Sure this has been answered to a great extent. Tried to Google but a
mass of information. Would anyone be able to recommend a good page
that compares the two with their advantages and disadvantages in an
unbiased way?

Many thanks again for any advice,

On 2008-01-11 17:18:23 +0000, Dave <s.f.oswald@gmail.com> said:

Its really a mater of personal preference. I too was a windows user
once, and found the idea of using a mac daunting, but i went into an
apple store, sat down at one on show, and fell in love. What i would
recommend you do is go and give one a try!

Dave wrote:
Subject: PC or MAC
Compares the two what? You need to gel in your mind what you are
'trying to do'. Are you thinking about buying a computer such as a
desktop/laptop and you are trying to decide between some mac and some
'non-mac'? ...where the non-mac might be a linux machine or a vista
machine.

Apple's Macintosh means a lot of different things from macbooks to imacs
to macmini to macpro. PC means even more different things.

You can discuss the concept of an integration of an operating system
(which one, Leopard, Tiger or some older OS X) with dedicated hardware
vs 'open' hardware based on Intel AMD, or Via cpu/s and supporting
chipsets by intel, via, nvidia, sis and others and any of dozens of
different mobos.

You can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of Apple Mac OS X vs
MS's Vista and XP vs too many different linux distributions to mention.

Your post is like "I am thinking/wondering something. What is the
answer? What are the considerations?"

First you have to clarify exactly what you mean. If you are considering
buying a computer, will it be a laptop or desktop? How much money were
you thinking about spending? What do you want to do with it?

If you are simply having an argument or discussion with someone, what
/exactly/ are you discussing?


--
Mike Easter

Dave <s.f.oswald@gmail.com> wrote in
news:75c75e00-fcae-4cfe-b00d-fa95733897e9@z17g2000hsg.googlegr
oups.com:

You don't need a page. And I doubt there is one since this is
like discussing religions.

-
Macs look 1000% cooler, cost more (although many will argue),
and are not compatible with 90% of other computers in the world.
They supposedly run Windows in emulators but I also hear they're
slow when they do that. Fixing them can also be very expensive.

+
If you've never used ANY computer before, they MAY be easier to
learn. They are less vulnerable to attacks, since most nasties
target MS IE/OE and Office for the Windows.



--
Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion.
Edward Abbey (1927 - 1989)

On 11 Jan, 19:15, thanatoid <wait...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
Thank you for your reply, very helpful.

On 11 Jan, 19:03, "Mike Easter" <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote:
No no, I don't mean all those questions. Simply what are the main
differences between a windows based PC and a MAC? Differences in
performance? Software equivalents? What can be done on a MAC that
can't or not as well on a PC and visa versa?... Along those lines and
not any more complicated than it is.

Many thanks anyway,

On 11 Jan, 18:50, Matthew wrote:
Yeah might just do that,.. just wondered if there might be a short
article or something along those lines on the net. The apple store is
not that far from where I work.

Thanks,

Dave wrote:
Notice that when you replied, two things happened.

-1- you bottom posted
-2- your bottom post was unresponsive to the issues/questions raised in
the post which you did not respond to by trimming and contexting your
reply.

Bottom and top posters demonstrate a reading comprehension and
responsive writing deficiency -- that is, they fail to 'grok' what the
message said they are replying to, and as a result of the comprehension
problem and as a result of the 'style' of replying, they fail to
write/type the *real* answer to what they are replying.

This happens because both top and bottom posters are reading a post when
'all of a sudden' they are struck by a thought. The thought they are
struck with shuts down their reading comprehension and translates into a
'feeling'. The feeling translates itself into an 'urge' to start to
type something. They hit reply and the message they are replying to
vanishes from their eyes. Instead of selectively isolating specific
parts to which they will address their remarks, they start typing
without anything but a vague recollection of some feeling inside, not
the specific words which they should be addressing.

If they are configured to post at the bottom, they post at the bottom of
the preceding message but not directly under the words they should be
reading while they are typing. If they are configured to post at the
top, it works the same way except where their words are located. In
neither case do the words really address the other words they are
replying.

It is made complicated by what you didn't express in the first place and
what you didn't address in the second place.

--
Mike Easter

On 11 Jan, 20:45, "Mike Easter" <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote:
Did you copy and paste that?

Thanks again,

Dave <s.f.oswald@gmail.com> wrote in
news:52aa2935-aab9-4395-9e82-3a88b2ac5dda@q39g2000hsf.googlegr
oups.com:

Anytime.



