The joke is that even though Mac has UNIX certification, its software is not compatible with any other UNIX or UNIX-like OS. In my cross platform C++ applications I need 3 #ifdefs; for Windows, UNIX and MacOS. UNIX works for Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD etc. but not MacOS. How they got that certification I don't know, but I think it had more to do with money than features or compliance.
You used to be able to upgrade Mac laptops a little bit, you could put more RAM in and install a solid state drive or whatever, and replace the battery, but now they're all glued together and impossible to take apart or upgrade in any way. Mostly because people obsess over them being so THIN and SLEEK and they could only best their old models by gluing everything but I also think Apple hated the fact that people could tinker with their computers and wanted to force people to spend absurd amounts of money on extra RAM and storage. What a joke.
If Apple upped it's game and started working on a gamer type computer that can be upgraded and customized with different hardware manufactured by apple, then not only would they make lot's of money, but also more games would start supporting mac. As of right now, mac's library is mostly indie games, who have the only developers who will care enough to make a version for another operating system. Sometimes even Linux, in rare instances. I say this because I really like apple products for everything but games. But being a gamer, I would like to add games to the list of things that macs do well. MAKE IT HAPPEN APPLE!
RagingPanic They wouldn't really make much there. That market is fairly small for them, so each of these additional products would be small batch and not really gain benefits of the economies of scale. They would also need a fair range of them for it to be worth bothering. They would probably be better off making one highly specced sealed box for gaming. But hey, I'm thinking of what's best for Apple instead of what's best for you, and that's exactly what Apple does too. Why not support adding games to the things Linux does well instead?
@@OneCrazyDavis Yes, and no. Because MacBooks use the exact same kind of disk drives that the rest of the industry does, you CAN replace the hard drive. Same with SDRAM sticks - you can replace them, and the MacBook will use these without complaint. BUT, I used to work in Apple Technical Support, so I know this to be true, if you sent your MacBook in to Apple to be repaired, and they saw non-Apple-supplied disk drives or memory sticks or battery, they would return the machine without doing any work on it at all. And there's a reason for this: Apple goes to great lengths to qualify specific hard drives and memory modules, to ensure that they are fully compatible with the rest of the Apple hardware. So if you send them non-Apple hardware, they don't want to have to prove that a fault was caused by incompatible modifications to the machine, so they just refuse to work on it. This is whether or not the machine is under warranty. So I always told customers when they asked, "Yes, you can upgrade this yourself. But please hang onto the original hardware, in case you ever need it to be serviced by Apple."
@@RagingPanic It's really up to game developers, whether it's worth their time to port their games to Mac OS. It's really not a matter of the hardware being up to "gaming standards". Apple designs its systems to support its applications, which is part of the whole hardware + software = application focus. And while they value having external developers creating applications that run on the Mac OS platform (which is why they make their extensive Xcode development environment free to developers), they do not develop hardware to support applications that they do not control. So if a MacBook happens to have a decent graphics chip, it's because they needed it to make Final Cut Pro work smoothly, not because game developers asked for it. And Apple does make applications that need high performance graphics.
Do you know what drives my loyalty towards PC? That when I'm living in a country with average salary below 500$, PC gave me the opportunity to enjoy my hobbies, that I would never been able to afford at Macintosh. I would never forget my first computer my parents bought me when I was 11 years old, that became reality because the PC's were out there. In the end the biggest market dominates everything, I can have higher performance on pc for lower price. Yeah the Macintosh is beautiful, but no one needs beauty when you have no food. Thanks to the PC that have been bought for me 12 years ago, I've managed to learn English, meet my wonderful girlfriend, make nice friends all over the world, get a great education and find a job. I'm sorry, but I doubt the Macintosh have done more to someone else than the PC for me.
That's why i started using Linux. I could just install Web servers, data bases, mail servers etc and play with them. Back then they didn't run on windows. Still have my apple internet server cd :-) But with Linux you could run any sort of server free.
My first several PCs were what I hobbled together from parts. In a Mac world, I would never have had an opportunity to even own a computer until I was an adult. And then I probably wouldn't have been able to afford one working a non-IT job.
@@jn1mrgn Linux is from 1990. First NT windows came out in 1993 but not very popular. 4.0 from 1996 was the first one that was used, but windows didn't really drop until 2001 when XP came out.
#Microsoft / #IBM really democratized the PC industry in a way that people forget. For the first time, an operating system was available that could run on non-proprietary hardware which drove down prices, and the ISA bus opened up a market for third party cards/peripherals. It was a golden age which ushered in open source free software and eventually the web which allowed device independent access to information. Ever since the resurgence of Apple however and that bloody iPhone we have seen a return to balkanization with app stores and the return of proprietary hardware and software which personally I think has been a major backward step. Opinion!
***** indeed things are changing, though Lion, being released in 2010 is quite recent in the context of my original post. I was harking back to an age in the 80s and 90s and my point was that the first 'open' standard that kicked off the popularity of personal computers was the IBM/Microsoft model. Any suggestion that Apple was doing anything other than closed shop hardware/software at that time reveals a glaring ignorance of the history of the micro-computer.
If you can give me some examples of a democracy which isn't capitalist I may take that on-board. My point is before the PC there were a whole raft of companies selling computers with incompatible software, hardware and peripherals. The PC gave manufacturers an open standard to design to, which really accelerated growth in the market and drove down prices.
***** you need to do a little more study on the Hegelian process of the dielectic. Just being rude and insulting people doesn't really do much to further an argument. Try and get a thesis / antithesis type discussion going, then we can learn from each other's point of view.
