Are Apple Computers better than PCs??

It all depends on what you're using the computer for. Apple's are much better at graphics rendering, so anything related to design or graphics is better suited for a Mac. PC's are better designed for executing intense calculations/procedures.

Overall, Mac is making a lot of progress. I am personally a PC user, but if I had extra money lying around I'd get a Mac too. PC's used to have user-friendliness on their side, but even that is beginning to change. When it comes down to it, it's almost a personal preference. Somehow or another you can probably find some one to do everything on either machine.

except you artwork with the pc, it truly is not an investment. macs in user-friendly terms final longer with the aid of fact the better value makes people take extra care of them. in case you have a particular choose for mac in user-friendly terms utility then flow purchase a mac yet once you do no longer, i could flow with a extra low-value laptop to get the pastime executed in user-friendly terms a nicely if not extra clever. on your makes use of i'm going to attempt for occasion that macs are not extra clever and with a bit of luck keep you a pair hundred dollars. photos & video clips. to make definately flow with a mac yet to visual reveal unit, a 17 inch laptop would be lots extra low-value than a 17 inch mac and play the comparable video clips. video clips, which i presume are on line, mac has no longer flash help and at the same time as they have probable got here upon a manner around that why could you agree for some thing like flash once you have flash for lots extra low-value. to write papers and projects. productiveness utility like the main prevalent microsoft place of work, is designed for desktops and mac variations lack purposes and are distinctive than their laptop opposite numbers making them harder to apply in case you do no longer already comprehend. at the same time as i think of that conserving a working laptop or pc working for an prolonged time is great, i think of that the way technologies is changing at an ever increasing velocity, conserving a mac around for that long should not be possible. like I mentioned before, in case you're unlikely to make money with the laptop, it truly is not an investment, it truly is a luxury and a mac could be an high priced one with little to not extra clever return than a pc whether you utilize it to it truly is finished skills. seeing as how your regular makes use of are truly lined by making use of desktops i does not purchase a mac in any respect. additionally macs do no longer final over 5 years no longer with the aid of fact of viruses yet with the aid of fact of being old like the different desktops. TL DR: DON"T purchase A MAC.

I have a Mac...I like it and once you get used to a few differences between them and a PC, you will prefer the Mac

This should answer your question....you'll need sound.

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/772.html

What's your next move?

Disclaimer: I use Mac OS X on my personal computers. I use Windows XP at work and occasionally, for certain tasks, personally.

This is a complicated question, for many. Windows remains the de facto standard for personal computing, accounting for 90-95% of desktop/notebook computer sales, depending upon which survey you might believe. I might argue here which platform is best for certain purposes (applications, tasks), but there are many involved factors.

Apple just switched to Intel processors, effective six months ago (January, 2006). Certainly, there are many questions to ask just within this development. Did Apple pick the right Intel chip? Is it proven? How does the Apple switch to Intel affect using Macintosh computers? In many respects, it affects the entire platform. What applications run on the new Intel Apple Macs? How well do native Intel (otherwise known as "x86") applications run on the new Intel Macs? What about PowerPC applications (apps designed for the PowerPC chip/platform)?

Many, many questions. May I try to sort a few things out? I'll try.

First off, I respect the Windows community. Regardless of how long it has taken Microsoft to evolve its latest Windows effort, the most current iteration remains quite viable and I believe it be relatively stable and productive for many desktop applications. Windows XP is Microsoft's latest effort, yet it was released in 2001, almost five years ago. That's a lifetime in personal computing. Still, Windows XP and perhaps more specifically, its Service Pack 2 Edition, is a fairly advanced operating system for today's computing world in many respects and serves many groups of computer users very well.

But how about the fundamentals?

I believe that security is first and foremost on most consumers' minds, when they use their operating system. Without security, all tasks suffer. Windows XP is a legacy system, in terms of security. Its basic, inherent protection against security threats is abysmal in my opinion, and that of many others.

How is Windows XP vulnerable? I think a couple of fundamental issues are the forefront. First, by default, the user is granted "super" privileges, which allow for execution of virtually any type of application, without sufficient interaction by the user. This results in many types of "malware" being applied to Windows XP and executed, often times without the user's knowledge. By "malware," I mean software that tends to spy on the user by reporting back to certain sources, software that tends to over-stress the resources of the hardware, software that can materially harm the system as a whole, and worst of all, destroy the system. Windows by default, does not ask the "super user" permission to execute certain types of applications, whether they are legitimate or not.

Windows: Do I want, say, Realplayer to run on startup? What type of installation was executed when I downloaded the software? How did Windows try to protect me? Realplayer may not be an overly harmful application, but it certainly can strain the system's resources and interfere with regular use with pop-up windows, continual questions to upgrade, questions about cross-promotional opportunities, etc. Is this what I wanted out of Realplayer? No. I wanted it to play a single streaming piece of audio or video from a specific website, and that website mandated that I download Realplayer. This is just one example.

How about on a Mac? The Mac OS X operating system is set up so that any execution of an application, by default, upon installation, needs to go through a set of checks and balances so that the user fully understands exactly what is being installed, and how it is being installed.

The master password for the super user on a Mac is requested for any new application installation. This is just part of the GUI (graphical user interface).

