PC vs Mac

[Snow]

Printers with an ethernet port are still surprisingly expensive in comparison to USB only printers. Yet with the vast increase in popularity of home networks over the past 10 years that came with increased internet speeds, more and more people wish to network their printer as well, to save having to share it from the nearest computer and having to leave that computer switched on. To save the expense of getting a network ready printer, a lot of people opt to get a cheap USB to ethernet printer server. I've never known these not to work on windows. I actually did manage to get it to work with OSX, by using a third party open source driver that someone made for that model of printer. However, this third party driver didn't include some of the features we required, that were in the original driver - so that was a no go . It was not an option to replace it in my case.

Okay - but here's my most recent experience with Macs and a printer. I got one for free with my last Mac purchase. I asked if it was good for Macs and the guy said yeah. I brought it home, plugged it in, connected it to my Airport (wireless router) and presto, all seven Macs print perfectly, zero expertise or extra time required.

[bytebear]

I have programmed for both mac and PC and PCs are simply easier and cheaper. Since Apple abandoned the Motorola chipset for Intel, the hardware is nearly identical, but a mac costs about 80% more for the exact same specs and chipset. You are paying for shiny white plastic. Mac OS has far fewer applications and even the "killer aps" of video and graphic design isn't a factor. And for stability, really the winner is Linux which dominates in servers.

If you are a Mac fan, you are paying for the name, and the prestige and smugness, but don't pretend it's about stability or power, because that's just a bogus argument.

[Snow]

I have programmed for both mac and PC and PCs are simply easier and cheaper.

1. If by cheap, you mean cheap - then yes PCs - Wintel boxes are usually cheap. They are simply commodities, undifferentiated assembled boxes competing on nothing but price. Cheap corner cutting is the name of the game.

2. If by cheaper you mean less expensive - it is patently false. Laughably false for anyone who knows anything about it. Since you claim to be knowledgeable rather than merely uniformed, the inference is unavoidable.

3. If by easier you mean easier to program - who cares, though I don't think your opinion is anything more than merely an opinion. If by easier you mean easier to use, that's beyond laughable. It's Beyond the Valley of the Dolls laughable and any Mac user who used to work on Wintel will gladly attest. I got my first Mac after being a PC user for 12 years. I was more skilled on a Mac within 3 days. Macs are more intuitive hands down.

Since Apple abandoned the Motorola chipset for Intel, the hardware is nearly identical, but a mac costs about 80% more for the exact same specs and chipset.

Completely false, false and false. Study after study shows that spec for spec Macs are often less expensive than comparably outfitted PCs. Sure you can buy a piece of junk PC for 400 dollars but Mac doesn't sell comparable junk. Apple makes and sells only quality machines. In fact, 90% of all personal computers sold in the US for over $1000 are Macs. Some rigs are equal or more for a Mac but many are less.

As but one of many example, Computer World did a comparison of a 17" MaBook Pro 17 costing $2799. A comparable Dell came in a $3459 - a Dell. Can you imagine spending some considerable dough and coming away with a Dell? A comparable Sony was $3150. That's only ONE example.

It is not an apples to apples comparison because you cannot get a Mac that comes preloaded with bloatware, primed and ready to receive and nuture every virus and spyware that comes it way.

However, that's only how an unthoughtful buyer thinks about it. A prudent buyer considers total cost of ownership:

Purchase price

Annual maintenance expense

Useable lifetime of the computer

Software costs

Networking costs

Operating costs

etc.

Completely unsurprisingly, Mac blows Wintel boxes out of the water. One study shows Macs are 36% less expensive to own and operate. When you move to enterprise, the numbers grow and grow and grow.

No one would be surprised, either, to learn that Mac users are better educated than PC users and it shows in how they consider cost of ownership.

You are paying for shiny white plastic.

Obviously you are not as familiar with Macs as you represent. Macs only make one model that you can get in white plastic. Macs are often a work of art. Apple pays attention to the details and the estetics.