Being a keen Windows user, when I tried Ubuntu I was really pleased with its performance and the fact that everything works without the need to jump through a bunch of hoops. I think Windows 8 is great if you buy into Microsoft's ecosystem and "vision" but for something that's plug-and-play which requires minimum setup and works with any hardware, Linux is really good. I don't really see the benefit in Mac unless you are desperate for Apple's software
The store price is not the most important consideration. Total cost of ownership is more relevant. Average life expectancy of a non-Apple PC is about 3 years, and it's 14 months for 35% of laptops to be unserviceable or stolen. Average life expectancy for a Mac is 6 years. I've never had a Mac become completely unusable in about 24 years of owning them, and having used and owned at least 20 devices, including an original iMac G3, which is still in use, having only needed a HDD replacement and upgraded memory in 18 years. My workhorse Mac has run for almost 10 years, nearly 24/7/365, with no issues. (Speed is not the prime consideration here.) It's still running the latest OS, as well as Linux. Prior to using Apple products I was always spending money on PC's, trying to keep them running Windows, replacing failed parts, etc. TCO for our Macs is about 35% to 50% of the cost of Windows boxes, including the cost of the electricity needed to power them.
Sorting computers into Macs and PCs is just weird if you end up talking about the OS for most of the time. The distinction that ***** does really doesn't make all that much sense either: _by PC we are referring to machines running Windows or a variant of Linux_ I've seen people run Linux on Mac hardware with great success. Does that make their computer a PC? Even though the hardware is that of a Mac?
Alcesmire I would say a Mac is a PC the same way an iPhone is a mobile phone, it's just that if you know if something is a Mac or not you would usually call it a Mac if it is thereby implying that it is not a Mac if you call it a PC but in the end you still can and have to specify what operating system you use on what hardware
This is what I keep trying to tell Mac users. Apple have a monopoly over their hardware where Microsoft have managed to 'open source' it as such, allowing people to make their own and Windows can deal with it. A much more powerful operating system.
The real difference: Developers make games for windows. You can get linux to run windows games with some effort (or if the dev was nice enough to port it but that's not always an option, looking at your directX). To get games to work on a mac, however, you need to install windows instead. Out of all the macs we own, not one of them has actually booted in macOS for well over a year or two, mostly because that's when we bought them and installed windows. Most of the computers in my house are either gaming computers running windows with linux as a dual boot option for fixing windows whenever it breaks, or just linux if the computer can't/wont run games.
+Szymon Gorczynski How about someone that doesn't give a damn about playing video games on their computer? You Apple haters are laughably transparent. Be an adult and hide your cognitive dissonance, you'll be taken more serious in the end. And that is coming from someone that doesn't even own a mac.
+armoredp I'm not talking just about games. Most of the software for OSX is owned by Apple, that includes video and audio editing software abd the likes.
If Apple were car manufacturer they'd be putting out steam powered vehicles that cost 5 times the market average for their specs and features, and the only category where they win anything against their competition is paint polish and bragging rights. Meanwhile comparably priced Tesla blows them out of the water and Ford makes affordable nice vehicles that still outperform it in places.
Yeah, that statement is just plain wrong. Apple includes the cost of maintaining their operating system with the computer, and does not charge for updates. The only exception was the upgrade to Snow Leopard, Apple's first 64-bit OS, which cost $30. Microsoft has a long history of making you buy (for $100 or more) a new operating system every time it stops supporting the last one you paid $100 for. Saying that Windows is cheaper is just wrong. Windows COMPUTERS can be cheaper, because the company making the hardware does not have to support the software.
@@BrightBlueJim Windows computers are cheaper, because you can have a low-end rig. You can have a PC for $200 without OS. After we add a price of a Windows license, still it will be way cheaper, than any Mac.
@@RanmaruRei Yes, that's another point, and I said that in response to another comment, but, and yes I know I didn't say this in my reply, but building the hardware doesn't make Apple's code more efficient, it just makes it easier for Apple to develop, because it only has to work on one manufacturer's computers.
I wanted to really clear up the difference between Apple and PC and how it started. Originally Apple used a processor developed by Motorola. This was in all their first machines. The PC platform was using the intel chip The difference and reason for the split in preference was due to the fact the Motorola chip was a good as a graphics processor but could not do floating point arithmetic. The intel chip was designed specifically to handle arithmetic functions like divide by zero. This allowed technical uses in engineering etc that needed math capabilities to do what Apple could not do.The apple machines had the first GUI interface which Microsift copied but primarily Apple could do this more easily with the Motorola chipset. That split the market between geeks and users. Some people wanted convenience and good user interaction while others needed the high end math functions over fancy screen menus. That is where the split started. Since then Apples and PCs have come to look very similar in all aspects. Eventually Apple included a math coprocessor and eventually Microsoft and Intel added graphic capabilities to their processors. Originally Macs did not even support a basic spreadsheet. It is still the same market in a way though. If you want flexibility build a P. If you want convenience and no brain usage then buy a Mac.
I would say the windowing system is an OS layer. There'd be a BIOS layer between the OS & HW too. I find this video a bit lost in it's descriptional story because it's titled "How MAC & PC's differ" yet in the description says a PC is either running WIndows or Linux and is compared to a MAC. This is a bit weird because MAC OS (at least now) is based on BSD Unix and Linux is Linus Unix (used creatively for descriptional purposes only) so really Windows is the odd one out from a SW perspective and if you're talking HW then MAC is the odd one out only as far that Apple supplies their own HW (Surface not withstanding). Of course for a while now MAC has been ported to Intel's processor lines meaning that really with a device drivers and a BIOS tweak MAC OS really can run natively on PC HW. In fact people have ported it to PC's and Apple was not happy. Linux BTW has been ported to most processor architectures now, including pocket sized ones. Anyhow, as I say the story is a little messed up and having trouble finding its way.
