[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Eight Reasons Your Next Computer Should Be a PC here

[ClaudeD]

Good Article: In today’s economy a PC is a better value. They are faster, less expensive and loads of software, peripherals are available at reasonable prices. And if you need service, you have lots of choices. Mac’s, well owners of them try to make you believe they have none of the issues PC’s have, that’s trash inaccurate information. Mac’s are susceptible to virus and security issue also. But possibly the three biggest drawbacks to the Mac’s are expense, getting service in other then highly populated areas is spotty at best and last not a large variety of software packages available. Mac lovers, they are nice machines but unfortunately because of several missteps by Mac management years ago, they are and likely will always be number 2.

[Bandit4556]

Well I am going to try to not sound like a disgruntled Apple user... I have been a PC user ever since I got my first home PC that was an 8088 almost 25 years ago. I since have built PC's and even make a living working on them. When the day is done I am glad I come home to an Apple. It is funny that people claim that PC's are faster and that Mac's have all the issues that PC's do when they do not. I have been an Apple user now for 5 years and only about 2 months ago I stopped even turning my PC on. I am a gamer, musician and web developer... I can do them all on my Mac. The funny thing is that my home built PC with a Nvidia 280 GTX and 6gb of ram and a quad core cpu in it is worth about $400.00 and runs slower than my brand new Apple Macbook Pro 17". Explain that?! I sold my 3 year old iMac 24" to get money to buy my new Macbook Pro and actually sold it for $400.00 less than when I bought it brand new... PC's do not hold their value... Oh and guess what? I can do anything you can on your PC machine because I can boot Windows on my Mac... can you boot OS X on your PC? Plus I can run Firefox on my Mac just fine which I am pretty sure that it will go to those areas that you speak of that are Windows only. Sorry if I sound a bit mad... but it is more that I am just disappointed that more people don't see the value of the Apple and trying to stop people from buying Macs... what are they worried about PC still owns 75% (give or take) of the market are they scared that Apple will take that? Oh and another thing is while I am typing this reply Sefari was checking my spelling while I type... does IE do that?

[luhhan]

@Bandit4556

I think I can help you with some of your questions:

1) "I can boot Windows on my Mac... can you boot OS X on your PC?"
Yes and no. Yes I could, but no I can't because Apple doesn't sell OS X for use on a PC.

2) "my home built PC with a Nvidia 280 GTX and 6gb of ram and a quad core cpu in it is worth about $400.00"
I just checked Newegg dot com, an Nvidia 280 GTX alone is worth $300-$400.

3) "while I am typing this reply Sefari was checking my spelling while I type... does IE do that?"
Do I really need to point out the irony of a spelling error here? (FYI, it's Safari).

P.S. If you really are selling that PC for $400, I'll buy it.

[Bandit4556]

See! I didn't want to sound like an Apple lover because I have used both and the very next post is someone pointing out the fact that I did not spell Safari right when "sefari" didn't get picked up because it is an actual word (google "Sefari")... Shame on me! Thanks for pointing that out... would have lost alot of sleep over that.

[eMJay]

I agree with point #6 100%. I've got five PCs right now that all have rock solid hardware, perfect stabilitiy and, between all five, run Ubuntu, Mandriva, XP and Vista Ultimate in various dual boot combinations. And I built them all. They have different total building costs (from an Athlon XP to a Core 2 Extreme), yet they are all solid machines.

[jdemp]

You quad core PC runs slower for several reasons. First the OS, windows sucks at multitasking while OSX does a great job at it. Second, probally your motherboard. Most people think that a faster chip(CPU or GPU) will make your computer faster, that is not always the case. Most people neglect either when building their own PC or buying a new one, that all the componets have to be connected some how. Most motherboards people buy, are the cheap inexpenisve ones that don't have the necessary buses and pipes to allow you to take full advantage of you RAM's 1066 Mhz speed or your processors whatever Ghz, in most cases the motherboard will cripple the ram down to 800 or even 667. It won't cripple you processor's core speed(thats the main number people look at) but it will cripple the front side bus, which is very important(I don't fell like explaining it right now, go wiki it). The mac on the other hand is faster for several reasons of its own. First off is the OS, mac OSX handles makes much better use of multiple cores than windows. Second it uses a more expensive, higher quality motherboard that does not limit it's cpu, or ram(that it annother reason macs are more expensive, but no one ever looks at the motherboard). And finally the cores are faster. I am assuming that the core speed for each of your cores is slower than the macs core speed. That makes a differnece, in most applications. Since most apps don't take advantage of multiple cores, and even the ones that do usually only make use of two or so, not four. And that is the case even with games. Does that answer your question, and by the way, I am 16, can program in several languages(Objective c, java, some C, some HTML), and I probally have more computers in my room than you hav ever owned, my desk has three monitors, speaker, HDDs, wacom tablet, and two computers, yes they are both macs.