--
Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion.
Edward Abbey (1927 - 1989)

Dave wrote:
No, and you bottom posted again. Why would you cite my sig to address
your remarks to? The remarks are addressed toward the *specific* and
limited /words/ of the attributed, not toward the sig which almost all
newsreaders will autotrim for you and not toward all of the words posted
by the attributed. But, if you use GG googlegroups for reading and
posting to usenet, it won't autotrim anything.

However, GG instructs you to trim what you are replying to:
http://groups.google.com/support/bin...492&topic=9253
"Tempting though it is to just start typing your message, please STOP
and do two things first. Look at the quoted text and remove parts that
are irrelevant."

Here's an example of attributing (which works OK in bottom posting but
not top posting) and trimming (very very important) and contexting.which
is a much better illustration that the weak GG help suggestion above,
which GG help doesn't describe context at all, but rather bottom posting
to a trimmed article.

http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/nquote.shtml Quoting style in newsgroup
postings -- Q2: How should I use the quoted text and arrange it with my
own text? - Q3: Why shouldn't I quote the entire posting that I'm
responding to?



--
Mike Easter

Dave wrote:


Even better go to www.youtube.com and search for it!

You might also want to try alternative
search for compiz and beryl say running on ubuntu
- all free with source code

http://www.ubuntu.com
http://www.livecdlist.com
http://www.distrowatch.com

On 11 Jan, 21:50, "Mike Easter" <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote:
Are you for real? And secondly what has this to do with the topic in
any case?

Opps I bottom posted again.

Thanks again but no thanks..

On 11 Jan, 22:26, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
Thanks for that, was very interesting. However I done a search and
found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyRz65mlMTc not really what
I was looking for but still have a first idea as to a difference.

Why is that you can get more in a PC than you would in a Mac for the
same price?

Many thanks,

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:18:23 -0800, Dave wrote:

Mommy, why is the sky blue?


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Dave wrote:

Yes.

The so-called 'topic' PC or MAC has yet to be defined except for the
part about your communication disability. The term PC refers to
'personal computer' which is defined as 'a computer whose original sales
price, size, and capabilities make it useful for individuals.' which PC
broad concept applies as well to a Mac as a non-Mac which Mac you also
failed to define, the range which I described earlier.

So, you are trying to talk about an undefined computer compared to an
undefined computer. How silly is that? The business about posting
'skill' which I've been trying to guide you toward is directly linked to
the/your inability to communicate effectively.

Many years ago a PC referred to a 'Wintel' computer which preceded Macs
and which had an Intel cpu and supporting chipset and a MS Windows OS,
but that definition no longer pertains. The outdated term then sorta
slid over to suggest a box based on the AT/ATX architecture as
distinguished from Macs, but that idea is kinda limp.

Once upon a time the Apple II referred to itself as a personal computer.
PC is way too vague. Mac is too vague.


--
Mike Easter

On 11 Jan, 23:59, "Mike Easter" <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote:
Oh my days, are you dumb or what? You can't tell the difference
between,.. me saying "PC or Mac". Of course when I say PC I mean a
computer running on windows (Does that compute with you?). Is there
something wrong with your brain. Why would someone ask for comparisons
on a Mac agenst a another Mac?????????? So, what you're asking me to
do is answer my own question. You're a joke. I don't even know why
you're in this thread. Go somewhere else, if you can't help. You're
making a short post in to this massive joke. I bet you're gonna start
spell checking my posts as well.

You make me laugh.

Dave wrote:

Do you mean a new computer running Vista which is underpowered for the
OS, which is the 'normal' or standard Vista model these days, or do you
mean some other earlier product version of computers which came
configured with XP or do you mean something else. To me, PC doesn't
mean 'of course' running windows. 2 of the last 3 personal computers I
bought which came with an operating system installed did *not* come with
Windows installed, and none of them came with Vista.

So, you have partially addressed the first half of the issue by saying
that you incorrectly want to define a 'PC' as some vague form of
computer than is running some version of MS Win or another as yet
unspoken. If we are going to compare apples to oranges, we don't want
to be comparing apples to turnips.

Now after you get us straightened out on reading your mind about what
kind of computer underpowered or not underpowered which is running or
not running Vista, would you please get us also straightened out on
whether you are talking about a Macbook or an Imac or a Mac Mini or a
MacPro?


--
Mike Easter

Dave <s.f.oswald@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fcaa2b17-dd92-466e-b313-f7f37546b6d6@1g2000hsl.googlegrou
ps.com:

Macs are made only by /one/ company, Apple. This allows them to
maintain relatively high quality standards, but ANY computer
will malfunction sooner or later. And, as a monopoly, they can
do what they want. Like charge you way too much. But you get to
be one of the select group who can say "Well, *I* run a Mac..."

