Thread: Mac or PC?

PC, personally i think MACs are horrible

Originally Posted by VEGASKING

Why spend $2800 on a Mac Pro, which doesn't include the monitor, to browse the net, listen to music and use Photoshop?

Because it's just soooooo pretty!!!!!



But this is prettier...

I find it funny when people knock Macs for being far more aesthetically pleasing. This is a negative? Guys get HDTV because it's prettier too and that doesn't turn into a question of manliness.

Try a PC, try a Mac, get what you like and get over it. They both have their uses. I only use mine for the basics (internet, listening to music, watching porn, and once I get back to school in fall word processing and spreadsheets).

Originally Posted by jbruin152

I find it funny when people knock Macs for being far more aesthetically pleasing. This is a negative? Guys get HDTV because it's prettier too and that doesn't turn into a question of manliness.

Try a PC, try a Mac, get what you like and get over it. They both have their uses. I only use mine for the basics (internet, listening to music, watching porn, and once I get back to school in fall word processing and spreadsheets).

I actually like my electronics to be "pretty" but not at the expense of practicality. Case in point...slot loading dvd drives are cool but if I want to upgrade to a faster burner how do I do that on a Mac? It's having these decisions made for me at the production stage that irks me. This theme seems to permeate Macs through and through. "The company thought of everything for you." Sounds Orwellian. Personally...I like my computer to do what I want the way that I want. Macs are great for the common user who doesn't want to be bothered with choices. They use their programs at a basic level...never really getting into specifics. I just don't like having those choices made for me.

Originally Posted by OrangePuck

iTunes is easy to use. Is that all you have? If I am an audiophile and want the cleanest sounding MP3s because I hook up my iPod to a DVD Audio, reference quality system in my car should I not be able to create reference quality MP3 files? Trust me.....iTunes can't do it. Before you tell me that I can't tell the difference let me tell you that I can, especially when I listen to my iPod with reference quality headphones. But I'm sure Apple has a program that will do this for you....for $50 or so.

Honestly? Are seriously going to tell me that you can tell the difference even if a file is ripped at 320? There is an article done by rolling stone where they discussed file compression ruining the quality of music, as well as the amount of compression used in production. They asked many industry leaders as well as tested people listening to different bit rates and after 200 or so, it's hard to tell the difference between that and CD quality. I rip all my music at 320 (with iTunes) and the quality is ****ing amazing. I think maybe you're just being anal and should change your name from OP to OCD.

Originally Posted by lithium

Honestly? Are seriously going to tell me that you can tell the difference even if a file is ripped at 320? There is an article done by rolling stone where they discussed file compression ruining the quality of music, as well as the amount of compression used in production. They asked many industry leaders as well as tested people listening to different bit rates and after 200 or so, it's hard to tell the difference between that and CD quality. I rip all my music at 320 (with iTunes) and the quality is ****ing amazing. I think maybe you're just being anal and should change your name from OP to OCD.

if you can't tell the difference once you pass 200kbps can you explain to me why you are ripping dics at 320kbps? It doesn't make any sense and it's far from practical.

an 80gb ipod will hold 20,000 songs (assuming 4min song length and 128kbps).

if you rip at 320kpbs you are only holding then all of a sudden your 80gb ipod only holds 8000.

I rip at a VBR that averages around 220kbps. Read up on VBR...it basically ensures the same fidelity as 320kbps but in an obviously smaller file size. Now, if you rip CDs like I do your 80gb iPod will hold 11,600 songs. Now do you see the value?

A little know how and intuitiveness and your iPod holds about 45% more content and the music sounds amazing.

This is what I'm talking about when I rip on Macs. It seems to me that Mac owners trust that Apple knows best and by using their products they must be in this secret council of higher knowledge. It's simply not true. I'll harp on the music thing because I have a ton of music and am always listening to it. When your music collection is in the 100gb range, you care about music fidelity AND file storage space is an issue you learn to do things the best way not just the Apple way.

Originally Posted by OrangePuck

I actually like my electronics to be "pretty" but not at the expense of practicality. Case in point...slot loading dvd drives are cool but if I want to upgrade to a faster burner how do I do that on a Mac? It's having these decisions made for me at the production stage that irks me. This theme seems to permeate Macs through and through. "The company thought of everything for you." Sounds Orwellian. Personally...I like my computer to do what I want the way that I want. Macs are great for the common user who doesn't want to be bothered with choices. They use their programs at a basic level...never really getting into specifics. I just don't like having those choices made for me.

You call it Orwellian; I call it convenient.

Originally Posted by jbruin152

You call it Orwellian; I call it convenient.

so no comment on the inability to upgrade something as simple as a dvd drive on a laptop?

I think I'm beginning to understand...Mac owners upgrade an entire machine at a time. It's better to drop $2-3k on a new machine than to spend a few hundred for parts if it means actually knowing how to perform an upgrade.

Sad

and the thread rolls on...