[CentiZen]

Oh really? You spelled Safari wrong...

[nnmanju]

What ever Windows OR PC is the BEST

[srxshadow]

I have been a PC user my entire life and now that I have a Mac I can see some of these differences people are talking about.
The options available might be better in the PC market, but the ultimate deciding factor for me is the operating system.
Windows is just simply bloated + inefficient. YES the OS gets worse the more you use it, and it requires a lot of maintenance to try and keep it fast and clean. "In today’s economy a PC is a better value. They are faster..." If the configuration for hardware is the same today's Macs are actually faster. I can tell this by how I use up different software; although there is a slight difference from my 2.7Core 2 Duo PC and 2.93 on the Mac the difference in speed is LARGE. And how is it a better value if the majority of users have problems and constantly having to fix their PCs taking them to Geek Squad and getting robbed..? They didn't allow you to roll back to XP for no reason.. they did so because Vista is atrocious. I've had so many frustrations with it that it slowly made me pretty sour against it. Given that if those many issues were fixed I would be indifferent and agree the PCs are a better value.

[Car54]

On my PC, and untold others, we have a little something called Spell Checker included in Firefox, plus all of its other untold excellent add ons. :)

[TechieXP]

Macs don't hold ore value because its better hardware...they ho;d more value because they are isolated. Here is hwat I means.
Today I can go out and spend $1200 and build a better spec'd system then a Mac. 6 months from now another person can build a better spec'd system for the same amount of money. The reasons PC's have lower resales value is because something new is always around the corner for the same or lesser price. The computer I built in 2006 cost me just under $1000 to build. My same system with same exact parts will cost me about $600 to build right now. For the $1000 I spent before I can now build a better and faster system...so if I was a person buying a systm...why not buy soething faster for same amount of money. That's call value. Macs hold there resale value because they are so expensive in the first place...that spending $1500 on a used one that is 3 years old is considered a deal vs spending $3000 on a brand new. Mac fans see that as value... So lets used common sense...right now I can buy a brand new system which will have today's i7 technology, for less then a 3 year old Mac using older technology? Which one should a smart person buy? Value is not what you get for when you sell it...value is what you get during its usage and then selling it for good value. Mac resell value is high because to sell it for anything less than 1/2 what you originally paid would be a lose. This is common sense.

Anyway back on topic...what the guy said is true whether good or bad depending on who you are as a user. The biggest benefit is choice. Windows offers more choice period. And Macs don't make good gaming rigs unless you're playing games where speed isn't important. If you Windows machines runs slower than you Mac playing games...I certainly wouldn't question the hardware.

This is the best writing I have seen in a while because it was all truth and no FUD. Windows at a lower cost works with all of todays innovations in technology...Macs costing more..don't. Everyone now has Home Theatre. I think it is cool that for $250 I can drop in a Blu-Ray player into my PC..and for $80 I can buy a card that will allow me use the HDMI port which offers 7.1 surround and the nest picture than any connect. If you use an adapter you lose some quality...even if you convert HDMI to DVI...even tho similar they aren't exactly the same. If Macs won't support cool features like these and yet they cost more and say they are better than a Windows based PC...all I can do is laugh.

And that has been Apple's problem for years and that is why they will never be able to truly compete against Windows. Apple is to busy trying to choose what they feel is good for you and tell you how you should spend your money. Windows offers options...LOTS OF THEM.