Anyway, just wanted to mention a couple more things:

1.
Unless you are INTO youtube, video chatting, and stuff like
that, or just want a brand new shiny expensive toy, you should
be aware that even a $50 computer running windows 95B or 98SE
(or a 5 year old version of the Mac OS) is all you need. THIS
computer is 10 yrs 3½ months old, runs 95B, would be laughed out
of the room by ANY salesman (who will get more than its worth in
commission if s/he sells you a brand new machine), and yet,
strangely, does /everything/ I need to do. See some of my recent
(and not so recent) posts about that.

2.
/IF/ you decide to get a PC (and I am not necessarily suggesting
you do that, it's your decision), I DO suggest you try to get XP
with it if possible. If you are /not/ into video chatting etc.,
and are willing to put up with ridicule and abuse by people who
are jealous of your surfing safety, low price, and no need to
spend 3 hours weekly "patching" things, perhaps even 98SE. You
will save a lot of money and still be able to do everything you
want.

2a.
The bottom line is stay away from Vista. It is just trouble.
First of all, it is basically a bloated spyware version of XP
with nothing worthwhile added except outrageous pricing and
system requirements. It was mainly released to satisfy the
demands for copyright enforcement which movie and music
multinationals have forced on MS (not that it resisted). It is
also VERY difficult on the user - if you change the video card
it will require that you re-register with MS or it may just stop
working. Etc.

It contains nothing useful vs. XP, except it requires a
*considerably* more advanced (read: expensive) machine to run
it, and it DOES spy on you, all the time. XP only does it once
in a while. And lastly, a LOT of hardware is not compatible with
Vista (check into some Vista newsgroups for the horror stories).
It will be a couple of years before they work all that out -
sort of, there are patches for /everything/ MS still "supports"
released almost daily.



--
Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion.
Edward Abbey (1927 - 1989)

Dave <s.f.oswald@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fcaa2b17-dd92-466e-b313-f7f37546b6d6@1g2000hsl.googlegrou
ps.com:

Macs are made only by /one/ company, Apple. This allows them to
maintain relatively high quality standards, but ANY computer
will malfunction sooner or later. And, as a monopoly, they can
do what they want. Like charge you way too much. But you get to
be one of the select group who can say "Well, *I* own a Mac,
so..."

Anyway, just wanted to mention a couple more things:

1.
Unless you are INTO youtube, video chatting, and stuff like
that, or just want a brand new shiny expensive toy, you should
be aware that even a $50 computer running windows 95B or 98SE
(or a 5 year old version of the Mac OS) is all you need. THIS
computer is 10 yrs 3½ months old, runs 95B, would be laughed out
of the room by ANY salesman (who will get more than its worth in
commission if s/he sells you a brand new machine), and yet,
strangely, does /everything/ I need to do. See some of my recent
(and not so recent) posts about that.

2.
/IF/ you decide to get a PC (and I am not necessarily suggesting
you do that, it's your decision), I DO suggest you try to get XP
with it if possible. If you are /not/ into video chatting etc.,
and are willing to put up with ridicule and abuse by people who
are jealous of your surfing safety, low cost, and lack of need
to spend 3 hours weekly "patching" things, perhaps even 98SE.
You will save a lot of money and still be able to do everything
you want.

2a.
The bottom line is stay away from Vista. It is just trouble.
First of all, it is basically a bloated spyware version of XP
with nothing worthwhile added except outrageous pricing and
system requirements. It was mainly released to satisfy the
demands for copyright enforcement which movie and music
multinationals have forced on MS (not that it resisted). It is
also VERY difficult on the user - if you change the video card
it will require that you re-register with MS or it may just stop
working. Etc.

It contains nothing useful vs. XP, except it requires a
*considerably* more advanced (read: expensive) machine to run
it, and it DOES spy on you, all the time. XP only does it once
in a while. And lastly, a LOT of hardware is not compatible with
Vista (check into some Vista newsgroups for the horror stories).
It will be a couple of years before they work all that out -
sort of, there are patches for /everything/ MS still "supports"
released almost daily.

Lastly, even though there are MANY advantages to running Linux,
stay away from it. It is NOT for beginners. Not yet. Maybe in a
few years.

To further complicate things, I /highly/ recommend that you get
a computer built to order by a neighborhood shop or a custom
mail-order company (back of PCAnswers). You will get what YOU
want, better components, better service, and probably same or
lower price. Brand name computers are a rip-off. And they ONLY
come with Vista. Of course, this paragraph only applies to
Windows and Linux machines.

--
Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion.
Edward Abbey (1927 - 1989)