PCs vs. Macs: Which Has More Power?

[J_UNTITLED]

Which type of computer has had overall more success in the power department: a PC or a Mac?

[BStecke]

Wouldn't this be a case by case situation?

Lots of Mac Vs. PC threads lately . . .

[xtop]

no question..pc

show me an easy way to overclock a mac

[Blubaru]

I’ve always preferred the power PC processors over the Intel.
But it seems like Intel and OSX are a match made in heaven.

Macs don’t necessarily need the processing power for apps and running though. They have a much more efficient operating system.

It seems like every new version of windows requires even more power than the last to do the same tasks.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Blubaru

It seems like every new version of windows requires even more power than the last to do the same tasks.

My sentiment as well. It used to be you'd upgrade your PC for games or something . . . now it's just so your operating system runs as expected.

[LynxFX]

PC without any doubt since that is where you'll get the first updated processors, memory, motherboards and video cards, then you have the option of overclocking. Mac, you'll be stuck with what they offer you with peaks and valleys everytime they release a new product.

[bhampton]

Hey,

I don't care which has more power. I switched to Mac after years of trying to avoid doing so.

I would never go back to a PC. I like the Apple OS much better. And I feel I gave M$ enough of my money. (Even though the last M$ product I bought was Windows 95.)

=Brian

p.s. I hear Vista runs best on the MacBook Pro. I know 2 people who love M$ OS's but both use MacBooks to run it because the like the Mac hardware better.

[dadkins]

Pc

[xtop]

i'm curious as to why people are voting mac.

[Sylin]

You can throw whatever power you want under the hood of a PC, but you're still stuck running a resource hog OS in Windows Vista.

Think of it like this: you have an awesome muscle car with a turbo-charged engine, but you have 4 flat tires.

Mac, on the other hand, runs Intel processors, and they are not far behind the curve as some ignorant people would have you believe. Apple has done a great job keeping up with the latest processors. Combine that with a MUCH more efficient operating system, and YES, the ability to upgrade your components inside a Mac Pro, and you've got plenty of power with fewer causes to worry.

[xtop]

Originally Posted by ikcizokm

You can throw whatever power you want under the hood of a PC, but you're still stuck running a resource hog OS in Windows Vista.

Think of it like this: you have an awesome muscle car with a turbo-charged engine, but you have 4 flat tires.

Mac, on the other hand, runs Intel processors, and they are not far behind the curve as some ignorant people would have you believe. Apple has done a great job keeping up with the latest processors. Combine that with a MUCH more efficient operating system, and YES, the ability to upgrade your components inside a Mac Pro, and you've got plenty of power with fewer causes to worry.

who said anything about vista? even with it being a resource hog, pc's are still more powerful.

[dadkins]

http://tinyurl.com/2b5eud

Not cheap, not light, most likely will eat a battery...

This thing will pound on most desktops - from anyone!

Photo Gallery:
http://www.eurocom.com/gallery/188/index.html



Here, drool on guys:
http://www.eurocom.ca/

Check all the models.

[ge0ff73]

Mac Pro's are nice.

[Mordak5]

I really dont see the point of these polls, its like which car is best or which movie star, its all subjective.

I have an iMac and 2 PCs in my home, because that suits me to use each computer for specific tasks. the Mac is better at some things and the PC at others.