Here's my computer

http://images.apple.com/imac/images/overview_hero1_20091020.png

That's it. That's the whole thing. It looks as if it's just a monitor.

Here's the average PC:

http://www.amitbhawani.com/blog/Images/C/compaq-desktop-computers.jpg

And yes - on the Mac, that's a mouse. The most incredible mouse ever made.

Mac OS has far fewer applications

Yeah - from the school of thought that thinks China is better than the US because it has more people. Macs have thousands and thousands of applications. The average computer user has a dozen or two. You can get any application you want/need for a Mac

and even the "killer aps" of video and graphic design isn't a factor.

Oh - I use my iLife (iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iWeb, GarageBand) constantly. They came free. Show me any other application that comes anywhere close to iLife - cost and performance. Seriously - I'd like to see it.

While Mac hardware is in a class several tiers above the average PC, I buy Macs for the Operation System and applications. It is obviously a factor - a huge factor.

... but not the only factor.

We own Macs because of:

-The customer service: Apple CS ranks first in the computer industry, well, well above any PC maker.

-The ease of use

-The better price

-The superior hardware

-The innovation - you know, things like the personal computer, the mouse, the graphical interface, firewire, etc

-Regular and timely updating of the OS.

-The security - I've never worried once about being infected with anything - 7 computers, 8 years and never, ever a problem.

-We don't settle for mediocrity.

-Stability - build on rock solid industrial grade unix compared to Windows still built on the same unstable, archaic, unsecure decades-old code. Mac made a clean break with the past and built it's OS on modern foundations, casting off the outdated origins. Windows, even Windows 7 is still a massive compilation of spaghetti dating back decades.

And for stability, really the winner is Linux which dominates in servers.

Another unix-like os.

If you are a Mac fan, you are paying for the name, and the prestige and smugness, but don't pretend it's about stability or power, because that's just a bogus argument.

Cuz you say so don't make it so.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Snow

[Moksha]

Completely false, false and false. Study after study shows that spec for spec Macs are often less expensive than comparably outfitted PCs.

Is this taken from the 2002 World Book of Macs or the yet to be publish book, Big Mac Attacks?

[Guest]

I'm with everything Snow said.

My first turn off with the PC was the Microsoft product development concept. This was way back in the 80's.

A perfect example of this is Windows 95... that came out in... almost '96. This deployment used the Microsoft Solutions Framework methodology. Okay, so granted there are tons of good things about MSF - but it also comes with bad things. One that is familiar to everybody is this "incomplete deployment". Huh, Vista, anyone? To compete in the fast-paced technological advancement of the 90's and 00's, MSF concept embraces the deployment of products/software/services even when the product is buggy. They then back-fill the bugs with service packs and add-ons. This is why Microsoft engineers and developers can get away with sub-standard product. They can get away with it because they have a big chunk of enterprise market-share. Companies basically are tied to Microsoft and will have to put up with it.

Apple Corp has a completely different methodology. They protect their reputation by launching only solid quality products. They are also known for technological advancements, whereas Microsoft are known more for buy-outs.

So, yes, Snow pretty much covered why I prefer a Mac. But, for me, it runs deeper than that. I support the company with the better methodology. I still can't get over the iPhone. That is just a shining example of the stuff that Apple Corp can do. For all of Steve Jobs' problems, Apple still rules.

[SMG]

It all depends on what you want to do. My first encounters with computers growing up were Apple/Mac brand. I've had my share of PCs. Both are good, IF you get a quality machine and IF you research on what you want to use your machine for.

For now, I own a PC. It runs my MS Office, which I use for class work. It runs the various games I like to switch around to (Everquest2, World of Warcraft, the Sims, Civilization, etc). When Apple makes an affordable gaming machine, I'll give them a try again. But for now, if they can't play my games, they aren't getting my money!

