Maximum PC

Since Macs use PC hardware, you're completely utterly wrong.

A Mac running Windows is a 'PC' and any performance difference you notice is imaginary. The hardware is PC hardware. When you buy a Mac, you're paying a premium for the OS and compatible hardware. That's it.

Also, Spartacus is right on several points. OSX is lighter on resources than Windows Vista and thus performance under OSX is improved.

However, in my opinion, the reason that Macs have this reputation dates back several generations (of Apples, not people) to a time when Apple used hardware that was actually better than PCs for sound and video manipulation. Although the hardware has changed, the perception .. particularly among Apple fans .. has not changed to match.

Try telling that to all the people I know who use both Windows-based PC's and Macs, additionally those who use Windows on Macs. I've seen the performance difference myself, and I have no need to prove it to you, so I won't. However, it is there and is noticeable. Take note, also, that the performance difference is more noticeable on MacBooks than iMacs. There isn't enough to really merit as huge of a price difference as there is, even being a Mac lover I'm not an idiot, lol, but for some people it's justifiable, especially if they want both, but can't afford to have both separate. Btw, I've always been one of those rare people who say that a Mac IS a PC, seeing as how PC stands for Personal Computer.

Also, the only "more affordable" video-editing app that they have, is also the Mac-only one that comes pre-installed: iMovie. That's it. Otherwise, we're looking at the same price points. In fact, there are actually a lot of video editing apps that run in Windows and Linux that are way less costly and are not made for Mac OSX.

I'm not wrong on any account, and as such, as I've stated before, your points are invalid to me and carry no merit.

The fact is that the hardware is identical. Your opinion is based on speculation and optimistic imagination.

Your opinion is invalid to me, and that's all it is, your opinion.

I know. You've mentioned that many times. Nobody cares. You've made your point ... now leave the personal bickering in the Break Room.

I am not stating an opinion in this thread. I am stating fact ... the hardware that Apple uses to make their computers is standard PC hardware. As such, it performs exactly the same as ... standard PC hardware.

That is my point and I'm not going to keep repeating it. We've each made our points. Move on.

Why don't we just keep it out of all threads, and if we have problems with one another, we do it via pm? Same with all others in here, like Spider Monkey, etc.

For goodness sakes' man! I don't know how much fact we have to present you with until you actually consider that you may be wrong. There is nothing apple does to their hardware nowadays to make it encode video or images any faster then a PC. The ONLY difference between a Mac's hardware and a PC's hardware is that the motherboards use EFI instead of a BIOS. And before you start spewing more BS about that, EFI does NOT improve performance in any way besides reducing POST time. In fact, most Intel boards use EFI-based booting, so that has no bearing on anything. A Core 2 Duo Mac is an entirely stock Core 2 Duo E7600 on entirely stock Qimonda DDR2-667 running in dual-channel configuration with an entirely stock 7200RPM 500GB HDD, and a custom-designed P45 motherboard. You can build a PC with identical hardware specs to ANY Intel-based Mac. Anyone who thinks Macs encode video or handle images faster then a PC of similar cost is just wrong. There's no middle ground in this.

Steve Jobs personally blesses each piece of hardware before they put them together.

I called it early on regarding the whole battle issue, didn't I Chumly? Yes, yes I did. Why is that? Because some people just have to bash and trash, they gotta be haters and they can't figure out how to keep it to themselves, where it belongs. I would say this thread needs to be locked. The OP has had his question(s) answered and now it's getting bad. Please, somebody step in and do something before it gets way too out of hand.

Guy, calm down.. it's just bunch of dudes talking about computers on the internet. Keep things in perspective. Lighten up.

This issue has been taken to PM. If it continues in this thread, I'll split out the posts so that the discussion can continue amiably as it had been.

Sounds good. That said, I've adjusted my earlier position. Macs that game well can be had, as a 27" Mac can be bought with an i5-750 and a Radeon HD 4850. However, your average, mainstream Mac games, but poorly with the GeForce 9400M they use. And even with the 4850-equipped Mac, A PC can be had for the same price that games much better. But Macs can game, if you install Windows on it.

As for your main concern, the best bet is honestly to go with a PC that you want to build, if being for your kids. Whilst Apple does produce machines that have the potential to game, they're primarily too expensive for such a focused area. Also, whilst there are a LOT of games (obviously) on Steam, it is not available to Linux or Mac OSX users yet. Steam's a bit irritating sometimes though (if you ask me), because whilst they may have games on there that you have purchased a physical copy of, most of the time it will not activate your game key, unless it's from Valve or one of it's main affiliates.

A prime example of this, is when I recently finished building my new-ish PC, which I put together for both working in Adobe CS4 suite and for gaming when I have the downtime. I tried to activate nearly 15 games that I have, that are available in the Steam Store, but it refused to accept the codes, and therefore I had to install them outside of Steam. We're talking games such as GRAW, MoH: Airborne, WH40K: DoW 1+expansions, etc. All are available via the Steam store now, but it won't activate their codes and install through Steam, yet my Unreal Tournament 3 did just fine when I tried it.

Point blank: yes they do, but it's not really worth the extra premium you have to throw in, and for a few reasons that make complete sense. Primarily the lack of gaming content available, and the premium price altogether. I hope that answers your question(s) bro.

Yeah .. an i5 750 / 4850 would game almost as well as my PC (i5 750 / 5770).

So, let's compare. With my H50, my PC cost me about $900 ... probably less now since it has been a couple of months since I built it. The H50 allows me to OC to 4.2GHz.

The iMac has a better (ok, much better) LCD but can't be overclocked or easily upgraded. It also fails in the GPU department. RAM is the same (4GB each) and so is HDD space (1TB). The price? The 27" iMac, the only one with the 4850 option, is $1,999. At least double the price of my much faster, better gaming PC. I could easily upgrade my LCD for a fraction of that cost.

So .. yes, Macs can game .. but not nearly as well as a PC and only if you're willing to spend a LOT of money.

Yeah, one of the major convenience factors of getting an iMac, for example, is the fact that they're all-inclusive. For those who wish to save a lot of space, this could be appealing. For most people, it's not really a concern. However, for those who want or need that, at least there are some options, but again, you're paying the premium for the convenience factor of it all. I know I wouldn't use an HP TouchSmart PC (as nice and useful as they are) for gaming like that, lol, so at least there's an option there.

If the subject is video/photo editing, then doesn't Windows win that round as well? As far as I know, Apple has yet to implement GPU encoding unless otherwise stated. It just does everything faster.

If you want the dl on MACs listens to Gordons rant about it. (Quote: "The take the f*cking battery out technology!" )

Actually, that's app-specific, not OS-specific, so in this case, it's equal. Primarily if you're referring to such apps as Adobe CS4 suite, wherein Adobe has designed it to have GPU-based acceleration (thankfully, lol), but again, it's to do with the specific apps, since this also applies to the version designed for OSX.

I generalized too much. Still it remains to be seen when GPU acceleration would be taken advantaged of. Honestly, I feel Macs are always held back technology-wise.

This was a general question. Again, I've had limited experience with Macs, and research came up with less than desired results.

I agree, it sure would be hella nice to finally have an OS that's enhanced by GPU acceleration. Sure, Aero is smooth as butta with my 8800's, but it'd be nice to see the whole OS being more enhanced, almost in a 3D environment. As for other video editing apps, I haven't been made aware of any that have moved on to GPUA, aside from Roxio's Creative Suite. I can tell you from experience, it really, really helps, a lot. It's very nice to have a movie rendered completely by the GPU, rather than the CPU, it's a noticeable difference.