I spent 2 years working in a design studio. We had 7 Macs and 3 PCs. Most of the Macs were PowerMac G4s, between 4-5 years old, and still running Adobe CS2 pretty fast. The 3 PCs, which were used for web development and 3D graphics, were all scratch-built and kept well maintained by experienced hands. They all used high-end components, including an OpenGL video card on the 3D workstation. Each of the computers cost quite a bit less than the older Macs did at the time we got them. The 3 PCs ranged between 6 months - 2.5 years in terms of age. 2 of the 3 PCs were plagued by hardware failures, and the third one got a virus (we removed it, however). The $2,500 PC graphics workstation we purchased barely a year ago had to have its power supply and motherboard replaced; a half-melted, top-of-the-line DFI mobo is not a pretty sight. We were always careful to turn the PCs off when they weren't in use, and we always kept them adequately cooled, so our hardware troubles remain something of a mystery. On the other hand, most of our 7 Macs were left running almost constantly for years; none of them has ever needed any repairs. I thought I was alone in having had such experiences, but a lot of other people I've talked to have said the exact same things. For whatever reason, Apple hardware tends to last a really long time, without breaking down.
I just want to address this really quick. I don't care what computer you get. Hardware is hardware and sooner or later you're going to get a bad apple, no pun intended.
. Heck, how many recalls has Apple had over the years because of faulty hardware? Several. How much of Apple's hardware is actually manufactured by Apple? Very little. In terms of hardware, for the past 10 or so years, pretty much the same manufactures have been making both PC and Apple hardware. In recent years, there's literally little to no difference with the Intel switch.
Are you, therefore, getting a less
reliable Apple computer nowdays because it's using "PC hardware?"
In my experience, I have built many, many machines from scratch using the absolute best hardware (in terms of reliability) that exists, and still keep it at a fraction of the cost of an Apple machine. Also, in the many machines I've built, I've only ever had to replace one
video card in their 5-7 year lifespan. Maybe an occasional network card to upgrade. Nothing more.
In terms of keeping the computer running on the software side, another void point in my opinion. I'm writing this on my laptop. Next to me is my desktop which I also use very frequently, even moreso than my laptop. Currently, it's running Windows XP SP2. It has an uptime of 76 days as we speak. The previous uptime record was 93 days. The only reason for going offline was that I discovered after coming back from a 1 week vacation that the power had gone off for 2 hours and my 1500VA battery backup didn't last that long. I've never had a spyware problem. I've ever only had 1 virus which I quickly fixed. In the 4 years since I installed XP on it I've only had the BSOD once, happening alongside of said virus above. Operating system stability isn't an issue
. Granted, out of the box, OS X is more stable. But with a good 10 minute tweaking after Windows installation, it's fine.
In terms of video/photo editing capability, I won't even discuss that point. Software is software. Photoshop is the same for OS X as it is for Windows. After Effects, Premiere, etc. And not just Adobe software, though I would argue that Adobe's software is the best there is.
...but look good and are a joy to use...Microsoft (and especially IBM) released anything at all visually inspiring?
Look good? I can't stand the look of a Mac, personally. Joy to use? I get frustrated every single time. Aqua theme inspiring? Heck no, at least not for me. I find it extremely ugly. Please don't use these points when comparing OS X and Apples to Windows and PCs. It comes down to a personal preference here.
Secondly, since when
has IBM had any serious foothold in the mainstream PC market? 8O It's been so long I can't even remember. Heck, they just sold their whole notebook devision. As far as I'm aware, IBM is only providing services
for mainframe-type systems and servers these days. And thirdly, I quite like the look of Windows XP. Simplicity is beautiful, in my opinion...
In the end, however, it pretty much all boils down to personal preference. What are you going to be using the computer for? If you want to give a computer to your grandmother who's never used one before, sure, go for a Mac. They're easier to learn. If you want to do video/photo editing, in my opinion, it's a tossup. If you want to use it as a server, I'd choose Linux most of the time. However, I'd choose Server 2003 over OS X Server any day. Any day
. However, for the power users like myself, I won't touch a Mac. I find it restricts my productivity. For others it might be different.
Again I say, it all boils down to personal preference. Price (though Apple is still a bit behind in this area), software use, editing capability, and yes, since Apple switched to Intel, hardware are absolutely no longer factors...at all.