idiot, as of this moment PCs have better software. Ever hear of unix. Solaris is a hell fo a lto roempowerful than Mac OS. Hardware wise, the PC architecture also has a lot more potential. Trust me, 12 opteron 280s will annihilate a quad G5 configuration. Also, for the money low to mid end PCs perform better.
"PC" = personal computer "MAC" = macintoch, their both PCs lol, the only difference in the OS.... which u need a MAC motherboard for.
I say that Mac, with the new Intel incorp. and the new setups for them are going to be a total hit. I also say that Windows based PCs are very customizable... but since the past year when prices dropped drastically on computers no one really was customizing them unless they were geeks, gamers, or some of you idiots that customize E-Machines on GR. Now, as for the speed of the OS and not the "PC" part like the title of this thread suggested, I would pick the OS- Versions over Windows OSs. It takes a lot less of everything to run a program in Mac format than it takes to run anything in Windows format. I must agree though, with Windows new "Vista and Media Center Edition" products, they are deffinately grabbing the most attention but the new commercials about intel and mac being together are starting to raise a bunch of intrest and starting to worry a couple people. If you look at it then you got: Windows - Customizable + User Friendly VS Mac - Fast + Graphics Friendly + Mysterious new Intel business. Who knows. I think it is all opinionated and what you start with. But, if you where going to get a desktop, I would go with windows... with a notebook... mac or linux. All that said, because of memory and alocation.
Yes, yes. I didn't read the whole thread, just to let you people know, I never do more than 75% of the time. XP Thanks for filling me in on that XMasterX I am looking it up right after I grab the mail.
I would have to say MAC, because with the new Boot Camp software you can dual boot MAC OS X and Win XP.
Erm, i thought PC was referring to everything except a mac? but what ever, all i have to say is... Right Click For the Win.
Unlike Windows, does a Mac read 2.5+ GB RAM, or is it the same. i know in AKW's case he has a few wasted gigs of RAM, maybe, if mac can read 2.5+ GB of it, he should use that.
I have a windows machine and for a few days i have used a mac. I did like the mac as it looked really nice, the performance was less than my computer, saying that it was an old mac machine, i know overall they are more powerful than most windows machines. I prefer the computer for what i do, there are a lot more games and programs out there for a PC that will not run on a Mac. I would have a mac any day but i would need the extra money, a mac to me is a luxury item to me as it can't only do a few things i want it to and the windows machine does it the same way and for less, Macs look nice and run graphic programs slightly better than a windows machine other than that for gaming and what i want to do there nothing more than something that looks good. So until i can get all my windows programs on a mac i will stick with windows. Macs can use up to 16gig of ram, i know someone running that, they might can use more but since you can't really get extra ram i don't know, and it only goes to 16gig on there site. As for windows. 4Gb max phyical ram for 32-bit operating system. and it cant index anthing higher. Thats my inderstanding anyway.
Actually, I thought XP 64 could read up to 4 and that is all... If I am mistaken.. please tell me... I may have some wasted.. =)
no xp 64bit can read alot more, ask xelink to explain it. its some stupid number. As for the windows on a mac thing. Why not put mac on windows. Its really easy and you dont need a top of the line either. you just need SSE2 but its better if you have SSE3. Rather than the windows on mac thing which requires an expensive intel mac.
you can dual boot on any x86 setup, called project 86 a 64 bit proc in theory can handle up to 4exabites(512 Zettabytes) of ram... rediculously huige, don't count on seeing that much ram in this decade. 2^64=4exabites all that matters is that it handles an almost unlimited amount of ram, handles data in larger chunks and is theoretically more stable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exabit to put it in reference, it can store 512 BILLION times mroe ram than a 32bit OS/proc
