Are Macs PCs?

47 posts in this topic

#: 1   Posted

Macs have been beyond being a PC for ages.

Just moving this discussion over to the "Computers" section... speaking as a guy who's heavily used Macs since 1986 (I held off until the Mac SE came out), to me, the operating system of choice is just a means to an end. I'm annoyed by Mac OSX, Linux, and Windows all the time. They all suck, they're all unreliable, and they're all evil. In more than 30 years of dealing with computers, I still don't trust them, and I use a whip and a chair to get what I need out of them.

But Mac OSX gets out of my way better than Windows -- in my experience. When I use a Mac, the OS disappears and all I'm aware of is doing what I need to do. Windows and Linux just get in the way and annoy me. But most of the Linux stuff I get involved in is "purpose-built" software (like color-correction) that essentially just does one thing. I treat it like it's a color-correction machine, not a computer that does color-correction.

Anyway, my point is that Windows is still very useful, and there's lots of stuff I can only do under Windows. Or, if there's a Mac alternative, the reality is that the Windows program is better-designed, does more, has more features, or all of the above. Not everything is better on the Mac -- to me. A lot of everyday activity is better, but it's not 100%.

And I have to admit: Windows 7 (and the new Windows 8 ) are the most "Mac-like" Windows yet. I think both Mac and Windows are blurring together, to the point where it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference.

Note that there are many post houses who are very concerned at Apple's lack of information regarding high-performance Mac Pro desktop computers for editing, color-correction, and audio mixing & editing. Nothing has been resolved as of NAB, to my knowledge. I know of several companies who are moving away from Final Cut Pro and Macs for this reason, because they're concerned that Apple's profits from iPads and iPhones are diminishing the importance of computers and operating systems to the company.

For this reason, I'd say, "don't damn Windows today. Chances are, you may wind up using it tomorrow. And the more flexible you are in the current world of business and production, the better chance you have of surviving."

All just my opinion, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 2   Posted

I use both on a daily basis, but I don't seem to use the mac as much as I used to lately.

Now that Apple destroyed Final Cut Pro I honestly don't see the reason to stick with them. Sure OS X is nice, but Win7 really isn't that bad. Plus from a hardware standpoint, it just makes since to use a PC. At least to me. I've always prefered to have complete control over my hardware and upgrade when I feel like it.

Before ipods became popular everyone used to give me crap for owning an iMac. "Eww, you use a mac? Those suck." etc. etc. Funny how times have changed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 3   Posted

I have to say, at least in LA, I can't remember the last time a client brought in a Windows laptop. It's always a Mac -- and lately, more so than not, it's an iPad.

I'm not sure that Final Cut Pro X is a total disaster, but from using far too many editing programs in the past, I kind of rebel against not having a Canvas and a Viewer window. To me, this is like "Program" and "Preview" in broadcasting, or "Mix Out" and "PFL" in sound. Having just one window and using it for both is counter-intuitive to me. In fairness to Apple, they are listening to users and have made massive changes in FCPX in the last six months. But my gut feeling is that Avid is better for Hollywood-style TV and feature filmmaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 4   Posted

I switched over to Mac around 2007, and I've never looked back. Except to relish the fact that I never have to touch a Windows based machine again. In my mind, the brilliance of the Mac operating systems are that they are all built to be as intuitive as possible, considering the phenomenal technological ability we have now with so many advanced programs at our fingertips.

Things can always be improved, but they are getting very close to a point where there is little to complain about IMO. I think the thing to remember is what these machines are capable of. What we are asking them to do. And to remember that most of the time, they do it well, and consistently.

Now don't get me wrong, I've had my share of problems with my Macs, including hardware issues, but overall I'm very happy. Just like I've had my issues with my 552, but overall I'm very happy, and it works most of the time just like it's supposed to. I think we live in an age where devices fail at times, and that's just part of life.

Even multi-billion dollar rocket launches fail at times.