[Guest mysticmorini]

It all depends on what you want to do. My first encounters with computers growing up were Apple/Mac brand. I've had my share of PCs. Both are good, IF you get a quality machine and IF you research on what you want to use your machine for.

For now, I own a PC. It runs my MS Office, which I use for class work. It runs the various games I like to switch around to (Everquest2, World of Warcraft, the Sims, Civilization, etc). When Apple makes an affordable gaming machine, I'll give them a try again. But for now, if they can't play my games, they aren't getting my money!

macs bottom of the line macbook will run world of warcraft fine, better even than many desktops. when i was shopping for a new laptop for school (after my cheap-o-netbook crashed) i thought macs were too expensive but if you compare the specs and what the computer can actually do you'll find that macs run better than anything at their price, you could easily pay $1000 more and not have a computer that ran as well as the mac. never seen vista run right until i put it on my macbook.

[marts1]

From my own personal experience there is one thing that really irked me about microsoft. They came out with Vista and realized thier mistakes and fixed them by charging people with windows 7. This was a bad move.

[Dravin]

never seen vista run right until i put it on my macbook.

I don't believe it. Not that it ran better on a MacBook but that it would run right on anything, period.

[Mahone]

At the end of the day this thread is going to run around in circles and could end up longer than the "request for humour" thread. I was going to respond to certain posts directly again, but I appreciate that most of what is on here is simply personal opinion and personal experience. There are very few right or wrong answers on this subject, though the idea that mac users somehow correlate with a better personal education is an odd one and I haven't a clue where that has come from. The cost of ownership depends completely on what you want to use it for and what environment you are using it in. For some people, this is using PCs with linux, or windows. For some it may be macs with OSX, or macs with windows/linux. Some people don't have any choice but to use a certain combination regardless of cost of ownership. In my own case, I have to use PCs with linux and windows, and macs with OSX. They all have their own purposes and I will choose whichever one I consider best for the job I'm doing at the time.

This is how users of each individual operating system sees the other two. Beyond the humour involved, there is a valid point behind each one:

[Guest mysticmorini]

I don't believe it. Not that it ran better on a MacBook but that it would run right on anything, period.

I didn't say that,(or maybe i did but not what i meant) out of the computers I've used, vista ran best on my macbook. Edited March 17, 2010 by mysticmorini

[Dravin]

I'm just taking the mickey out of Vista, it's a horrible OS, hardware aside I don't think it's capable of running 'right'. :)

[Guest mysticmorini]

I'm just taking the mickey out of Vista, it's a horrible OS, hardware aside I don't think it's capable of running 'right'. :)

its not great however i am currently running it in parallels on my mac and quite enjoy the flexibility.

[Dravin]

its not great however i am currently running it in parallels on my mac and quite enjoy the flexibility.

I'm an XP or Windows 7 man myself. Honestly I can see myself running a Linux distro at some point, once I give up the fantasy that I'm a gamer. :)

[Mahone]

I'm an XP or Windows 7 man myself. Honestly I can see myself running a Linux distro at some point, once I give up the fantasy that I'm a gamer. :)

I run windows on the laptop I'm using now. Though I don't do an awful lot on it - I pretty much browse the web, remote into the network at work, watch movies and some basic office application stuff. XP came with the laptop, but if it didn't, I'd install linux on here because that to me is the most cost effective option for what I want to do on this computer - a mac certainly isn't. I do not do anything even remotely processor or memory intensive, so a cheap low spec PC would be fine. Linux is free, and most distros also come with all the software I need to do what I want by default.

[funkenheimer]

I use both PCs and Macs,

If you want something old, unattractive, cheap, buggy, prone to viruses, resource hog, more expensive to own and operate, disposable, etc, then buy a PC with Microsoft Windows.

If you want something that makes you happy every time you use it, buy a Mac.

What a steaming load of crap. Look! I can write the same cynical garbage about Macs....

If you want an overpriced, generic, dumbed-down system with little application compatibility then buy a Mac.

