PC or Mac?

I am a musician and audio engineer. The software and hardware has always been more advanced for mac. Lately, they are evening out, but my macs have always been more stable. It is very important in good audio work. I also like it for graphics and things like that. It is deceiving to think that Macs are slower because a one gig processor on a Mac would stand up against a PC that is over 2 gig. Also, the newest Macs can expand to a lot of memory, and when you do the work that I do, it is important.

Macs were better for graphics and audio back in the 90s, and maybe in 2000. Right now they use the same hardware. Software is a matter of taste, so if you like your Mac software, there's no point in me trying to tell you something else is better. It's a matter of opinion. I have a 2GHz AMD Athlon X2 3800 in my desktop. You go ahead and try to find a 1GHz processor that has anywhere near the power of that. A 2GHz Core 2 Duo would embarrass a 1GHz Mac G4 or G5 processor as well. Making that claim makes you appear to be a fanboy rather than a person who knows computer hardware. If you were referring to Intel Macs I should remind you that the Intel Macs use the same Core 2 Duo processors that PCs use. The Core 2 Duo doesn't come in 1GHz and I've never seen any benchmarks that show an Intel Mac running faster than a PC with the same proc. If you have proof, please link me to it. You can upgrade memory in a Mac, but not nearly as much as in a PC. The best Mac Pro starts at $2499 and can have as much as 16GB of RAM. I could buy an ABIT Fatl1ty board for $127.99 that holds up to 32GB of RAM. That Mac Pro only comes with 1GB of RAM and costs $4499 for it to include 16GB of RAM. It costs under $2000 to get 32GB of quad channel Geil RAM from newegg.com. I'm not saying Macs aren't good machines. But for your dollar, you get ALOT more out of a PC along with more upgradeability.

Ditto with Taskr36. A 1 GHz G4 stands up to a 2 GHz+ Core 2 Duo? Give me a break!

Not to speak too ignorantly, but I have never had problems with viruses on mac. True, eventually it will come, and we should not let our guard down to it. But using security as an excuse not to get a Mac is completely wrong. It should a factor of why you should get a mac. There may be less software out there, but that is because the software that is out there works. Most useful software is now on both platforms also. Not to mention the ability to install Windows on the Mac Intel Machines. Also, there are updates you can do on Mac. Yes, the market is now as swamped, and it may be harder to determine compatibility because Apple does not help you find stuff they sell, but there is a lot of hardware that will actually work. The one good thing about not having so many part options is the it keeps the Apple brand consistent, which is one thing PCs surely do not have. Though, I would like to have more options to upgrade because I am a techie person.

'Not to speak too ignorantly, but I have never had problems with viruses on mac. True, eventually it will come, and we should not let our guard down to it.' --That's exactly the point. Most Mac users believe they don't have viruses because of some inherent impregnability in the platform itself, when the reality is obscurity. Hackers started writing malware for Linux before they paid any attention to Mac OS. The first Mac OS worm (as in ItW, rather than PoC) was only discovered in February last year. I'm just giving you a heads-up. 'But using security as an excuse not to get a Mac is completely wrong. It should a factor of why you should get a mac. There may be less software out there, but that is because the software that is out there works.' --Not really. Vista is more secure than OS-X. There are a few exploits for Vista, but most of them use the old social engineering tactic. That's saying a lot, considering it's Windows. There are more Mac vulnerabilities than there are Windows vulnerabilities, and have been for awhile. A Mac user's security depends almost entirely on the market, while a Windows or Linux user's security has more to do with the people who write the software. I sleep a lot better knowing this. As far as software out there working or not working, I don't know where you came up with that one. There is more functional freeware for Windows than there is commercial software in all for the Mac, or for Linux. That one came off the top of your head, and it really doesn't mean anything. 'Most useful software is now on both platforms also. Not to mention the ability to install Windows on the Mac Intel Machines.' --This is true, but why would you want to install Windows on a Mac box? So you can pay more for slower hardware? Be informed that the fastest PC is faster than the fastest Mac. And there's a real simple explanation as to why...wait for it...more manufacturers! 'Also, there are updates you can do on Mac. Yes, the market is now as swamped, and it may be harder to determine compatibility because Apple does not help you find stuff they sell, but there is a lot of hardware that will actually work.' --And it's all made by Apple. It's a monopoly, which means higher prices and less peak performance. It's the competition in the PC market that perpetuates technological advancement and keeps prices down. 'The one good thing about not having so many part options is the it keeps the Apple brand consistent, which is one thing PCs surely do not have. Though, I would like to have more options to upgrade because I am a techie person.' --This is a double-edged sword. The same factor that serves for better interoperability also imposes a tremendous limitation. The fastest Mac is not as fast as the fastest PC. Of course all that extra power doesn't exactly go to waste on a resource hog like Vista, but Linux flies! And Windows 7 is supposed to implement the MinWin core.

I forgot to mention that it's simple enough to try out a piece of hardware, then take it back if it doesn't "play friendly" with your other hardware. ;)