PC or Mac

[Free]

My Dell is 8 years old and not doing well so it is time to get a new computer.

My wife will be using it for business and will need to run some accounting software and AutoCAD LT. I realize that you can dual boot (if it's even a true dual boot) the new Macs but that there is some issue with Internet access in Windows (according to the Apple guy I talked to a while back). Also, my wife wants to network with her Dell laptop since she has a couple of part-timers working for her.

I will be using it and I like gaming (I haven't done it in a long time due to a lack of power), so I want something powerful without breaking the bank. I know that I could go to a reputable local computer store and have them put a PC together for me for pretty cheap. But chances are it would be running Vista and I don't want that.

The question is do I get a PC or a Mac?

 

[John]

If you like gaming your better off with a PC as most games are made for it, also you can more easily upgrade parts like video cards to keep up with the games as the graphics evolve.

 

[Guest]

The question is do I get a PC or a Mac?

Mac or PC/Linux. I will never willfully own another PC/Windows system. That would be worse than getting waterboarded.

 

[Rocksolid]

Except for the human propensity to be foolish, I would not understand why anyone would consider a Mac. A PC costs less and runs everything you want to run.

Yes, with a Mac you can dual-boot, but that's a pain and it's rather silly.

 

[Vic C.]

Gamers have been complaining about Vista not running their games. So, if you go PC/ Windows, insist it have a copy of XP Pro loaded on it.

I don't know anything about dual booting a MAC. I do dual boot my PC between XP and Ubuntu here at work. At home, my XP and Ubuntu are on different machines running through a KVM switch.

 

[Guest]

Except for the human propensity to be foolish, I would not understand why anyone would consider a Mac.

Steve Jobs.

 

[Timothy]

As far as a mac/pc the decision comes down to what you want to do. PC's are more about freedom, mac's are more about doing things the apple way. That's not nescessarily bad but to be truthful Mac's are so easy to run because they have a dumbed down interface and options. Less options you have the better an os will run in many cases. And truly aside from the gui, the MAC OS is not mac, its Free BSD with a MAC windows manager.

If you plan to Game, hands down pc. The really big game titles will hit Mac many times but other then that its not that big a gaming platform.

Vista vs. Win 98.

This is an old debate and is mute. Truthfully the problems with vista come 2 fold, 1 largely the hatrid of the way MS has done the licensing. For all in purposes Vista Home Premium will get you everything you would need as a home user. Ultimate is more for power pc user's who have home servers and like the extra ability to do things, also for Coroporate clients who need domain joining ability and Enterprise management.

The second problem with vista comes from the argument applications don't work and it has poor driver support. This was fixed long ago. The bugs with the base os were largely resolved with Service Pack 1 (as it always is with new versions of windows). Rule of thumb don't buy new OS from Mircrosoft till it hits Service Pack 1 or above then its safe. Even windows 98 encountered the same problems. As far as running apps and games, well it has no real problem with that anymore, and most software released since Vista's Release is designed for Vista over 98. Your really crippling yourself by trying to stick with win 98. And if you purchase a prebuilt pc, you will have to pay extra to get windows 98, if most manufactures even sell it still (last I checked Dell was the only one that did and you had to pay more, not worth it).

The last real issue was PC's being sold as vista ready that were not capable of running it reliably due to low end hardware. You've probably read some articles on this, but in truth the consumer is at least partially to blame for this for choosing the bottom of the barrel hardware on a new pc. This has been addressed largely and most computers being sold as pre-built are fully capable of running vista and then some.

There are a ton of bad information about Vista out there. I'm A computer tech by trade and certified with MS And cisco for my job roles, and can tell you I'd rather be on vista then win 98 any day. As a gamer and just a home user. I haven't had one problem with running applcations on this pc, sometimes you have to put older apps in compatibility mode but that resolves most issues.

 

[Rocksolid]

Vista vs. Win 98.

I thought that was a typo until you repeated it a number of times. Win 98? :crazy

You must mean Win XP, and you're right, that's mute, uh, moot. Win XP still dominates the netbooks (low-end notebooks) because of its relatively low system requirements.

 

[Vic C.]

Some vendors are still selling new copies of XP Pro. It's not dead if there is a demand for it.