Just my $0.02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 5   Posted

addressing the topic:

Mac's are PC's. they run the Mac OS, though most other PC's run other OS's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 6   Posted (edited)

addressing the topic:

Mac's are a brand including PC's, they normally run the MAC OS, other PC brand's run different OS's

Edited by studiomprd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 7   Posted

I don't think Apple will abandon desktops and laptops until that technology is completely obsolete and nobody makes them any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 8   Posted

addressing the topic:

Mac's are PC's, they run MAC OS, other PC's run different OS's

You've almost got it correct.

Macs are computers, not necessarily personal ones (witness the Mac Pro Server line), and they run quite a few operating systems including OSX, various shades of WIndows (intentional pun) and Linux.

Actually you got it all wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 9   Posted

Definition of PC (personal computer): "A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator." So, ALL of the computers we generally use can be considered personal computers. What I'm not so sure about with this topic is whether we are having a lesson in language and terminology as it relates to the history of personal computers, or whether someone just wishes to call Macs "PC"s. If we are to look into the history of personal computers (those that match the definition above) you will find tons of information about 100s of different devices from scores of companies, running many different operating systems on many different chip architecture. If we look into language, how we have historically referred to these devices, there is a much simpler and clearer picture. From the research that I have done, it appears that the term "PC" as first applied to a personal computer, showed up with the first marketing of the "IBM Personal Computer", soon shortened to "IBM PC". At that time there were several other computers that could be considered personal computers from several companies, Apple being one of them, but none of these computers, to my knowledge, referred to themselves as "PC"s. Soon after the introduction of the IBM PC, another category of computer began to proliferate, computers using the same chip sets and "cloned" operating systems derived from the IBM PC. These computers were called IBM compatible, or PC Compatible computers. Again, Apple was still making computers running Apple operating system, using chip sets that were different than the IBM PC clones, and were not PC compatible.

To make a long story short, in the popular vernacular, the term "PC" (which used to be short for personal computer) became the preferred way to refer to personal computers that ran operating systems either MS-DOS or variants and later Windows (essentially a DOS shell in the beginning), and most often using an Intel chipset (although several prominent PCs did use other chips). Apple, now making the Macintosh personal computer, was still never referred to as a PC for this would blur the long running distinction between the Mac and every other personal computer in use at those times. Not to muddy the waters, but Apple was using Motorola 6800x chips, not Intel, and that chip set and architecture was referred to as "PowerPC" (so, "PC" did show up, in this form, in relation to Macintoshes). Lastly, when Apple went to Intel chips and architecture for its Macintosh line, this provided the possibility for PC compatibility (where a Mac could run both it native and preferred Mac OS or any other Intel based OS like the popular Windows OS). But this ability did not suddenly alter the language --- to this day, people still refer to Mac as Macs and everything else as PCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 10   Posted

A little correction.

Apple did not switch to X86 "windows" architecture for compatibility. They switched because the power PC had no future by design and frankly I was baffled why they stuck with it for such a long time.

So thanks to all the development for Microsoft Personal Computers, Apple landed in the superior X86 and later X64.

So tip of the hat to Microsoft every time you boot and see the the apple on your screen.

Definition of PC (personal computer): "A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator." So, ALL of the computers we generally use can be considered personal computers. What I'm not so sure about with this topic is whether we are having a lesson in language and terminology as it relates to the history of personal computers, or whether someone just wishes to call Macs "PC"s. If we are to look into the history of personal computers (those that match the definition above) you will find tons of information about 100s of different devices from scores of companies, running many different operating systems on many different chip architecture. If we look into language, how we have historically referred to these devices, there is a much simpler and clearer picture. From the research that I have done, it appears that the term "PC" as first applied to a personal computer, showed up with the first marketing of the "IBM Personal Computer", soon shortened to "IBM PC". At that time there were several other computers that could be considered personal computers from several companies, Apple being one of them, but none of these computers, to my knowledge, referred to themselves as "PC"s. Soon after the introduction of the IBM PC, another category of computer began to proliferate, computers using the same chip sets and "cloned" operating systems derived from the IBM PC. These computers were called IBM compatible, or PC Compatible computers. Again, Apple was still making computers running Apple operating system, using chip sets that were different than the IBM PC clones, and were not PC compatible.