Of course this is the same type of generalized statement you posted that does no one any good.

Each has its pros and cons - some prefer Macs and some prefer PCs. Then there are those wierdos who prefer something else entirely (Linux for those who don't know what I am talking about).

Here is why I prefer PCs to Macs, and yes I have used both.

I had an iMac 24" that I sold Monday. This computer Mac was 3 years old. It ran great, flawlessly, until about a month ago when the video card went out. It happens to both Mac and PCs. The problem is I can't replace the video card in an iMac myself so I take it to a certified Mac repair shop. 3 days and $300 dollars later I have my iMac back at home. What's the problem? $300 for a video card that was the exact same model as the one that was in it is absolutely ridiculous! $300 for a video card that is 3 years old? I then sold the iMac on Monday for enough money to build a brand new PC. How can you honestly say this is not overpriced? Granted, not everyone has access to someone who can build a custom PC for the cost of parts.

FYI...for those computer geeks out there (you know who you are)...I ordered the nVidia GTX 260 video card for $204. The video card in the iMac was an nVidia 7300. The GTX is easily 10 x the video card for $100 less.

Macs have their place though. I have heard the video and photo editing software that come bundled with the Mac OS is phenomenal. I don't have much experience there though.

Really the only real reason I am a fan of PCs is that's where my experience has been. I have worked most of my career with PC environments and that is what I know.

[Mahone]

Each has its pros and cons - some prefer Macs and some prefer PCs. Then there are those wierdos who prefer something else entirely (Linux for those who don't know what I am talking about).

Hey now, my ears are starting to burn!

Here is why I prefer PCs to Macs, and yes I have used both.

I had an iMac 24" that I sold Monday. This computer Mac was 3 years old. It ran great, flawlessly, until about a month ago when the video card went out. It happens to both Mac and PCs. The problem is I can't replace the video card in an iMac myself so I take it to a certified Mac repair shop. 3 days and $300 dollars later I have my iMac back at home. What's the problem? $300 for a video card that was the exact same model as the one that was in it is absolutely ridiculous! $300 for a video card that is 3 years old? I then sold the iMac on Monday for enough money to build a brand new PC. How can you honestly say this is not overpriced? Granted, not everyone has access to someone who can build a custom PC for the cost of parts.

I do have to give credit where due in my case, to the hardware of the ~27 macs we have. To date, I have never had to replace any of the hardware in any of the macs. Also, I have never had to re-image (a quicker way of re-installing the operating system) on any the of macs. Even though we have the facilities to do this with a a considerable amount of ease, I haven't had the need to set it up. Hardware wise, about the most I've had to do is put in extra RAM.

[Snow]

What a steaming load of crap. Look! I can write the same cynical garbage about Macs....

If you want an overpriced, generic, dumbed-down system with little application compatibility then buy a Mac.

Of course this is the same type of generalized statement you posted that does no one any good.

Except we both know that if you said those things about a Mac you would be lying through your teeth.

Let's look at each of those things I said about a PC and see if I was accurate:

old, unattractive: PCs look about the same as they have for years and years.

Here's a link to Dells current lineup of desktops. Same old big squarish box that looked just like my first computer in the 90's.

Desktop Computers & PCs | Dell

Here's Apple's desktop, it's sleek, stylish, compact, no wasted space. It looks like a flat screen monitor but that is in fact the entire computer.

Apple - iMac - The ultimate all-in-one desktop computer.

If you want something without the monitor, compare this Mac to the big ol box Dell:

Apple - Mac mini - The most affordable, energy-efficient Mac.

That's it" 6x6x2 inches.

cheap: Wintels compete on price, not features. They are commodities. Sure you CAN get a well built, well featured PC for 2k but practically no one does. 90% of all computers sold for over 1k are Macs.

buggy: Can anyone say Vista, Windows XP, Service Pack 1, Service Pack 2, Windows Me, Windows 95?

