• Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
managed wordpress hosting

macs r betta then windoze lol

That's a stupid reason to have a computer for.

You're not looking at the computer, you're looking at the screen. Unless of course you're a n00b who can't touch-type :p.

Remember that typing test thing? :p Of course I can touch-type :p

So - your telling me you never, ever look at your PC? Ever? I like the look of Macs, the OS (I know you can install it on a PC - but meh), and just everything about them. :p
On a serious note, I really prefer Macs in terms of usability and reliability. There is still too much software that can only be used on a Windows machine, however. Even so, my next computer just might be a Mac.
PC stands for Personal Computer. so, a Mac is a PC. people refer to intel and amd based computers as PC, but, every computer is a PC. that being said, i am not a fan of mac, but, i am considering getting one for graphics usage.
PC stands for Personal Computer. so, a Mac is a PC. people refer to intel and amd based computers as PC, but, every computer is a PC. that being said, i am not a fan of mac, but, i am considering getting one for graphics usage.

Well even apple dont put ads on tv about there macs being PC's they are always bagging PC's and they call them that.. Then they bring out the 'mac', them ads are what turned me of mac's Im not as stupid as the ads said I was :tired2:
PC and mac can do the same exact thing graphic wise. It isn't the early 90's when mac had all the good graphic software and the pc has ----.
macs require a lot less ram to run just as fast as a top of the line windows based OS computer. so, you can actually run graphics and animation programs smoother on a mac. but, i think they both have ups and downs, but, windows is just becoming such a monster and eats up so many system resources which requires more and more RAM, and makes the computer slower and slower. i am not saying i am a mac fanboy or anything, just stating that both have good qualities, and at this point in time, mac seems to be taking my interest a little more.
If Apple will ever support x86 commercially, I'm on board. (As in if I want to install it on my Dell Laptop or Desktop etc.)

Until then...it is a superb desktop and a rock solid desktop/server! Although, pricing just isn't in line with what we are willing to spend. Until then, we will continue to donate to the FreeBSD community and run the next best thing :)

Windows sucks....but its easier to run it for playing games than virtualizing it!
Lets Take a Quick Overview....

Win : ALOT
Mac : Not so much

Win : ALOT
Mac : Not so much

Win : Not so much
Mac : ALOT


and of course *nix dominates all!
A little understanding goes a long way.

It's a give and take with Mac and Windows.

It is silly to want to run OSX on a non mac x86 platform. Mac has tight controls on hardware, therefore you can be assured that all the hardware will work. This is because they are writing all the drivers for the few pieces of hardware allowed on their system. You give up the unlimited freedom to exchange hardware for the security that all of your hardware choices are going to work 100% no if's and's or but's.

Linux is the complete other side of the spectrum. True, linux supports more hardware than Mac, and will run on just about anything... that is with a varying degree of success, and an increased responsibility for the end user. Your video card doesn't work in Linux, are you stuck? No, learn assembly and write a driver for it, that's your option. The reason that so much hardware works on Linux is that this situation has occured so many times, over and over.

Windows is in the middle. It reaps the benefits of being widely used and therefore, any person making hardware is a fool not to make it work on windows. (This apparantly does not apply to Vista, you can blame however you want) Chances are, that if you pick a hardware combination that is compatible with itself, it will also be compatible with windows.

There are exeptions to this though, and they are Windows single greatest weakness. This is entirely Microsoft's fault. XP is rock solid and proven again and again as an excellent operating system, however it is showing age and Vista was not the upgrade(or the choice of 5 different upgrades) that it needed.

The major exception is that Microsoft dropped the ball entirely on 64 bit XP. It was shoveled out there and forgotten as Vista took the lime light. However, 32 bit architecture is limited in the amount of RAM it can use. You can only get 3 gigs of useful ram out of it, with another gig that can be used for paging. This is a gross oversight, and will be the downfall of XP. RAM is cheap, and people only want more of it. Can't use 8gb of RAM in XP? Get XP 64!, oh wait it sucks and has worse driver support than Vista. Get Vista! Oh wait, driver issues, too many versions, too much $$$ blah blah blah.

Nothing is perfect, but I use Windows because it fits me better.
Please read this.

I should add a note about the /3GB, /4GT and /PAE Windows boot.ini switches, too, because they often come up when people are talking about 4Gb-plus Windows PCs.

They are all useless to you. You do not want them.

/3GB and /4GT are config settings for different versions of Windows that tell the operating system to change the partitioning of the 4Gb 32-bit address space so that applications can use 3Gb and the OS kernel only 1Gb, as opposed to the standard 2Gb-each arrangement. They don't help at all with the 3Gb barrier, and most applications don't even notice them, so desktop users lose kernel memory space (and system performance) for no actual gain at all.

The /PAE boot.ini switch, on NT-descended Windows flavours, activates the Physical Address Extension mode that's existed in every PC CPU since the Pentium Pro. That mode cranks the address space up to 64 gigabytes (two to the power of 36), and the computer can then give a 4Gb addressing block within that space - or even more, with extra tricks - to each of several applications.

PAE's no good to the everyday 3Gb-problem-afflicted user, though, for two reasons.

First, it presents 64-bit addresses to drivers, and thus causes exactly the same compatibility problems as a proper 64-bit operating system, except worse, because now you need PAE-aware drivers for 32-bit Windows, instead of just plain 64-bit drivers for a 64-bit OS. From a normal user's point of view, PAE gives you the incompatibility of a 64-bit operating system when you're still running a 32-bit OS.

For this reason, Microsoft changed the behaviour of the /PAE option in all versions of WinXP as of Service Pack 2. They fixed the endless driver problems by, essentially, making /PAE in XP not do anything. All versions of WinXP except for the x64 Edition now have a hard 4Gb addressing limit, no matter what hardware you use them on and what configuration you choose.

This isn't a big problem, of course, since XP is not meant to be a server operating system. But it's still mystifying to people who try the /PAE flag and can't figure out why it doesn't work.

Oh, and just in case you for some reason still wanted to try PAE: It eats CPU time, too.
hey all: i have a mac and i thought id just come over a post a bit.

i love a lot about my mac, it really does just run and the support is great. This results in a relitivly trouble free computer experience. This is what you pay for, you pay a premium on this.

So it really comes down to who you are. Im a fairly technical person but I hate having to clear out our pc so regularly, my macbook pro runs like the day I bought it and I havn't had to do anything.

the supports worth a mention: they gave me a free copy of leopard even though im quite a bit out of the free copy range.