Try going to any computer store and blindfolder (literally) pick software or hardware for a Mac....now try it for a Windows based PC. There is no comparision. There is a PC designed for every person no matter what they do. Macs don't take anyone in consideration accept Steve Jobs which is what they guy basically says when he said this - By contrast, Apple has a grand total of nine different Mac models, none of which cater to specialized audiences. Imagine is all business said "1 size fits all?" Imagine what a show store would be like..what about food? Here is a size 22 shoe for you...don't worry even though it is too big it still fits....Food? Oh don't worry...everything here tastes like chicken. And Steve said MSFT has no taste? Neither does Steve...he assumes everyones taste is exactly the same. Imagine is car companies simply just made all luxury cars because they are certainly better than the other crap they build. So what happens to use poor folks...I even see people with money who finance a car for 7 years...why? because they want a bigger better car than they can afford...same with houses.... People are in debt because a guy selling a bridge told them they could afford a $300,000 home with a $60,000 income. How stupid can you be to fall for that. It is estimate for every $100k a home cost you need to be making about $40...that means you need to be making 6 figures to afford an expensive house.

For about $2000 a computer makes an awesome entertainment center. You won't need to buy a separate DVD player, Home Theatre system....For $2000 which is what I did...I build a awesome pc and bought a 42" flat screen tv....And can tell you new..Windows on a 1080p screen looks way better than any Mac...PERIOD...And yes by nice 42" screen has a PC RGB port...4 HDMI and it even has USB...cost? 1/2 teh cost of a Mac Tower...and I have a PC that is just as fast...

The value of money is how much you can get for teh initial purchase...how long it last afterward...and how much you may be able to get later. If I was selling my PC and my 42" monitor, how much do you think I can get for it?

Anyone who ever says a Mac can do what a PC can do...is simply lying...in fact that is a truth you can't even stretch. There is no comparison. Some of these gadgets may not be important to many computers users. if they aren't then get a Mac. However I invite any person with a Mac to bring their Mac to my house and impress me about teh few things you can do with it...and let me have your mouth dripping with saliva on what I can do with my PC.

Windows give you...more application whether they be productivity based or gaming...and anything in between....Windows works with more hardware...whether is is as simply as a printer or as fancy as a supercomputer. Windows is more entertaining...support...DVD, Blu-Ray, HDMI...PCTV and more natively...and i get all of this and more in a box that cost as little as $1000 or as much as $3000. With a Mac I don't get this native support no matter how much I spend.

Hands down a PC is a sure winner.
I'm a PC, not because I have to be...but because it is simply the best thing to be.

[rockster]

Okay, here are my 2-cents worth. I have been a PC user since my first Commodore 64. I have been through Windows 3.1 - Vista, using them all. My daughter is a MAC user - she has a Mac laptop and a nice MAC business system. I am not a Microsoft fan because of their business and pricing practices, but here is why I am a Windows PC fan:
1) I just bought a Netbook with a 120MB hard drive, 1 gb ram, camera card reader and video cam that I am using for travel purposes. It cost me $319 on Amazon.com - even got free shipping. I needed a very small PC that could be used for downloading pics off my digital camera, e-mail, and surfing the web when I travel. Something that I can keep clean of any personal data and wouldn't be a big loss if stolen or broken. Where is the MAC Netbook? NADA. There are tons of Windows Netbooks available under $500. Apple is not interested in this market which is the only PC market that is growing in this economy.
2) I have 3 Windows PC's in my house. There are tons of free software that runs on Windows that I can download off the Internet. My daughter has a very small amount of limited free software she can download for her MAC.
3) If I want to enhance my hardware, there are tons of choices from many manufacturers that I can use for Windows machines. With a MAC, in many cases you are locked into their proprietary stuff that costs a lot more.
The bottom line for me is that I do not like Microsoft all that much. But I can build or configure a PC using all kinds of hardware and software from many sources at a decent price compared to an Apple machine that locks me into expensive hardware and software that is much harder to find and customize at reasonable prices.

