My PC was cobbled together. It's just a big metal box with wires hanging out of it.

What about those guys who customize their PC cases? Sure, it's really fucking nerdy, but they create some cool PCs, I guess:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/picture_libra...49247.jpg?5976

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/picture_libra..._48983.jpg?193

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/picture_libra...48706.jpg?7448

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/picture_libra...44545.jpg?2147

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/picture_libra...46652.jpg?5319

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/picture_libra..._45594.jpg?493

Holy shit. A lego PC.

This guy built a PC into his girlfriend's desk:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/picture_libra...43992.jpg?5182

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/picture_libra...43993.jpg?4768

Oh ads. Give me a fukin break. This does not state anything about you opinion on which you prefer. I use an iMac. I dont have any virus/spyware problems while my old PC got something every once in a while, and i dont download shit. Macs are just better machines. And touching on the software "problem." Any higher software have mac models or will have. I have had this iMac for 4 months now and not once has it froze up, and while brand new IBM comps in my school freeze all the time, and these are even newer. You know what they say, if you prefer PC, it because you dont know how to use a mac, dont have the money, or are cheap.

yeah PCs could be more funny cause you can build them as you want and change them buying a piece here and there but they arent so reliable as a Mac then. You could install a Linux os and hardware will works better but then it's not so easy to use for a green. Then you cant blame it cause it's working good for real!

i wasn't just comparing "any mac" to "any pc". i was comparing my old $1,000 compaq to my new $1,200 ibook. if i spend $1,000 on a machine, i don't expect it to crash or freeze up when i hit the "record" button.

oh... compaq... i think im gonna puke... :eek:

--
almost anything is better than compaq. except for whatever they sell at sears.

i had a dell before the compaq and it was actually WORSE than the compaq! dude...fuck a dell.

this guy (on the left) was a customer of mine...he designed a novelty computer called the "helmet PC" which is a CPU that fits inside your favorite team's football helmet. It's all legal. His company is a licensed dealer of Riddell football helmets. He told me he plans to build an all-in-one gaming system with gaming chair, all the available different consoles & a PC in it with a menu of all the available games. He says he's gonna put them in luxury hotels.

dells are gay.

and dude fuck hipsters, its about the computer not who uses the computer. I'd say PCs are only good for people who know what they are doing and can fully utilize its power, otherwise it will go awol on you. the typical computer user should probaly stick to the mac which hasnt been happening because of the price. i forsee a big change though, esspecially with the advent of the minimacs.

so true...they are the worst pc on the market.

the only PC I own is a low-end Dell...the 2400 dimension series...i've got a spiffy memorex burner hooked up to it though...ive got 7 macs, 4 G3s, 2 G4s (i finally got another one, !@#$%!) & an ancient mac power pc server...it's pitiful, but the G4s aren't even on OS X yet; they are still running OS 9-point-whatever.

i have to say i've NEVER had a virus; still i know dunces who put themselves online WITHOUT a firewall and WITHOUT an UPDATED antivirus.

thel lack of viruses for the mac is simply due to their under-3% market share, and it's the same reason why software developers are not flocking apple.

i think the mac os is far superior, being bsd/unix based; unfortunately the dumbfucks at apple have held on to the proprietary standards that turned their company into some kind of hothouse flower in the first place.

whatever-- my first computer was a mac as well. but now i custom-build my own and this gives me not only great satisfaction but also saves me big bucks.

when apple licenses its software and lets me load it in MY custom-built machine i'll sure "switch"!

but as long as they attempt hold me captive to their schemes, they can suck my big dripping kielbasa.

aww i miss the old macs.


EDIT - what about when microsoft licenses THEIR software? they are bloated with proprietary standards.
traditionaly OS X has been open source, ive heard rumors of them closing their source which would be sad

yo, microsatan doesnt demand i buy THEIR hardware. i can slap the OS onto whatever hardware is made to handle it. intel, amd, via, whoever makes cpus/chipsets, they don't care. that's how they fucked over IBM back in the DOS days. the PC clones took off, MS spread like fire, the rest is (now ancient) history. apple never learned that lesson, or chose consciously to remain a boutique product.

golden child is right, PCs are great for people who know stuff about computers, while macs are great for casual computer users.

another great thing about PCs is if you don't want to spend $1,000 on a shitty dell or HP you can build a better one yourself for half the price.

Never was a fan of Mac. I use Linux Fedora Core 4 with WINE, but the compatability is limited in comparison to Windows. Once WINE gets better development, I'll be completely linux. It's open source and has soooo many advantages. You can specify your swap space, Temporary files can be plugged in and used as the file itself (instead of having tmp files) so if you download a song, you can listen to what you've had so far in MP3 format. You can also shut down graphics interference, so if something wrong happens to your interference, it's easier to fix than having to use DOS with the command line.

true, there is no proprietary hardware, but thats because microsoft doesnt make hardware. they are a software company that licenses its product to the hardware companies so naturally they dont care about your software cause they get the money no matter what. what microsoft DOES do is develop proprietary software that is only available for their operating system.
embrace, extend, extinguish.
those are the ethics microsoft lives by.

software should be free
free as in speech, free as in beer

have any of you acually read the EULA?

and i really should take that back, PCs arent nessicarly good for people who know stuff but if you are gonna be a fool and use PCs you better know what you are doing.

It's really not that hard to use a PC.

its also not hard to get fucked in the ass by a pc.