Melvin Foo That's true, but it doesn't have to be like that. It's only been like that really for PC's, there are other systems out there that don't follow the "bootstrap" methodology
+etmax1 The reason you have the "bootstrap" methodology on PCs (PC as in any modular machine regardless of OS) is because of the requirement of being able to plug in any number of different chips in order to create a whole working machine even if those pieces of hardware speak different languages, the bootstrapper figures out what's what and makes it all click. You can't make assumptions about what's plugged in when the hardware's coming from a plethora of manufacturers unless you're the technical type who can make anything work.
+etmax1 Yep, the difference between them is subtle. There is a small number of different Apple hardware systems, as compared to almost infinite PC systems from various manufacturers, so Apple has control over the hardware used and only has to make the OS work with what they've made. They can tailor future hardware development to fit the OS, and vice-versa. So taken as a group, Apple hardware is quite distinct from the group of PC hardware, but individual specimens of each are pretty much the same, except that Apple's OS might not have drivers for the PC, and it will also detect and refuse to operate on the PC. And obviously Apple hardware looks distinct, and people generally run Apple's OS on it, and generally run a non-Apple OS on PC hardware.
When you buy a Mac you get the machine Apple has decided you need. The original Mac came with zero options. It was intentionally designed to not allow upgrading memory so that the programmers would always know exactly how much they had to work with. And who needs more than one meg of RAM? With PCs (okay, IBM PC Compatibles) you get what you choose to pay for, or add on at a later date. When your PC gets old you upgrade. When your Mac gets old, you buy a new one.
You could upgrade the RAM on the first Mac. Also the first computer that Apple made. the Apple 1 was just a circuit board that you had to solider parts on to get it to run.
AndraBullar That was not an original Mac. That was a Mac Plus. But I made a mistake in my previous comment. The originals were 512K. I was one of the first certified Mac techs way back when. The school I worked for had us install third party piggyback RAM boards to get our 512Ks up to 1 Meg. Heating and cooling would push the boards up off the soldered RAM and about once a month we had to open the cases and push the piggybacks back down.
Sort of true, but there comes a point where you have to replace the motherboard and/or PSU to facilitate more upgrades, and to keep compatibility with those you often need a newer CPU and RAM, at which point you are upgrading nearly the whole PC. I mean, you can still re-use the case, CD drives and hard drives, but those are usually relatively inexpensive.
Explain to me how Apple "makes their own hardware" if the CPUs are Intel, the motherboards are Foxconn, and the memory is ASUS. If you mean that some vice-president says "we want our next PC to not have right angles" and thus Foxconn shaves the corners off their motherboards, then yes, I can totally see where Mac is pushing the envelope on computing architecture.
+angelikmayhem They used to make many of their own parts, but nowadays they use parts from other companies for the sake of compatibility and just connect the parts. That's unlike Microsoft which only writes the software.
+angelikmayhem While it's true that Apple doesn't actually manufacture the parts, they are the only ones who design what parts go into a Mac and how they are arranged. Or look at it this way, how many brands of computers are meant run Mac Os? Just Apple. How many brands of computers are meant to run Windows? or Linux? To many to list here. This is why we can say apple makes it's own hardware, as while it doesn't actually manufacture the hardware itself the people working on Mac OS know exactly what kind of hardware it's going to be running on as they only care if it works on Apple approved hardware. Neither Linux and Windows get to do this, They have to accommodate a much wider range of hardware. or a 3rd way of looking at this, You where just able to say what brands of hardware make up a Mac computer, and that Apple can to some degree tell the parts suppliers what it wants the parts that go into their system to do. With a Windows or Linux or other OS computer can you come up with the brands that make them up? no, you could with some effort come up with lists and combinations of parts that could make up say a Windows computer, or a Linux computer. But no one answer will work there, unlike with Apple computers. So while they don't technically make the hardware, They do control what hardware goes into a Mac, so it's effectively like they have made it, especially when developing software .
+angelikmayhem Yeah they don't really make it. But they do choose exactly where it's sourced and write their code based on those static expectations. Similar to how people would say AMD makes CPU's but technically they don't own the manufacturing process - they instead send specs to a company that just physically makes them to AMD's specifications. So the meaning is a bit blurred.
+angelikmayhem This is what I was wondering. I just started following this channel... and it already seems a bit discredited with the seemingly incorrect information... The argument of design could be made, be he goes on the state that making the hardware helps know how to most effectively use it... implying that the CPU/Mobo/GPU architecture are made by Mac, which is pure wrong.
Bridden I wouldn't be at all surprised if they copied something that was put out there for everyone then find a way to claim it's theirs now. One might argue that by the fact that they do know what kind of hardware is in the machine to a much greater extent then on the PC side they can better fine tune their os and the drivers. But have they actually? I don't think so. Really the difference comes down is Apple has it's own ecosystem that your buying into, the option is there to expand outside of it but there's also no need to. it's more made for those who don't want to have to think about how to design and manage their digital life. As the iStuff is already designed in so you don't have to mess with what features do I want what kind of tasks do I need they already have it all planned out for the most common types of users. Where as on the PC side it's more build your own, Even if you buy the branded pre-built windows computers You just get a fairly vanilla box that you usually need to add in the software and hardware for it to do what you want it to do. And to get it set up well you do have to learn at least some of the details about how computers work or get help from someone who does. So to me that is really the separation between the two Apple caters more to the casual user who while they may spend a lot of time working on a certain task that uses a computer they aren't focused on the computer itself but rather just using the computer to complete a task they aren't really concerned with how it does the task as long as it does. Where as PC is more oriented to those who do like get into the details of their computer and how it works.