[kitsune17717]

Here's my verdict of the whole mac vs. pc thing.
PC wins over mac with software compatibility. Just like the article said, with a mac, you're basically stuck with the software that apple gave you. With a pc, there are multitudes of software alternatives for a given task.
Mac wins over pc in terms of stability. This is simply because 99% of the software that a mac uses is developed under the same roof. Come to think of it, you would expect this to be the case.
I think macs are a bit underrated. Sure, with PC's you get the flexibility of the different software options or the ability of custom-building your own rig. Even though you don't get these advantages with a mac, it's still not that much of a bad thing in the end. The software that you're given in a mac is actually pretty nice to work with so the bevy of software alternatives that you're given as a windows user is totally unnecessary. Also, the limited hardware options on macs aren't that much of a bad thing either, especially when you're working with an efficient and stable OS like macOS. In my mind, little differences in hardware specs is more of a mental difference than a practical one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not declaring which platform is better here. I'm just trying to clarify some of the previous posts which blatantly stated that one OS is "faster" than the other or is "easier" to work with. It all goes down to personal preference.

[TechieXP]

Acully your slight wrong...all OEM limit the FSB including Macs. If your Mac comes with a 1066 bus you won't be able to use anything faster. However my motherboard uses 667, 800, 1066, 1300, 1600 all natively...and 2000 (OC). Try that with any branded PC...won't happen..no matter who makes it. If they allowed you to change the FSB...you would need to buy less new pc's to remain up to date. Try getting one of those 2.4Ghz Macs to run at 3.8Ghz and see what happens.

For those who are technically impaired...here is a revelation. ALL BRANDS...have a feature that use to be called CPU lock. It is better termed FSB (front side bus) lock. The BUS is the path which is built into the electronics of the hardware to move data between different devices. the CPU, Video and RAM are the biggest users of this BUS as it will be carrying the heaviest load. A bottle next cause by any single 1 of them creates a bottleneck for all. Example....if your BUS is at a frequency of 1066 and you install 800mhz ram...that will be your bottle next...because the system has to slow down to make sure all is compatible. If your system has PCIe slots and yet you buy a regular PCI based video card..then this card will be your bottleneck....if you are cheap and buy drives that spin at 5400rpm when you could have bought 7200rpm ones instead for $5.00 more..this will be your bottleneck. So as this guy said...a store built system will give you the best possible speed based on how much you're willing to spend. But it doesn't mean you can't get something faster for less.

You said OSX works with multiple core better than Windows...are you sure. Windows has had way ore experience working with parallel processing long before Macs. Windows NT was designed from the ground up to use multiple CPU's. How many Macs before they went x86 had dual CPU's...I am aware that many in the G series offered dual setups...but look at Windows on the enterprises where servers were using 32 or more cpu's. What version of Mac OS has ever used 32 or more CPU's? Windows has been rated the best scalable OS to date...OSX doesn't even come close. How many system or server do you see running OSX server? Just because OSX is a Unix variant doesn't automatically mean it is better at multi-core processing. What hat you pull the rabbit out of?

As you stated...it doesn't matter how many cores or cpu's you throw at software if it wasn't designed to use the extra hardware. However Windows NT was designed this way from day 1, because Unix system also used multi-cpu's. Which means every version of Windows NT was designed to handle multi-processing. The latest version of OSX Snow Leopard for the first time will offer native x64 support. Windows has been offering x64 support since 2002. Intel has offered AMD x64 on it chips on cpu's since that time as well. Where was Apple?

In fact where is Apple now with all the new latest technologies that are out right now? Oh sure...go ahead and brag that Apple jumped on Nehalem before we did...no they didn't jump on it...they paid Intel to release the platform to them first exclusively. But I don't care...as Xeon offers no benefit over a CPU I can buy for 1/2 the cost and get the same benefit. Why would I need 8 core Xeon's? I can get a 8 core i7 for less and even get the Extreme Edition which also offers 3 levels of cache just like its server side brother and still pay less.

If you're going to give info about PC's...give the whole truth...its insulting when you don't.

IMHO - when it comes to x86..OSX cripples the hardware way more. The lists of things you can't do with Windows vs OSX is way shorter.