In the first place computers are complex machines, runnning complex pieces of software, which are basically complex mathematical equations instructing the computer what to do... The only difference between PCs and Macs is the interface which the end-user(read: you) uses to interact with the computer and politely request it to do stuff for you. There is no fundamental difference between PCs and Macs with regards to my first paragraph. Therefore the major difference is how someone interacts with the computer. Last time, when PCs used DOS and the command prompt, the ease of use factor was obviously slanted towards Macs, now that PCs have ripped off the Mac GUI for Windows XP, there isn't much of a difference anymore. Another difference is that, as I mentioned before, Macs are built from the ground up to be things of beauty that are meant to be appreciated and valued, wherehas PCs have none of this sort of consideration, being primarily used in staid, boring offices, where the only creative expression is the boss wearing a polka-dot tie(shock!). And UNIX can be run on both PCs and Macs, and now Macs are using Intel chips. So...

that is not entirely true, yes computers are complex machines running complex software that are a set of complex instructions telling the computer what to do.

BUT

these complex instuctions are completly different from system to system, given yes that the end result is very similar. also in the pre-intel macs there was an entirely different processor architechture thus taking different sets of instructions in different manners and processing them in different ways.

But for the end-user, this is a moot point, it will not be a consideration when they make a purchase. It will be purely academic when the consumer has to make his decision. And there has been research that the actual performance of the different architechture is not very dissimilar, though of course the Mac is slanted toward graphical prowess. And also basically pre-intel Macs that ran OS X were running UNIX, which is also available on PCs; though it is not the default OS, of course...

heh heh. pc's are gay.

I am the one who voted for choice 4.

*cough* cock-stroking *cough*

os x isnt pure unix but unix based, there are alot of similarities but also alot of differences

but yes it is way more similar to linux/unix based systems then say windows and the closest you can get to os x on a PC would be a bsd/unix system.

Would you happen to know what exactly are the differences between OS X and UNIX? Besides the user interface of course... I think its very much UNIX isn't it? I mean its file structure and the runnable commands are basically UNIX, right? Right?

I thought it was a good statement to make to help diffuse the tension, but I must spead rep pts around before giving them to Saturnine again.

Just a clarification from a CompSci guy...just because you run Linux doesn't mean you're independent. If your computer was meant to run a Win box originally, you are a PC user regardless of your operating system. Same with Linux on a Mac. You're a Mac user. Linux is not a hardware implementation. Unless you're on a SPARC, RISC, etc.. you are either choice 1 or 2.

windows isnt a hardware implementation either, its an OS. the hardware companies are seperate entities entirely

yes. under any Windows there is DOS with all its commands.
under any OS for Mac and Linux there is UNIX.
Into Sun platforms there is OS Solaris and it based on UNIX too. A good reason there could be I think!

The mainly different is that UNIX is more solid then DOS cause Bill stolen this programs to a friend and it never worked well from the beginning cause they sucks.

because there is a better way to do it called expose - and is customizable... who wants to waist screen space with a task bar even when you can hide it on windoze it doesn't hide it properly

price is only for proprietary components not after market, any usb two button mouse will work on a mac, any usb keyboard will also work

if you jump into learning command prompt in mac it opens up even more power than is available in the gui, and if you used linux you will pick this up real quick. i use my machine for pro audio work (g4 pb) both location and as portable studio gear when i record live gigs and have never once had it crash. i can get up to 52 channels on audio recording simultaneously and barely even have a glitch (using digital performer 4.5), i would never trust and pc based software to function this well. protools sucks ass... for audio on pc i would use cubase over protools but pryamix is killer on a pc machine and very very reliable. both are now equivalent when you go into the highend side of pc hardware and run a stable os nothing less than XP or a good linux distro (obviously limited software for the latter) there is no argument really, osx is more intuitive and faster to negotiate menus etc than xp but both are good. it all comes down to PERSONAL CHOICE !!!!!!!

Well said terminal.
Quote (I would never trust and pc based software to function this well)

I use my mac G4 duel processor for editing video material using Final cut pro and it has never crashed on me since I bought it in 2002.
I tried using Adobe premiere on a PC in the past and it was a nightmare!
But it all boils down to personal choice

In the spirit of another thread here we go:

Mac's look right, work right, and are doing it for the right reasons, namely quality. The same cannot be said or achieved by the majority of the pc shiteboxes out there.

pardon me, but that's a myth and a load of crap. since you're into the subject though i thought i'd offer a friendly clarification- mac actually ripped off XEROX in the first place. the GUI is not apple's invention.

it's because it's a specific software written for a specific hardware. you cannot compare.

try using AVID on a PC with qualified hardware and you'll find the same-- much better than final crap pro actually.

But would Microsoft have considered Windows if Steve Jobs et. al had not successfully implemented the use of a GUI for the personal computer? And now with the evolution of OS X, it's clear that Apple has certainly put a lot of thought and care into the design and construction of a GUI. It simply is a highly advanced user interface, which when compared to PCs; makes Windows look like a Commodore 64. Which, of course, still has its own appeal and charm. :) But thanks for the little bit of information. I was not aware of XEROX's contribution to the field of graphical user interfaces.

oh yeah check it out. it's all here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft

an excerpt:

Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright, and that each individual element of the interface (such as the existence of windows on the screen, the fact that they are rectangular, the fact that they are resizable, the fact that they overlap, and the fact that they have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together. After long argument, the judge insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple came up with a list of 189 GUI elements; the judge decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement, and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightable—either they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea.
In an odd twist midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invested in Apple and had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed because the three year statue of limitations had passed (i.e. Xerox waited too long to file suit.)