I prefer PC's mostly because I have the ability to fix or modify them as needed. A Mac is a sealed unit, and must be sent back to the manufacturer if it breaks. I can fix my PC in the field, and on the fly, so PC's work out better for me. Plus I can build a PC for one third the cost of a similarly equipped Mac, but with twice the performance.
Was expecting comparisons between NT and Darwin, not comparisons between graphical interfaces. Mac OS doesn't just run on a specific piece of hardware, it's a licensing and marketing decision, hardly a technical decision. Disappointing video.
+armoredp what a low-quality comment. For the record, I own an iPhone and a rMBP. This is just a terrible comparison on all accounts, because it isn't looking at the reality - OS X runs fine on any x86_64 machine with appropriate kexts, Apple only prevents licensing to make money.
+Matthew Thompson I do agree i would have liked a more os oriented comparison. on the other hand licensing and marketing decision are importante if it effects the end product in this case you can buy mac on mac appple made machines. i don't know if you can run mac on an other machine as efficiently. i have heard of hackintosh but that not apple
+MrTheboffin Their main advantage is being able to test their stuff for the specific hardware they need, and they don't need to code the operating system and apps for a wide range of hardware. Also, knowing what hardware is in all the devices running Mac OS or iOS is great for developers: They don't need to do fixes for that one weird Chinese Samsung Galaxy knockoff, you know. About hackintoshes, you can build a computer and install Mac OS on it yourself, but you're not allowed to do so due to licensing and Terms of Service issues (even if you buy Mac OS). Another limitation is that not all hardware will work, you need to watch what you can use. (I believe there are some processors you can't use) and there might be driver issues for the hardware and add-in cards and ports you wanna use.
Apple does not build the hardware for its computers. Unless by build, it is meant to assemble. Apples use the exact same CPUs found in PCs like intel i5s and i7s , the exact same graphic cards like NVIDIA cards, the exact same sound cards, and other hardware. If any, they only build their motherboards. It is true that assembling their own computers permits users to have no worries about drivers. However, that is where the benefits end. Someone can effectively buy a PC with the exact same hardware than a MAC for a much lower price. Moreover, given the price difference, someone can also buy a PC with better performance than a MAC for the exact price of a MAC. Also, one difference not mentioned is the availability of applications. Software companies design the overwhelming majority of applications for Windows.
+TwoNiStop It really doesn’t matter who makes the parts or who puts the parts together; what matters is that Apple designed the computer, and it knows exactly what the hardware that runs their computer will be.
+TwoNiStop Splitting hairs, regardless they chose the hardware for their computers. If you had listened to the video you would have understood that was the point he was trying to make as he followed it up by saying that Apple knows exactly what hardware the OS will be interacting with.
Mmmh, but this misses the most important: before 2006, Macs & PCs were different beasts, because the CPUs were different. Since 2006 and Apple's adoption of the x86, a Mac & a PC mainly differ by their OS. That is, you can build a PC that's just like a Mac, & even running the Mac OS on it would be possible, just like the opposite. Sure, a computer isn't just the CPU, but it's not like Apple was using exotic graphic chips or whatever, they only make a choice. Apple makes software and sells it only along with its dongle, while Microsoft does not. Software & marketing, that's what they mostly do. As for testing, it's not like all Macs share exactly the same hardware anyway, so even the Mac OS has to be generic enough. They only know what a Mac will NOT run on.
I can understand that someone likes OS X more than Windows or Linux. What I don't understand is this: what is the necessity of buying a Mac? There was a time when PC and Mac hardware where different (e.g., the processor), but that is not true anymore. So basically we have people that instead of buying a PC and installing OS X on top of it, they go out and buy a Mac, which may have EXACTLY the same hardware as a generic PC that you can buy at your favorite store, BUT that costs you twice as much. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's so great about Macs per se, that makes it worth paying that much money.
When watching this vids like these, I always find myself wondering which is the best for me. Most important point to me generally are: - Windows offers the greatest degree of compatibility and is the primary scope of most games being made, however, it tends to be quite fiddly as well with certain issues. - Linux offers a great deal of customizability, which as a programmer is jolly good fun, but it lacks the convenience, and scope of most industries. - Mac OS offers the most stable platform of all and still retains a good amount of customizing. Yet generally it is more expensive, less supported, and has no customizable hardware. If I ever get rich enough to afford and maintain all 3, I'll put a windows in my living room for general use, A mac for developing and work and art in the study, and a Linux in my "workshop" (garage or something) for experimenting and server related work. However, when it comes down to picking one, I pick windows cause A: Thats the only thing I'm experienced with, And B: Cause in general use it offers a good balance of flexibility, compatibility, and support.
Nowadays, the biggest problem with Linux is the lack of software support for visual creative industries (Photoshop, CAD, etc). But it also became a very user-friendly option for home users
I'm a PC guy. One of the reasons is, that Mac is first and foremost about DESIGN. And I don't give a flying f*** about how the device looks. I care about how powerful it is and what I can do with it.
***** The primary reason is that it's linux-based and far more usable and reliable than linux distros. Programmers don't purchase macs for their hardware - they purchase them for their software.
+StarDustSid For me personally, I use Unix based systems just because they are more reliable than windows. you can write one piece of software and it will run on mac, linux, BSD without much change. just my 2 cents.
