46 replies to this topic

[Marc Wielage]

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.

[Marc Wielage]

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.

[Toy Robot]

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.

[studiomprd]

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

[studiomprd]

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, 22 April 2012 - 01:08 PM.

[dfisk]

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

[OmahaAudio]

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...

[Jeff Wexler]

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.

[RadoStefanov]

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.

[studiomprd]

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, 23 April 2012 - 09:01 AM.

[Jeff Wexler]

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.

[RadoStefanov]

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.

[JackHenry]

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.

[OmahaAudio]

...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...

[Marc Wielage]

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.

[cmgoodin]

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.

[studiomprd]

" 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

[Marc Wielage]

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...

[Sam Mallery]

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...

[MatthewFreedAudio]

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.

[hemmerlinj]

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.

[Q]

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.

[vin]

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

[vin]

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.

[studiomprd]

" bought 3 new PC's since then. They just keep crapping out. "
first: Mac computers are PC's...(and now include pretty much the same components as Windows PC's do! not counting the OS, apple is just another brand of "PC"
but if you mean Windows PC's, there are a whole lot of makers at different quality and capability levels.
...and some of the "craps out" is the software, including the OS's, --this includes hardware not being compatible with newer software-- and I have a room full of 'crapped out' Apple Mac computers here at LACC

[OmahaAudio]

" bought 3 new PC's since then. They just keep crapping out. "
first: Mac computers are PC's...

second: all Macs are NOT personal computers, some are servers, please stop repeating that falsehood.

[studiomprd]

" some are servers, "
and what are the ones that are not servers ?

[OmahaAudio]

" some are servers, "
and what are the ones that are not servers ?

They're computers. As to whether they're "personal" computers is up to the user or, in the case of a company, the boss. But all Macs are not personal computers.

[studiomprd]

" But all Macs are not personal computers. "
I never said all Mac's are Personal Computers..
I did say: " Mac's are a brand including PC's "

[OmahaAudio]

" But all Macs are not personal computers. "
I never said all Mac's are Personal Computers..
I did say: " Mac's are a brand including PC's "

You wrote:

first: Mac computers are PC's...

If "PC" doesn't mean "personal computer" then just what do you think it does mean?

[soundslikejustin]

Holy crap, that's enough.

You're arguing semantics.

Microsoft makes software, to run on personal computers, servers, tablets and phones. The devices are built by third parties, based on necessary specs provided by Microsoft.

Apple make software, to run on personal computers, servers, tablets and phones. The devices are designed and built by Apple.

In both cases, parts are used from many and varied vendors (Intel, Samsung etc).

Done. Can we move on now?

[OmahaAudio]

You're arguing semantics.

Life is nothing more than semantics writ large.

[Johnny Karlsson]

Windows PCs are like Macs for communists.



Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Seriously tho, pick the one you like, and get whatever it is you need to get done done. Either one will be plenty powerful these days... if you know how to use it. ( yeah - archers, brushes. ladders, hats etc.)

[Boomboom]

Wouldn't it be the contrary?
Every mac I've seen was the same , except for the "customization level" that usually went as far as changing the screen saver.
:-P

[Jay Rose]

"Every mac I've seen was the same "

Yeah, and every car I've seen was the same: four wheels on the ground, user interface of pedals and steering wheel, accessory controls on the steering column...

I have four Macs and they're all different. My studio's tower is stuffed with PCIe cards and has three internal hard drives. My desktop machine is a closed Mini running two different OS's simultaneously (earlier OSX and XP) with extra drives on a 1394 chain. My NAS is an older Mac with no monitor or keyboard or user apps. I'm writing this on a laptop...

[Boomboom]

Haha Jay...that was my take on the "couldn't resist" part.
What a nice way to re-start an eternal sterile debate...well, soundslikejustin, you were probably right.
Over.

[Vasileios Alexandris]

[Vasileios Alexandris]

I'm little confused Jim.
What did you mean? Send me PM if you want.

[studiomprd]

From Fox News:
" Travelers using Apple computers to scope out deals on Orbitz.com may be paying more than people using PCs. Reports say that the site is showing pricier packages first to customer using Apple equipment.
Shibani Joshi tells us that through the site’s research, they’ve been able to glean that Mac users spend about 20 to 30 dollars more per night on a hotel room. They are also more likely to book a four or five star hotel. "

[AndyB]

I'm typing this from a seven or eight year old "PC" running Windows XP. Had a few minor virus issues over the years, like maybe twice, and easily fixed. I like that I've been able to easily plunk in additional RAM, a second internal drive, and swap in and out assorted sound cards and fire wire cards and whatnot over those years. Paid about $500 for the computer way back when, and its still solid. Just saying, to me, that's money well spent.

[OmahaAudio]

"They are also more likely to book a four or five star hotel. "

Mac users demand a more stylish hotel room.

[OmahaAudio]

I'm typing this from [on?] a seven or eight year old "PC" running Windows XP.

I've got a Mac G4 tower in my basement (from the 90's) who's operating system I regularly update (for fun) and it runs OSX 10.6.8 quite happily. Will your machine run WIndows 7?

[AndyB]

Never tried it because XP works just fine. The G5 tower we also have around here is nothing but trouble and we can't find a printer that it likes for more than a few months. Not sure what that's all about...

[AndyB]

FWIW, I'd like my next computer to be a MacBook Pro, just for shits and giggles, but I've got a mic purchase I'd rather drop the money on. Looks like I'll keep rolling with the "PC" for another year or so...

[OmahaAudio]

The G5 tower we also have around here is nothing but trouble and we can't find a printer that it likes for more than a few months.

That's weird. When I use a Mac (my own or someone else's I just let the thing find any printers connected (direct or on the network) and it installs drivers and connects without problem. I was at a newspaper once and logged on to their network and asked the Mac to find me a printer. It wound up finding close to 30 printers in the building including the main presses....

[myke2241]

That's weird. When I use a Mac (my own or someone else's I just let the thing find any printers connected (direct or on the network) and it installs drivers and connects without problem. I was at a newspaper once and logged on to their network and asked the Mac to find me a printer. It wound up finding close to 30 printers in the building including the main presses....

That tells me there is some sort of network issue like the printer is set to DHCP rather then having a static IP.