (I don't think the 3930k or 7970 work with OS X yet.) You used to have an argument when it came to boot times but a PC with UEFI can be configured to boot quicker than a Mac.

Essentially Macs and PCs have the same kind of hardware it's just PCs are updated every month instead of every year (Or in the case of the Mac Pro two years). You're obviously going to see PCs running OS X quicker than Macs once someone in the community fixes up kexts for the newer hardware.

I'm typing this on a hackintosh'd Dell D600 that I bought for $100 which runs Leopard substantially faster than its contemporary (which, at the time of buying this were still being sold for $200) the iBook G4 (which is a PPC laptop, so it's not a completely fair comparison, but you get the point; the hackintosh is way faster than the actual mac)