I watch a lot of British media, but as an American I still haven't gotten used to you guys treating company nouns as plural. For example saying "Apple are...". In America it's "Apple is...".
To be perfectly frank, this is not the general British accent for as far as I'm aware. As far as I'm aware, it's always "apple is..." if it's to be correct English.
I'm English and I'd use "Apple is..."; I've never noticed this but yeah, come to think of it, a lot of British people do say "Company X are...". Neat! : )
IceMetalPunk Nothing. It's just a difference in how people think of companies. Whether they are a single unit making single, unified decisions/actions or a group of people that make decisions/actions as a group. It's just a different way of thinking, though "Apple is" would be the standard in English, I believe.
***** So then I have cause and effect wrong. It's that we think of them as a hive mind that we have that idea of corporations as people. I've always hated when people think of groups--either political parties, governmental groups, countries, companies, etc.--as one entity. It totally distorts the concept of motivation.
This video is pure BS. Apple does not make audio cards, graphics cards, CPUs, Hard Drives, RAM etc. The Apple computer also need drivers. They are already installed from the factory but if you get a third party audio card video card or even a USB 3.0 PCI Express Card for the older Mac Pros it needs drivers to work 100% correctly.
TechTVusa Apple also does not “own”, they lease iOS. They do also have ‘driver-updates’ just the same as any PC would, except that regular PC updates are more granular and most won’t access the firmware for fear of breaking other minor functionality unless that’s what they’re on to do: see ‘USBgate’ scam.
Surface 3 (admittedly junk) needs a whole OS to work properly not just a driver, and stretching posix terminology to fit iOSX’s unixlike shell-commands, drivers would be called daemons and kernel-modules instead.
i just found this channel when i was doing my TAFE study. defiantly subing this vid helped me alot and i even linked it in my work as a reference for my answer. thanks a bunch.
Yes, that is the main difference. Mac is built for limited set of hardware, which limits the hardware you can pick when you make your own "Hacintosh". Windows work for much more didn't hardware, therefore Macintosh is able to streamline it for the kind hardware it supports. - But people try to argue that Mac is better at image editing, or that there are functions that one can do that the other can't. But this isn't true at all.
OSX has not only be run on non macs, but it has now worked on 3 completely different CPU architectures without break compatibility during transitions. Maybe they are just better at streamlining period, regardless of platform.
This video was actually really helpful. I don't actually know very much about computers in general and to have the basic differences broken down like this in simple language was super helpful. Also, the guy's accent was great! Thanks!
How Macs and PCs differ? Well Macs are expensive and shows how rich the owners are. A PC shows shows that they are MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE, and MORE RICHER than Mac users. :) Are MAC users even willing to spend at least 4,000~5,000 usd for a thoroughbred gaming rig running multiple top of the line graphics cards while the cpu is liquid cooled? All the while playing on a 120hz monitor at 120fps at 4k. Suck on that Mac.
its not a fair fight. Ur taking a mac laptop ( which can only have so much hardware/ power? and comparing it to a tower that has more than enough physical space to put all those GPUs and a bigger and more powerful power supply along with the rest of the accessories
Linux all the way. There is so much freedom involved along with it being unix-like. It still has a way to go (especially with turning X.org into a piece of history), but it is a great OS to use, and I prefer the unix mindset over what Microsoft decides. it just makes more sense in my opinion.
I'm personally a Hackintosh user, but I run a Debian server at home and so I can use X11 forwarding to access Linux programs (or I just install them on my Mac)
I still prefer my old Amiga. :P But until the inevitable rebirth of the Amiga, I will stick to PCs as I build them myself, I choose the parts and I can do it dirt cheap and get decent performance.
true. the only thing they still manufacture themselves are the frames/cases and other exterior design. Back in the days they even produced their own poc cpus. The fact that they outsource their production does not mean that there aren't a lot of unique components.
Indeed, but the mac products are standarized, so waht he means is that you cant buy a mac with diferent specs than the ones in the apple website because they are the only providers of that product.
Apple builds its own hardware for Mac computers? Huh? Apple may lay out specifications they need for for their Macs, but Macs use Intel processors, AMD graphics, and DRR3 memory manufactured by various companies...just like Windows PC's. Apple doesn't build it's hardware for Mac's, other companies do. Mac's dont use an Apple CPU, or Apple GPU, or Apple memory. This guy is wrong when he says apple builds its own hardware.
Jeffroc421 It doesn't "build" any of it's hardware but it custom engineers most of it, that's his point. That's the whole reason why macs are proprietary. Meaning that the specific circuitry developed by apple is sole property of apple unlike PCs that were originally built on IBM hardware and not proprietized which has been developed by many people & many companies through out the years.
Mac's are PC's. They use x86 chips and all the PC standards like PCIe, sata, etc.. They're been PC's since they switched to intel chips. Also, this guy is wrong, apple doesn't fab their own hardware, they order it all from foxxcon. They don't make the GPU's or CPU's in their system, or even design them. All they do is pick and choose which parts to use.
68k-based Commodore Amiga, Mips-based SGI and Sparc-based Sun were PCs as well - PC means personal computer, not a specific hardware coming with an Intel/Amd compatible CPU
For me it has always been a question of function. - Word processing? PC Art tool? Mac. Gaming? PC Using a professional (technical) computer programme ? Mac
Here's a difference between Mac and PC. If you're spending less then a grand, you can only get a PC. If you're spending more then a grand, the PC will be a better machine then the Mac.
jo l I don't like to waste money, and watches are mostly just a luxury product. On computers I'd like to have the most bang for my buck, and with macs you can't get that. Sure, it may provide a nice user expierience, but that isn't worth the extra money IMHO
***** But if you use a computer as the main entertainment device in the house daily than the difference does'y really matter, and then the build quality of a tank, the battery life, the looks, the lightness and thins make themselves a lot more important than a few hundreds of bucks. Plus, most Apple devices have higher life spans, either from high quality build or frequent and more along term software updates, and higher resell value, so the investment pays off.