To make a long story short, in the popular vernacular, the term "PC" (which used to be short for personal computer) became the preferred way to refer to personal computers that ran operating systems either MS-DOS or variants and later Windows (essentially a DOS shell in the beginning), and most often using an Intel chipset (although several prominent PCs did use other chips). Apple, now making the Macintosh personal computer, was still never referred to as a PC for this would blur the long running distinction between the Mac and every other personal computer in use at those times. Not to muddy the waters, but Apple was using Motorola 6800x chips, not Intel, and that chip set and architecture was referred to as "PowerPC" (so, "PC" did show up, in this form, in relation to Macintoshes). Lastly, when Apple went to Intel chips and architecture for its Macintosh line, this provided the possibility for PC compatibility (where a Mac could run both it native and preferred Mac OS or any other Intel based OS like the popular Windows OS). But this ability did not suddenly alter the language --- to this day, people still refer to Mac as Macs and everything else as PCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 11   Posted (edited)

While JW has added a good bit of detail to my original, now modified, short and sweet answer to the original question of this thread, he did not mention that at its heart, the MAC PC's native OS is a form (derivation) of LINIX/UNIX...with the current big-cat GUI...

Edited by studiomprd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 12   Posted

I did not say that Apple went to Intel to achieve Windows compatibility --- the reasons you state are the reasons. Motorola (partnered with IBM incidentally) had all but dropped future development of the PowerPC 6800x chip set. Also, I did not go into any detail of the development of the various operating systems mentioned in this discussion, so what?

"he did not mention that at its heart, the MAC PC's native OS is a form of LINIX/UNIX...with the current big-cat GUI..."

You obviously wish to continue to call the Mac a PC... fine. It just doesn't sound right to me. I realize one of the reasons is that the term PC has already referred to so many "different" (though basically the same) computers from so many different manufacturers, it has just been easier to say "I use a PC at work" and not have to remember that they are Dell Computers, HP Computers, Compaq, Leading Edge, etc. There is only one Macintosh and it is from only one company: Apple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 13   Posted

the reasons you state are the reasons. Motorola (partnered with IBM incidentally) had all but dropped future development of the PowerPC 6800x chip set.

Because it was at its peak of development and could not improve anymore.

Linux has gained a little traction lately and it is good thing.

But other then networking, Windows is the reason for the vast accelerated development of computers and the most important one: acceptability and lower prices.

Not to mention all the business support windows developed changing and improving the world we live in today.

I don't really care how people call Apple X64 or Windows OWN X64. But people should give credit to microsoft for the current state of technological achievement mainly X64.

Windows started the party from the very beginning. Purchased the drinks ,prepared the appetizers and hired a DJ.

Apple just joined the party later to eat and have fun.

;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 14   Posted

You could technically call all Macs a PC by definition. But not all PCs a Mac

All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 15   Posted

...at its heart, the MAC PC's native OS is a form of LINIX/UNIX..

You've almost got it correct.

1) All Macs are not personal computers.

2) There is no "native" operating system on a Mac hardware platform. There is a preferred (by Apple) OS but the hardware will run many forms of WIndows, OSX and Linux with no outer system software emulation.

3) OSX is derived from Unix, as is Linux. OSX is not a form of Linux.

Actually you got it all wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 16   Posted

Because it was at its peak of development and could not improve anymore.

Actually, according to last year's best-selling book on Steve Jobs, Motorola slowed down development on the PowerPC chips because they were expensive, and because they weren't making a lot of money for them. Jobs had specifically told his engineering department not to develop a version of Mac OSX for Intel, but they did it behind his back. A week after they learned that Motorola was not going to have a new processor available for 18 months, the engineers trotted out a fully-functional version of OSX for the then-new Intel chip. Jobs laughed, but basically told them, "I won't fire you for deliberately disobeying my orders... this time." That moved pretty much saved the Macintosh.

Apple just joined the party later to eat and have fun.

Actually: Apple beat IBM to the personal computer business by two years. They beat Windows to a visual user interface by 18 months. 75% of most of the computers sold that cost over $1000 are Apple's. They practically own the high-end laptop business.

