OSX vs XP...(Vista suxs so it is left out)

[Concerto No.20 in D minor]

So!  You are free to flame strike up intelligent conversation in this topic AND THIS TOPIC only.

I like OSX better than XP.  Plus, Macs can run both so its really a no brainer which to purchase.

[Super Zombie]

I very much dislike Macs. I have an XP and a Vista computer and I like Vista the most. I don't see what everyone is talking about when they say they don't like Vista. It doesn't give me any problems. Also, my school district uses Macs, so I'd say I spend about the same amount of time on each kind of computer. My opinion on this, like my opinion on everything, is unbiased. One problem with Macs is the only thing you can upgrade is the RAM. Other than that, if you need to upgrade, you have to buy a whole new computer. Macs are okay for the average user that just wants to do basic functions, but if you use your computer as much as most of the people on this forum do (I'm assuming), it gets hard to find the right programs that are compatible for Mac OSX. But, I'm sure the average user doesn't want to have to pay that much money seeing as how they are overpriced. Also, they're harder to use for more advanced functions. Up until recently, the mice haven't had right click buttons (although you could get third party mice). The keyboards that come with them never feel right for me and the keys are somewhat hard to press (again, you could get a third party keyboard). One upside to Macs is that they won't crash as much. That might be true for the newer ones, but some of the older ones will crash if you connect to an ftp with any other programs open, or freeze randomly, not to mention the 15 boot time. Glancing at the Apple store page, The iMacs start at $1199, which would get you a pretty high end pre-built PC, and an even higher end PC if you made it yourself. The Mac Pro is almost $3000.... Yeah... The tech specs of that thing are so high end, no programs even use quad cores yet, so that's a waste of money. Uhm... I know I'm leaving things out but this post is already really big. So, I'll end it with a happy note!  Macs are thin! I hope someone responds to this. It's fun to debate about this kind of stuff.

[KefkaticFanatic]

Plus, Macs can run both so its really a no brainer which to purchase.

Why waste hard drive space on an OS that is far inferior to the other?  (Hehe, you'll never win!)

But yeah, I don't see why the bootcamp thing is that great of an idea.  If you were a normal computer user like me, and used both the OS's just as much, I'd need over a terrabyte of space to work with.

[razer84]

didn't read any of the above posts. all i care is that OSX > anything. i won't be back in this topic because those are my views and you won't be able to change  them.

[Harvest]

@Super Zombie

Quad Cores are awesome, they let you do a lot of things while not slowing your PC down.  It also helps out games like Crysis.  Plus, if you are buying a new pc, why not get a quad? 

[Super Zombie]

@Super Zombie

Quad Cores are awesome, they let you do a lot of things while not slowing your PC down.  It also helps out games like Crysis.  Plus, if you are buying a new pc, why not get a quad? 

Crysis does not utilize the quad cores. It might utilize dual, but not all quad, so you're only getting half the use out of it. At this point, nothing really utilizes quad cores.

[Super Zombie]

didn't read any of the above posts. all i care is that OSX > anything. i won't be back in this topic because those are my views and you won't be able to change  them.

Oh that's not biased at all. Loving something "just cuz." What was the word for that again?

[Gu4n]

Am I the only one who doesn't give a fuch about OS? =')

[Jamaha]

Yes.

Also, Debian GNU/Linux!

[Concerto No.20 in D minor]

I left Linux out because everyone already knows its far better than XP.

[Harvest]

@Super Zombie

Quad Cores are awesome, they let you do a lot of things while not slowing your PC down.  It also helps out games like Crysis.  Plus, if you are buying a new pc, why not get a quad? 

Crysis does not utilize the quad cores. It might utilize dual, but not all quad, so you're only getting half the use out of it. At this point, nothing really utilizes quad cores.

No, actually, it does utilize quad cores.

Plus, I bet a lot of things are going to use quads in the future so if you are getting a new pc you should just get a quad instead of using obsolete duals.

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/304/Crysis-3-Quad-Core-CPUs

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/98121-13-crysis-confirmed-runs-quad-core

Then again, I also found this

http://www.xcpus.com/forums/pc-gaming/7119-crysis-quad-core-optimized.html

So I have no idea.

Also, I wish I had a 64 bit os...but I couldn't find a free one around.

[Mike]

I've made the switch to Mac in 2005 and I couldn't be happier. Yes you can't change hardware other than RAM (and Harddrive if you know how) because they use laptop parts, except for the Mac Pro that you can also switch out video cards or add some extra stuff to it, but if you're a Mac user, you're not a PC gamer. So you don't need to switch out parts. As much and for the software issue, you can easily find a substitute if you know where to look, some can even be better in some cases.

For the price issue, Macs aren't as expensive as they used to be and the main reason for their higher price is because they use laptop parts, not on Mac Pro of course, and their RAM. Then again, Apple is very demanding when it comes to the hardware they put in their computers. They did tests with a Mac and PC with the same specs and the Mac boots and runs faster than the PC, even when both were on Windows.

Also the main reason for Bootcamp is for some software you absolutely need, but isn't available for Mac. When you get a Mac it's to use OSX, not Windows. So you don't need to give both like 500 gigs. I gave my Windows XP partition like 25 gigs and it's more than enough and I've only booted Windows twice. Once to install it and do updates and the other time to update my DS flash cart.

[Super Zombie]

@Super Zombie

Quad Cores are awesome, they let you do a lot of things while not slowing your PC down.  It also helps out games like Crysis.  Plus, if you are buying a new pc, why not get a quad? 

Crysis does not utilize the quad cores. It might utilize dual, but not all quad, so you're only getting half the use out of it. At this point, nothing really utilizes quad cores.

No, actually, it does utilize quad cores.

Plus, I bet a lot of things are going to use quads in the future so if you are getting a new pc you should just get a quad instead of using obsolete duals.

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/304/Crysis-3-Quad-Core-CPUs

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/98121-13-crysis-confirmed-runs-quad-core

Then again, I also found this

http://www.xcpus.com/forums/pc-gaming/7119-crysis-quad-core-optimized.html

So I have no idea.

Also, I wish I had a 64 bit os...but I couldn't find a free one around.

Hmm... If it does utilize it then that surprises me. You think dual core is obsolete? It just came out (pretty much) and a lot of stuff doesn't utilize that yet. The reason someone should wait for the quad core is to save money because by the time quad core makes sense to buy, you'll be around the time to upgrade anyway. You seem like the kind of person who would say these lines from Weird Al's "It's All About the Pentiums": "Upgrade my system at least twice a day" and

"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box
You say you've had your desktop for over a week?
Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique!"

[Harvest]

Well yeah there is use for duals, but with quads, I don't see why you would buy a dual.

This is my first custom pc and I don't plan on upgrading anything for at least 1-2 years and probably buy a whole new system in 5.

[Super Zombie]

Getting back on topic, I also like Linux. I've tried out Knoppix and Ubuntu. I like how there are multiple desktops and you can run it from a CD.