Nitay A. But IF I use it as the main entertainment device, then the amount of games I can play on it is much less. Also, I don't particularly care about how thin a laptop is or how heavy. And as I have stated, why would I use a device which makes me feel sick when I look at it?
In my experience, this is the most salient difference between Windows and OS X: Microsoft decided to corner a certain market by investing in DirectX, so that game developers could really lock down their usage of graphics cards and make really incredible experiences for gaming. Apple decided to corner a certain market by investing in CoreAudio and CoreMIDI, so that audio interfaces and MIDI controllers work effortlessly, making it the premier platform for audio engineering and music production. Obviously there are other perspectives based on other computing needs, but those are the big ones for me.
PC is not a brand, but technically not a technical term -- the original meaning was simply "personal computer" (often used synonymously with "home computer," even if its become popular to use it to mean "Windows computer." It was at first applied to Ataris, Apples, Commodores, etc. -- then, when the "IBM clones" (as they were at first called) became dominant PC became associated with them (and eventually Microsoft replaced IBM as the basis of the label). But the core, literal meaning is simply "personal computer" -- Mac is a brand, there is no actual brand called "PC," the label gets applied to many brands and to brandless machines people like me build themselves.
Jared Blackburn Thank you for sharing that, me personally get a little bit annoyed when people refer pc's to windows computers and windows computers only. :)
Whatever -- the meaning of words is arbitrary -- therefore PC means any absolutely, undeniable mean personal computer because I say it does and that makes it true -- its the meaning I choose so that's the meaning it has. People want to complain about this being here and having comments, yet hippocritically make more because they clearly care more about this than I ever did when I pointed out the original meaning of PC, that was universal in my day and which I prefer. Whatever, this is going on MUTE now because I really don't care or see arguing -- I have defined reality and so it is.
Jared Blackburn IBM's line of personal computers were called PC/XT, PC/AT, etc. So "personal computer" is the general term, "PC" is the model line, if not an actual brand name. IBM's decision to make the PC architecture an open standard has, of course, done a lot to confuse the issue. Strictly speaking, of course, all the non-IBM brands of personal computers are "PC-compatible," not PC's themselves. Just as a matter of general interest, you might like to know that the graphical user interface used by the Apple operating system and by Windows was developed in the early 1970's by Xerox at its Palo Alto Research Center, under contract to the U.S. Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), as part of the development of what eventually became the Internet.
Shawn Hawkins No one ha a superiority complex, its just the common way to differentiate the two OSs that originated from Apple's marketing. No need to over react, PC peasant.
I'm so confused. Are we talking about hardware or software? "Mac vs PC" is a very confusing term because there is so much confusion about where the operating system begins and the hardware ends, many people do not even know what an OS is!, let alone that there are many more besides Mac OS and Windows. Besides, a Mac IS a PC. :S
angelikmayhem I would agree but I feel like part of it was about the hardware though so I'm still confused. I think it was a bad idea to lead in with a title that echoes mainstream ignorance about computing.
+CowLunch How can this possibly confuse you? Is has been convention for decades to refer to Macs as apple software running on apple hardware and PC as any other hardware running windows or linux. Also, he covers the hardware/software issue in the video.
bbbb111111 Asking questions is a way of highlighting a point without coming across as combative or condescending. I don't actually need the question answered, I just wanted to talk about the issue of how those terms could be confused.
+CowLunch Some history may be in order here. Originally, the Macintosh was a proprietary system, made by and/or for Apple, and the details of which were a trade secret. IBM promulgated the PC standard as an open-source hardware standard, which other manufacturers were invited to implement as well. (IBM's own products were the PC line--PC/XT, PC/AT, etc., and everyone else's products were termed "PC-compatible.") The unifying factors were the Intel 80x86 chip (the latest version of which is the current incarnation of Pentium) and the Disk Operating System (DOS), which IBM hired an unknown software startup called Microsoft to write for them. As Microsoft began to dominate the PC world, IBM receded into the background, especially once Microsoft released version 3.1 of Windows, which was the first Windows version to actually implement the graphical interface designed at Xerox PARC under contract to ARPA (as part of ARPA's efforts to design and develop the Internet), and which the Mac OS already implemented. The situation has only gotten more complicated from there, but therein lie the beginnings of the rivalry. Perhaps someone who lived through all this ancient history can be forgiven for viewing the rivalry between Microsoft and Apple as being essentially similar to the rivalry between the Yankees and the Red Sox, but there still persist the ethos of an open standard on the one hand (however diluted) as against the ethos of a proprietary system on the other (again, however diluted).
As he mentioned linux is open source, but a rather important thing to add to this i'd say is the abilty to recompile the kernel, thus optimising for your specific hardware, and that's why it has an important edge in non-consumer market, some consumers (or rather tweakers and enthusiasts) do care about it too.