Windows 7 still has code from the early 90's in it and it shows.

What was the protocol to upgrade to the newest Mac OS? You put the disk in and hit return.

What was the protocol to upgrade to Windows 7? Copy all your files to an external location, up grade, move all the files back - of get a special transfer program but wait, it won't work to files from a 64-bit version to a 32-bit version - oh, and it will transfer music and video files but don't the licenses for DRM. Oh, and then theres the endless reboots and product key problems, and so on and on and on and on.

prone to viruses: And there was no holocaust - right? Could you do me a favor and compare the bloatware, spyware and virus situation on PCs vs Macs - you called it a load of crap so I'd like to hear the facts.

resource hog: Thankfully Windows 7 is less of a resource hog that Vista so that's progress

more expensive to own and operate:

- A Gartner study of 4676 Macs and 5338 found that Macs were 36% less expensive to maintain.

-A Gistics report cited: "numerous studies, however, have shown that this common perception (that Macs are more expensive) is false."

-Gannet News tested a highend Gateway against a similar priced MAC saying: When you look between the lines, though, the Gateway shows evidence of cutting some corners. Its LCD, for example uses an analog rather than digital connection, which is somewhat cheaper to produce. The result: The iMac’s picture is visibly crisper, with truer colors.

-In the Single Platform Lie report (PDF) R.M. Terence, M.S. says, “Total Life-cycle Costs are the most valid and important measure of the cost of a system. Study after study from Evans Research, Ingram Labs, J.D. Powers and other industry leaders has shown that Macintoshes are:

easier to support than Wintel systems

cheaper to support than Wintel systems

more plug and play than Wintel systems

easier for users to learn than Wintel systems

have greater user satisfaction than Wintel systems

longer lasting than Wintel systems

There are numerous such studies

disposable: A detailed survey by PC Magazine (August 2001) bore this out when they determined that the average useful life of Macs was 3.9 years, while the average useful life of the top seven PCs was only 2.4 years... In other words, they found that Macs typically last sixty percent longer than Windows/PCs...

[funkenheimer]

That's all fine and dandy as long as you are comparing Macs to pre-built systems designed for mass production with little thought of the end user. I haven't bought a pre-built system in more than 10 years.

I have built several custom PCs over the years. I recently built a custom system for my brother who is into cars. The front of tower looks like the front of a car - complete with grill and LEDs that look like headlights. My daughter is learning Taekwondo and I recently built her a PC and I had my brother who speaks Chinese write some characters on paper - I then cut the symbols into the side of the PC and put LEDs behind it so it glows (oh, yeah, this one is running Open Suze for those who care - raising them the open source way). I have seen case mods where people have built PCs out of old mailboxes and tires. The possibilities are endless. I could post some links but its just as easy to google "case mods".

With a Mac you get......well, exactly what is in the links you posted above. As for the Mac Mini, I can buy a case the same size and build a PC, no problem.

Cheap meaning price or cheap meaning quality? High price doesn't necessarily equate better quality. I just ordered the parts for a screaming PC (3.1 GHz dual core processor, 4 gigs of DDR3 1600 memory - expandable to 16 gigs, nVidia GXS 260 video card, dual TB hard drives that will run in RAID 0). The cost to put this together - 0$ - that's half the fun. All of this cost about $900. Show me a Mac with those specs for that price.

If a part goes bad - I replace it for the cost of the part. I don't have to pay some guy an exorbitant amount of money to replace it while he glares at me with his elitist smirk because I am running Windows 7 on an iMac.

Windows Vista was garbage, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would argue otherwise. Windows XP was great, I am still running it on several computers. Windows 7 is absolutely fantastic. Windows ME was a mistake, and Windows 98 is now more than a decade old - the platform on which it was built no longer even exists.

The reason Windows systems is more prone to virus and other malware attacks is due to the fact that there are so many more people running Windows than Mac OS. If you were a terrorist would you try to bomb the mini-mart or go for the shopping mall?