[rjn2222]

Harry,
Read your article with interest and I have another point of view for you. I have a 3 GHz dual core (not core duo) PC with Windows XP running that my wife now uses. My new machine, however, that is 1-1/2 years old now is an iMAC (24 in and 2.8GHz) running OSX Leopard and also Windows Vista Business using Parallels virtual environment software. This combination gives me the best of both worlds. In addition, I do have Office 2007 BE running on the Windows platform and Office 2008 running on the MAC platform and they "talk" nicely to each other. The only downside is that it is an expensive way to go but I get a terrific machine that does a lot. Also, the MAC side obviously runs better since it doesn't require all the security software (Internet Security Suite software and system optimizer software) to load it down and we all know how stable the MAC operating systems really are. There are a couple of loose issues using Parallels regarding their Clipboard, but I can easily work around them. Also, I have Adobe Design Premium CS3 running on the MAC platform and it works fine with both Office program suites. I keep my files in the MAC file system and software programs on both operating systems can easily access them. Oh, I read that Parallels can also handle Linux in a virtual environment on the MAC. The advantage of using Parallels is that I can use both operating systems at the same time and easily switch back and forth. Apple also has Boot Camp Assistant as part of the operating system if you want to run each operating system separately. You can boot into one or the other operating system, but not both.
So, why do I have to buy a PC with all the usual operating problems with Windows when I can have a "stable" MAC system that easily runs both?
Just thought I'd give you something else to think about.

Regards,
rjn5555

[TechieXP]

I agree with verdict 1 and maybe verdict 2 (in some instances) verdict 3 is a stretch. Being limited on hardware is a no no. I agree that since Apple does everything in-house it is a plus. However there are certainly better hardware out there than what Apple chooses. The only time OEM's should ever choose for you is if you don't know how to choose for yourself. But lets think outside box...what about hardware that doesn't go inside. Apple makes a nice router with the AirPort...but there are better options and lower cost ones too. What about printers? What makes printers so different that Macs are only compatible with certain ones. Since Macs are gaming rigs I can understand joypads (sticks) and wheels not being compatible...but suppose I wanted to use an Apple mouse on a PC...?

Even before the economic downturn money was an issue with computer users. look at the first quarter of this year...Apple lost 16% compared to Q4 last year...yes Dell fell 12%...but Dell usually sells about 15 million PC's per quarter vs Apple close to 3 million per quarter...so 12% is a much smaller lost to a bigger company. Macs cost more not because they are better and come from a control environment. They cost more because Apple knows there are people who will buy them.

and yes they are making a very good buy..whether its the best buy depends on if you actually need it or not.
I see it like this...I rather pay less for a platform that offers more compatibility so that even if I don't need it now I have th option of getting it later vs a platform that cost more and when I do need the compatibility it isn't there period.

[paleolith]

Your next computer should be a personal computer, sans Windows, with Linux as the operating system. Say good bye to instability, unsolvable problems, recovery discs, virus updates, image backups,and system restores (if one can get these things to work). The Linux install CD is a free download. Isn't it wonderful that you don't have to pay Microsoft hundreds of dollars for an unstable, volatile operating system?

[craziscoth]

Like the author of this article states, for some people a Mac is the right computer, for others a PC is. I personally like PCs for the ability to tinker with my hardware and change out components without having to replace the entire computer. Macs are a closed system which provides their biggest selling point (stability) while also providing their biggest drawback (limited choices). It depends on what the user's needs are.

[oregonnerd]

I suppose I'll have lots of negative flack on this, but.... a Mac is a PC. Personal computer, remember? Dedicated operating system and all, and yes, it appears that OS X can run on a PC although The Big Apple becomes extremely annoyed...remember? And out-of-the-box computers have built-in speed limitations as a general rule (at least for Windows) that strictly limit things like overclocking and often tend to have deliberately slow bus speed and for that matter RAM. Less expensive materials are better for a manufacturer, at least in the short term. Mac owners will tend to vehemently agree or disagree on that, I think pretty much the latter. It turns out that Vista--stripped of some of the nonsense, first of all--on its innumerable update may actually be faster than XP...I think we're hearing repetitive fusses that probably will win neither side over. Media lives on attention. I question my own intelligence when I pay attention to such a debate, because there's no true "side" to it. And if you buy a manufactured computer (to some extent I think we have to, anyway), you're relying on chance. Good luck. Lots o' them laughs. And all like that.

--Glenn