Dear Computerphile There are a number of things wrong in this video: 1. Linux is not a port of Unix, it is a Kernel that is used commonly with the GNU operating system. 2. Linux is not an operating system an operating system if it was it would be the most useless operating system ever all it would do is load itself into memory, for an operating system you also need a base set of utility and applications. Most people referring to Linux are in fact referring to GNU + Linux, or in some edge cases GNU kFreeBSD but that is even worse as there is no Linux in that. 3. FreeBSD is opensource OSX is based upon FreeBSD therefore parts of OSX are open source, GNU + Linux however is free software, there is a clear distinction between the two opensource means only that the code is available at the moment, not ensuring that the code will remain open in the same way as free software. 4. Windowing systems and GUI toolkits are generally thought of as library software, hence are bellow application software in the stack. The kernel and it's drivers handle input and output devises then send it to either the application directly or a windowing system that then sends appropriate signal to the users application. 5. You neglected to mention the fundamental differences between *nix (OSX, GNU + Linux) and dos (Windows, free dos) like operating systems. Such as the way *nix uses the idea of connecting small utility applications together for a larger purpose, where as dos would prefer a minority of large applications that do everything. I appreciate that you are trying to put these videos on a level for children, but it is not an excuse for being wrong; also you are really under estimating children.
Fantastic! I had no idea Mac had a smoother pipeline from hardware->application than Windows did before this video, much less why the Mac systems itself are so much more expensive.
PCs and mac are the same inside. Only difference: Macs are $1000 bucks more expensive, have aluminum cases which get warranty void if you open them, come with software which is uncompatible with almost everything, and though it works smoothly 99% of the time, that 1% of the time when it works badly, noone in the world will be able to fix it and it will give you nightmares. Just for objectiveness's sake, apple monitos are freaking awesome, but expensive as heck.
Which doesn't even agree with the rest of what he says. He says that Apple has an advantage because it only has to make its applications work on one hardware platform, which they understand because they invented it. Which instantly gives Apple an advantage over Linux. What he doesn't mention is what Microsoft did to fix their biggest compatibility issues in the 1990s: they developed a set of Windows compatibility tools, which they gave to developers. If your hardware could pass all of Microsoft's compatibility tests, you could have reasonable confidence that Windows and Windows applications would work on it. And without passing these tests you could not slap that "Windows Compatible" sticker on it. Linux has no such thing. Linux has to assume you're going to install it on a Windows compatible machine OR a Macintosh, and has to work with either one. Which has turned out to be usually enough, especially once Apple came up with Boot Camp, a Windows installer for the Mac. But even today, Linux has the burden of having to work with any hardware, even hardware that ISN'T Windows OR Mac compatible. I'm looking at YOU, Raspberry Pi.
Specific case in point: installing Linux on a MacBook. Most MacBook Pro models have more than one graphics chip. They have the one that's built into the chipset for the CPU, and they have a second GPU for high performance applications that need it. But the high performance chip uses LOTS more power than the chipset graphics. Mac OS knows about this, and defaults to the low-power GPU, and Mac applications also know about this, and they switch to the high-performance GPU if they need that. What does Linux do? It just runs on the high-performance chip all the time. Result? Runs hotter, burns through batteries twice as fast.
If MACs strength is that the OS and Hardware are designed for each other, then it's a fail. I've run Windows 7 on a MacBook Pro for years, and benchmarks for both Operating systems, on the same machine, shows Windows with a slight advantage. Novabench score for Mac OSX was 325, the same benchmark for windows 7 (with correct drivers) is 375. Why? Because Mac makes too many choices and does not allow for optimal hardware functioning. Form over function, Style over substance.
There is one major difference not mentioned in this video. That would be the diversity and depth of applications available for either platform. Not just weather apps and social media apps, but full blown productivity applications that are accepted as industry norm.
Non-nerds would never buy it, and they'd go bankrupt in a month. The irony is that a lot of Linux is terminal work. Then again...that might not be irony, since Linux is mostly a nerd OS anyway :P
To the server market? No problem, around 60% of the servers on the internet are Unix based, Unix servers generally come without a window system as that wastes resources that could be used serving data. To the desktop market though, not a chance.
You see, the problems I have with (most) of apples products is how closed off they are, you can't quite change your graphics card on a mac. As well as the fact that their products are almost always overpriced (although phones more than computers). And last but not least I believe that if you build your own computer, and know what goes into that computer, as well as what it can do, you are able to do more and make better decisions as a user.
I remember those days when you had to insert an MS-DOS floppy into the drive before you turned it on, so it would load when it booted. And then you had to run an autoexec.bat file and really protect the first 640k of memory because some programs, like games, would need so much of that base memory to launch and if you didn't, you would get the dreaded "NOT ENOUGH BASE MEM TO RUN" message. You would have to load MS-DOS into high memory to free up the base...I had a whole library of floppys to boot up for each different program I loaded. I don't miss those days.
This video had the potential to be a lot better. He spent far too much time talking about the hardware, when in actuality aside from the case most PCs and Macs nowadays are exactly the same. There is, however, a huge difference between OSX and Windows - and that's what the time should have been spent on. He opened the video with this nice big chart he drew and then didn't relate back to it at all.
I like the smart-assery involved in insisting to put PC in quote marks. PC, by its etymology doesn't simply mean personal computer, but was the trademarked name of a specific computer model released by IBM in 1981. A PC in this sense is not just any personal computer, but a computer that follows the line of ancestry from "IBM PC and compatibles".
There are some rather outdated views on the differences between Macs & PCs expressed here. Sure, Apple is both a hardware and a software company, but with respect to the Mac at least, they have much more in common with Dell or HP: They all assemble a stack of 3rd party components into a working computer. Apple generally doesn't develop drivers for 3rd party hardware any more than Microsoft does. They just certify them internally and include them in system updates, rather than allowing the 3rd party company to directly push drivers to end-users. Since Apple made the move to Intel CPUs, the hardware gap has narrowed to basically nil. a Core i7 is a Core i7, whether it's running OS X or Windows, and the number of companies providing CPUs, GPUs, chipsets, and other internal components for Macs & PCs could be counted on one hand. That basically leaves external peripherals, like printers, scanners, keyboards, mice, USB drives, etc. Those devices are all expected to provide their own driver software for Mac or Windows, if no suitable built-in driver is available.