Now that Macs are built on the Intel platform, the hardware isn't much different - just fewer options.

Of course they are easier to support - they are all the same. Completely generic boxes from a dozen or so molds.

What exactly does Wintel mean anyway? Is that elitist Macspeak for Windows based PC?

[Snow]

Cheap meaning price or cheap meaning quality? High price doesn't necessarily equate better quality. I just ordered the parts for a screaming PC (3.1 GHz dual core processor, 4 gigs of DDR3 1600 memory - expandable to 16 gigs, nVidia GXS 260 video card, dual TB hard drives that will run in RAID 0). The cost to put this together - 0$ - that's half the fun. All of this cost about $900. Show me a Mac with those specs for that price.

If a part goes bad - I replace it for the cost of the part. I don't have to pay some guy an exorbitant amount of money to replace it while he glares at me with his elitist smirk because I am running Windows 7 on an iMac.

PCs are inherently bad. The mass produced assembled boxes are cheap but you can buy a great high end machine or build your own - and enjoy it to boot, certainly.

Three problems:

1. Add a monitor that is comparable to the new 27" iMac display and all the sudden your over the price of the iMac - you can't build your own monitor and you have to pay dearly for something that good.

2. Unless you're going Linux, your still stuck with Microsoft.

3. You can't replicate the software that comes on the Mac and to get something that begins to approximate it will set you back more pretty pennies.

The reason Windows systems is more prone to virus and other malware attacks is due to the fact that there are so many more people running Windows than Mac OS. If you were a terrorist would you try to bomb the mini-mart or go for the shopping mall?

It's like you Microsoft fans think that if you keep saying it, it will become true but honestly, you can't be so unknowledgeable that you actually believe it.

That might explain why there are fewer Mac viruses, but it wouldn't explain why there are none - now would it.

Fortune Magazine

I also wrote that Mac OS X and Linux are virus-free because they offer virus writers a much smaller “audience” than Windows -- a notion that’s been much repeated in the press, most recently last week’s BusinessWeek cover story. That, as it turns out, is a myth, no matter who repeats it. There’s a much bigger reason virus writers don’t like Mac OS X and Linux.

“Unix [which underlies Mac OS X] and Linux ARE more secure,” wrote one reader. “They have been developed, open-source style, by people who know exactly what they are doing. Unix and Linux have had at least 10 years of battling hackers to better themselves. This leads to an extremely secure environment.”

Many of you also pointed out simple design decisions that make Mac OS X and Linux much more secure than Windows XP. For example:

* Windows comes with five of its ports open; Mac OS X comes with all of them shut and locked. (Ports are back-door channels to the Internet: one for instant-messaging, one for Windows XP’s remote-control feature, and so on.) These ports are precisely what permitted viruses like Blaster to infiltrate millions of PC’s. Microsoft says that it won’t have an opportunity to close these ports until the next version of Windows, which is a couple of years away.

* When a program tries to install itself in Mac OS X or Linux, a dialog box interrupts your work and asks you permission for that installation -- in fact, requires your account password. Windows XP goes ahead and installs it, potentially without your awareness.

Full Article Here

If security via obscurity is true - explain the Android HTC infections.

What exactly does Wintel mean anyway? Is that elitist Macspeak for Windows based PC?

It's a portmanteau for machines running Windows on Intel x86 architecture.

[Moksha]

PCs are inherently bad. The mass produced assembled boxes are cheap but you can buy a great high end machine or build your own - and enjoy it to boot, certainly.

Great idea. Get an Gigabyte or Asus Motherboard, a 28" Hann-G monitor, a large Corsair power supply, a couple of big Western Digital hard drive, an ATI 5870 video card, plenty of ventilation and save big.

Still, this option lacks a zippy TV commercial to go with it.