 

[Timothy]

Vista vs. Win 98.

I thought that was a typo until you repeated it a number of times. Win 98? :crazy

You must mean Win XP, and you're right, that's mute, uh, moot. Win XP still dominates the netbooks (low-end notebooks) because of its relatively low system requirements.

yes it was a typo I don't sleep much due to the disease I have so chalk it up to sleep deprivation. And I would humbly differ with your opinion on vista vs xp. But I will step back from the Vista hate threads so yall can talk. :P And for my honest opinion Linux is by far better then XP or Vista or Mac, and at the kernel level linux/mac are very similar only the Windows manager is really that different (gui).

 

[Free]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm still up in the air but I am leaning towards PC since that is what I am used to. I haven't run Linux or even seen it so don't know about that yet but when I get the new machine it would awfully tempting to load it on the current one.


Another related question then: if I go PC, should I go Dell again, some other name brand, or go local and have one built?

I'm a little iffy with Dell since over the last few years there have been some quality issues, although I heard that they have resolved those. I've never had a problem with mine but I'm still a little nervous about it.

I haven't had a single problem with mine but seeing as how it's Windows 2000 , outdated Office suite, no PCIe slots, and uses RAMBUS (=expensive), I've updated it as much as I care to (1.5GB of RAM and 1.8 GHz CPU off eBay...LOL).

 

[Vic C.]

Buy all the parts and build it yourself. It's easy and very rewarding.

 

[Free]

Yeah, I was thinking that would be fun. I think I know enough but I'm not too sure. Basically make sure I match CPU to the board and ensure that all bus speeds match, correct? I'm sure the place I have in mind will let me know if I did picked some wrong components.

The main problem is that my wife will be needing it for her work so if it doesn't work or has problems, I'll be sleeping on the couch until it works.

 

[Vic C.]

Believe it or not, I sometimes buy MB/CPU bundles from TigerDirect. I check the specs and find matching memory and cooling fan.

You can look into their "barebones" kits too, which come with everything but the OS.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... ebone-Kits

http://www.newegg.com/ is another online place I frequent.

 

[Free]

Well, the wife doesn't trust me to build one so that will have to wait. But the store where I would have picked up components also has some already made (or made to order) systems. I don't know which of these two to get:

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/PID-MX21555(ME).aspx

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/PID-MX24016(ME).aspx

The first is a lot cheaper but uses the older CPU (it still kills my current setup). The second one uses the new i7 CPU and DDR3 RAM. I'm not that huge into gaming (well, I try and keep it in check, otherwise I get very carried away), so the second one might be overkill but it is the latest technology. Worth the $710 difference? Either way I'll still have to add a monitor and Office suite.

 

[Vic C.]

The first is a lot cheaper but uses the older CPU

Duo core CPUs won't be antiquated for some time now. Then again my philosophy may be different than most. So are my computer needs. The things I do now I was doing 5, even ten years ago. Web surfing, some photo editing, email, IM, no gaming. I went duo core at work because it was inexpensive and because my old MB had died. I still have my trusty 2.4Ghz hyper-threading Intel CPU at home for Windows. My older 1.6 Ghz works just fine with my Ubuntu install.

Any, those prices are way beyond my budget!

 

[Free]

Well, just remember those prices are Canadian.

Just one more question: Is Vista Ultimate networkable with XP Pro? I think I'll go for the cheaper of those two systems but get another 4GB of RAM put in. But if there are going to be issues with networking Vista and XP, I'll pick up an OEM copy of XP Pro x64.

 

[Vic C.]

You would think that would be easy. Some say it isn't, especially on a simple peer to peer network like we use at home.

Try this:

http://www.computing.net/answers/window ... /1076.html

Also this:

http://forums.techarena.in/windows-vist ... 072728.htm

One more thing...

 

[Free]

lol! Yeah....I think it may be worth picking up XP Pro while I'm at it.

Thanks for all the help Vic (and everyone else).

 

[Vic C.]

No prob.

You know, my Ubuntu networked like a charm. It reads all servers on the network, that's including the drives with NTFS (which is just about all of them). It detected and set up network printers easily.

If a free, open source OS can do it, why does MS go out of their way to make up jump through hoops sometimes?