How does Mac OS X handle all these applications? Well, installations must be approved by the user with the master password, so the user is alerted to the situation. When applications are installed, the files are generally placed in one common place: the "Applications folder." If you want to know what applications are installed on your Mac, you just go the Applications folder. If you want to uninstall an application, you just highlight the app in the App folder and move it to the trash. There aren't traces of the application all over the system. Once you trash it, it's gone (after you empty the trash, of course). In Windows, typically applications are embedded into the registry, and so a much more intensive process is involved. And in many cases, even if you use the appropriate process, you haven't entirely removed the application. This is the dark side of Windows: the registry.

The Window registry is incredibly prone to corruption. It is part of the fundamental build of Windows. The Windows registry is often cited as the biggest problem for system corruption and failure, and it has nothing to do with your computer's hardware. If a Mac fails, it's usually due to a hardware failure. Rarely, does the Mac OS become corrupt, although it does happen.

Since Apple released some of its models with Intel chips last month, many "geeks" have been very intrigued (see Slashdot.org). Many are wondering, "is it time to seriously commit to OS X as my default operating system?" This is the big question these days, and other notable questions have followed. "Can I run Windows on an Apple x86 Mac?" I would ask, is this relevant?

One of the biggest hurdles for Windows users deciding to switch to the Mac platform has been "the megahertz myth." This of course, is the gap between the performance levels of Intel or AMD chips ("x86" chips) versus the PowerPC chips (in particular, the PowerPC G5 chip). Previously, Intel could post speed specs as high as 3.8 gigahertz. Apple could only post a spec of 2.7 gigahertz on its professional-grade machines. At the consumer level, it has typically been ratios of 3/1, 2/1, or recently, 3/2. Indeed, "PC" (or "IBM compatible" or "Windows computers") would have more horsepower. Well, that is a myth of the past. Apple has placed one of Intel's latest and best performing chips into its consumer-level desktop computers, as well as its professional-grade notebooks.

But what are the implications of Apple's Intel-based computers?

For starters, almost all of the available Macintosh software is coded for the PowerPC chips. This means that they are not compatible with the newest, Intel-based Mac computers. Apple has a temporary solution for this problem, and it is an emulator that it calls "Rosetta." Do I want to run my Mac applications in emulation mode? Absolutely not. Certain demonstrations have concluded that running Mac applications in Rosetta is possible, perhaps even practical. But I have used Virtual PC, an emulator for running Windows on top of Mac OS X, and I can tell you that an emulator is a poor solution to a serious problem. It's all about productivity, and an emulator will never allow for the serious user to be productive, whether it's running an entire operating system or simply one application. For example, would I want to run Office .X for Mac in emulation mode? Absolutely not.

And that is where we are at with the new, Intel-based Mac computers. The only software that runs natively (or naturally) on the new Intel Macs is certain software made by Apple itself, and it is a short list. It will take a great deal of time before software vendors make their applications available to run natively on Intel Macs. Examples would be Adope's many applications, Macromedia's web software, Roxio's CD/DVD burning software, Microsoft's Office suite, and many, many other applications (nearly all, in fact).

So is it time to buy an Intel Mac? Without question, I say no. And not only because of the software issues, but also because Apple does not have a track record with this new hardware architecture. In other words, how many bugs does Apple have to work out before we know whether or not the Intel chips will optimally run Apple software, chiefly its operating system?

So in short, I would recommend to wait at least six months before considering buying an Intel Mac. 1) wait for software vendors to come out with native Intel compilations of their applications, and 2) wait for Apple to prove that these Intel chips truly work and better perform than PowerPC Macs. And by the way, Apple is still selling PowerPC-based versions of its entire line of computers, including those models that it simultaneously released Intel versions.

However, with all this said, the question on the table is, "what is the big picture?"

Windows has its strengths. More than anything, it has far more available options for enterprise or "business" applications. It has more options for consumer applications. Perhaps more fundamental, the Windows GUI (graphical user interface) has some advantages over Mac OS X. Some users will prefer Windows over Mac OS X, even as things stand.

Mac OS X has its strengths. Chiefly, its security. The GUI of Mac OS X will protect you from most of the problems that you experience on Windows - spyware, adware, bloatware, and worst of all, malware at its worst, viruses. Underneath the GUI is a rock-solid foundation unchallenged by Windows, based upon an open sourced "openBSD," which goes hand in hand with Unix, one of the oldest tried and true operating systems. In fact, OS X is powerful enough to use as a Unix workstation. The latter-most fact alone has drawn "geeks" to OS X. And when I say "geeks," I mean the class of computer users who are the cream of the crop, those who have the experience, with a variety of operating systems, or those who are specialists and professionals in computer science.

Much has been said in this piece. It is only the beginning. I cannot possibly touch on all the relevant matters involved in this debate, but I can say that some of the fundamentals have been briefed.

Apple came out with OS X with vigor in 2001. Since then, it has released FOUR major revisions. The resources of OS X dwarf those of Windows XP, at this point. I don't think I would get much of an argument from true geeks on this issue. The sticking point for Windows is the user-base, upwards of 95% here in the United States. With a domination of the desktop market and the software developers that follow it, Windows is the clear winner in terms of acceptance. But with the fundamental changes in Apple's hardware decisions - Intel chips - and the innovations made to its operating system - OS X - I think that it is a matter of time before more experienced Windows users decide that the mature Mac platform, in time, with Intel chips, will be home.

I am many things, among them a novice computer scientist. This race is exciting to me and that is why I wrote this piece. I don't intend for this to be "flame bait" by any means and in fact I would be insulted if it would be tagged as such. Let the debate continue. I am only one voice. I

want innovation. I want better computing experiences. I think we're on our way.