[funkenheimer]

I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a PC fan per say. Nor do I hate Macs. I realize now that may hard to believe. What I really don't care for is arrogant Mac users who consider their way the only way. I have no allegiance to Microsoft, in fact I prefer Linux as an OS. However I do enjoy gaming and for that I prefer a Windows OS.

I have said my piece, I am done with this thread.

[Mahone]

2. Unless you're going Linux, your still stuck with Microsoft.

Not true. Try any flavour of bsd as an example. In fact, the only OS you can't (by design) have on a PC that you can with a mac is OSX. I wonder why that is?

3. You can't replicate the software that comes on the Mac and to get something that begins to approximate it will set you back more pretty pennies.

Do you know why windows comes with so little software by default? It's because they have a monopoly on the OS market. Therefore the laws of competition are different for them. They are severely limited as to what they can include with their OS as standard, otherwise people complain. Recently in the EU microsoft have been effectively forced to make users of their operating systems choose an alternate browser. Note that there is no "cancel, I don't want to change my browser" button on this dialogue box that comes as part of an "important update". It's not something microsoft want to do.

That might explain why there are fewer Mac viruses, but it wouldn't explain why there are none - now would it.

That is based on the exact definition of a virus. It doesn't include malware or trojans.

Studies are also not conclusive by any means. For one study to say that macs are cheaper to operate, there will be another to say windows is cheaper to operate, and yet another to say that linux is. Every heard of the "get the facts" campaign by microsoft, for instance? Here is yet another one: Mac OS X security myth exposed - Techworld.com that contradicts some of your sources. Also, in most of the studies, you'll see them state that it completely depends on what you are intending to do with the equipment, which is what I've been trying to get across.

I'm still curious as to where your "mac users are better educated" statement originated from? Do you have a valid source?

Edited March 18, 2010 by Mahone

[Mahone]

Here's a link to Dells current lineup of desktops. Same old big squarish box that looked just like my first computer in the 90's.

Desktop Computers & PCs | Dell

Here's Apple's desktop, it's sleek, stylish, compact, no wasted space. It looks like a flat screen monitor but that is in fact the entire computer.

Apple - iMac - The ultimate all-in-one desktop computer.

If you want something without the monitor, compare this Mac to the big ol box Dell:

Apple - Mac mini - The most affordable, energy-efficient Mac.

That's very unfair. You have selected the models that suit your argument. Alright, so one built into the monitor as an example: Dell Studio One 19 All In One Desktop | Dell

There have been PCs like that for years.

Also, google "ultra small form factor PC". There are tonnes of PCs like the mac mini you provided a link to.

That's the best bit about having a PC. There is so much variety, apple just can't compete in this area.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Mahone
typos

[Dravin]

I run windows on the laptop I'm using now. Though I don't do an awful lot on it - I pretty much browse the web, remote into the network at work, watch movies and some basic office application stuff. XP came with the laptop, but if it didn't, I'd install linux on here because that to me is the most cost effective option for what I want to do on this computer - a mac certainly isn't. I do not do anything even remotely processor or memory intensive, so a cheap low spec PC would be fine. Linux is free, and most distros also come with all the software I need to do what I want by default.

I don't recall if I talked about it here, but I installed Ubuntu on my brother's aging machine, ran a lot faster than the version of windows that was on there and it did what he needed (surfing, music playing and IRC). I rather liked it, my only complaint (well, his mostly) was with Apple. Why on earth don't they have a Linux version of iTunes (at least that I'm aware of) and Linux wasn't seeing his iTouch as an MP3 player but a camera so the Linux iPod syncing programs weren't able to do their thing (a common issue with newer firmware on the iPods from what I gathered).

Anyway, my fantasy of gaming and my current copy of Microsoft Office (I would use Open Office, and have in the past, but there is a certain... convenience... in using the 'standard') is what keeps me from Linux. My most commonly used programs are Thunderbird and Chrome which have Linux versions and Live Messenger which I could easily replace with a multi-client messenger program (that at least is within my knowledge base ).

Edited March 18, 2010 by Dravin