So from that perspective: Apple owns a big chunk of the personal computer business. Again, I always say, I don't care that much about the operating system, as long as it does what I need it to do. Don't forget, a lot of devices out there -- Cantar, Sound Devices, Zaxcom, even your TV set -- probably use a customized version of Linux under the hood. All smartphones are using some kind of OS. I bet in a given day, each of us is probably using 10 different operating systems and not even aware of half of them. The operating system kind of doesn't matter; only the work and the reliability matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 17   Posted

I think the Mac vs PC division is simply result of people shortening the full names for the different platforms.

MAC is just a shortened version of the full product name "Apple's Macintosh Computer"

and PC is just a shortened version of "IBM Compatible PC" or "IBM Compatible Personal Computer" which referred to all the different brands or versions of the "open Platform" that started with the IBM Personal Computer.

It just became easier to refer to them by their shorter Nicknames. And then when Apple began referring to Windows based systems as "PC" in their own Ads the differentiation between Mac vs PC was amplified by those Apple ad campaigns.

I don't believe Apple ever used the word "Personal" in their reference to the Macintosh Computer in any of their ads.

Although both platforms can be considered Personal Computers in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 18   Posted

" Because it was at its peak of development and could not improve anymore. "

not really....

" Apple just joined the party later to eat and have fun. "

not really....

...and I remember Lisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 19   Posted

Doh, I remember the Lisa and the Apple III! Both total disasters.

Apple has made some huge missteps over the years -- some with Steve Jobs, some without. My point to the original poster is that it's not possible to ignore Windows, even in a Mac-specific environment. I know of three or four post houses in LA that are very Mac-centric, but even they have to deal with clients who use (even prefer) Windows. The key is simply to use the right tool for the right job.

The recent biography of Steve Jobs goes over many, many, many of Apple's failures over the years. They're far from a perfect company, and though I'm a Mac users, I've gnashed my teeth at many Apple issues at times. To me, Windows may be a headache, but Apple is an upset stomach. Both can be frustrating and ornery on occasion.

And I once saw an entire post department brought to its knees with a Linux crash. We were down for 48 hours, waiting for a replacement RAID board. RAIDs are great... unless the board dies and takes all the drives out with it. 10TB, burned up in a flash...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 20   Posted

I think both Mac and Windows are blurring together, to the point where it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference.

I get the feeling that Windows 8 is going to be a different story. Microsoft is chasing Apple, trying to make consumers feel like the difference between the two are blurring, but I'll believe it when I see it. Windows 8/Metro/Windows Phone seem like they're going to confuse people even more. Tablets the run on ARM processors are going to be able to do some of the stuff that the full Windows 8 is going to do, but not everything. Right there the user has to always juggle in their head what is and isn't possible with the flavor of Windows they're currently using. Current Windows phones like the much touted Lumia 900 are not going to be allowed to upgrade to the Apollo OS, which is going to integrate better with the Windows 8 & Metro tablet OS.

It's a big mess if you ask me.

Went Mac in 2004. Staying Mac until something better comes along...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 21   Posted

One thing Microsoft has failed to do that Apple has done very well is integration between hardware and software.

Microsoft will always be chasing Apple in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 22   Posted

I switched over to all Mac about 6 years ago, and have had my share of headaches, but less than when I was a Windows user I feel. One thing I miss about windows is being able to build my own computer. A Windows based computer was like having a comprehensive set of Legos. I could build what I wanted. I built my first one in early 2000's and gave it to my Parents who used till about mid 2010 when it finally died. The sad part is my parents have bought 3 new PC's since then. They just keep crapping out. Although I'm sure it's not totally the computer's fault. I've tried to get them to buy a Mac, as I feel it's more user friendly for those who are not very savvy with computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 23   Posted

One thing Microsoft has failed to do that Apple has done very well is integration between hardware and software.

Microsoft will always be chasing Apple in that regard.

Microsoft doesn't make hardware, so in this regard they can NEVER catch Apple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 24   Posted

Oh no, Brian - MS makes keyboards, mice, etc. Heh. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 25   Posted

Of course - one thing i must say - Post-Leopard, the Mac has become more difficult to handle. the iCloud business is really asinine, and the lack of easy back compatibility after Lion is a PITA.

Although Jeff will disagree - we had a discussion on the Google thingy that was left incomplete. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now