What is Amazing is that Linux have drivers pre-installed. Had to use wi-fi on a Windows some years back, but it needed(?) drivers. Couldnt get Any since I didnt have Any CD and the USB receiver was supposed to supply the internet connection. The computer was too far away to be plugged in with regular cable as well. I had a CD With ubuntu laying around, installed it. Plugged in the USB device, Bang - wifi!
Windows has basic drivers for almost everything pre-installed, but for the most important hardware you need the manufacturers' drivers to use them efficiently. Windows distributes certified drivers through Windows update nowadays so you don't even need to look for them.
It's hilarious how insecure Apple haters get when you get an article or video that has a professional giving his opinion/facts and he's not universally bashing Mac's. They act like a great injustice has just been done upon them. It's actually quite entertaining. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
So my $1100 custom PC has just a little better specifications than a $3000 Mac, yes, a Mac is better optimized, but even counting that, my PC is just a little bit slower if not as fast. The price difference is not worth it, build your own PC.
Would this be a fair (broad) comparison?... Apple is let's say an Aston Martin, desirable and handles well "out of the box". "PCs" are a Ford Focus, all most people need but can be easily upgraded to handle as well, if not better than an Aston Martin if you know what you're doing and buy the correct parts.
More like Apples are cheap coupes: look quite shiny in the show rooms, seem quite fast on paper but in the end you're stuck with the same speed limits and traffic lights as everyone else, you just spent more than the average car. PCs on the other hand are every car that has ever and will ever be built: wide range of performances, wide range of styles, wide range of purposes and of course a wide range of costs.
Ha, very good. I was just sitting and trying to come up with a good car analogy but couldn't get one that fits as well as yours. I was thinking the Mac was an Audi R8 - the average driver could get it around the track pretty quick. But I was struggling to think of a car that was cheaper, built less well and slower than the average driver but quicker in the hands of a professional driver....maybe something like a Caterham 7 CSR? Any pseudo-nerd male like myself should NEVER buy a mac. Simply a waste of money but it's soooo hard trying to explain this to arrogant hipsters.
This would be true if they were in fact the same car under the hood. What you are really talking about is a Chevy Suburban and a Cadillac Escalade. They are identical mechanically, but the Escalade has a badge so someone is going to pay a 50% premium because of the bling.
If you consider prices, pc's will outperform mac's when they're equally priced. Even without knowing what your're doing, you'll almost certainly get a better machine if you spend the same money on a pc instead of a mac. Probably even a beautiful one, which handles fairly well, nowadays. But then of course you won't get dat desirability. That feeling of consolidation and careful design and new born baby smell you get with brand cars such as Aston Martin.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Driver Signing kind of circumvent the need for mass testing of third party hardware? Saying Apple is "better" because its on its own hardware seems a bit biased if you're not mentioning the fact that most third party hardware requires drivers which must be tested by Microsoft. Of course that's also one way that Microsoft keeps its costs low, pretty much any hardware with a Signed Driver has to give MS a cut of its sales. At least that is what we were taught in Basic Operating Systems.
Yeah, they aren't the most popular option, but I still think it's rather interesting. And it's not like it's illegal to talk about them. MKBHD did a whole series about how to build one.
I was under the impression that the major split occurred in the 80's when Apple's RISC based hardware architecture was outpaced by developers' reluctance to adopt RISC as it was still emerging and CISC was a more mature and trusted design (even though RISC is superior we now know). Window's 95 (and 3.1 I would assume) were designed for CISC and Intel was able to steamroll out evermore powerful CISC chip's to compete against Apple.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
I was hoping this would become a bit more of a UNIX vs DOS explanation with compatible processor architecture and instruction sets.
smegskull well after mac got the intel they are the same :)
Yeah, some of these videos fit for a kids show.
that's what he meant by compatible architecture; the overlying software (mach/unix vs windows) is totally different
The joke is that even though Mac has UNIX certification, its software is not compatible with any other UNIX or UNIX-like OS. In my cross platform C++ applications I need 3 #ifdefs; for Windows, UNIX and MacOS. UNIX works for Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD etc. but not MacOS.
How they got that certification I don't know, but I think it had more to do with money than features or compliance.
Right? This wasn't nearly as technical enough
Guy reminds me of some hostage in CS 1.6.
LOL
HAHAHAHAHA
Well if you still have access to your Steam account you can re-download it..
hahahaha
This made me laugh so hard!
You used to be able to upgrade Mac laptops a little bit, you could put more RAM in and install a solid state drive or whatever, and replace the battery, but now they're all glued together and impossible to take apart or upgrade in any way. Mostly because people obsess over them being so THIN and SLEEK and they could only best their old models by gluing everything but I also think Apple hated the fact that people could tinker with their computers and wanted to force people to spend absurd amounts of money on extra RAM and storage. What a joke.
Unless the newest variation of MacBooks have changed, you can still upgrade the RAM and HDD in them. I can on mine.
If Apple upped it's game and started working on a gamer type computer that can be upgraded and customized with different hardware manufactured by apple, then not only would they make lot's of money, but also more games would start supporting mac. As of right now, mac's library is mostly indie games, who have the only developers who will care enough to make a version for another operating system. Sometimes even Linux, in rare instances. I say this because I really like apple products for everything but games. But being a gamer, I would like to add games to the list of things that macs do well. MAKE IT HAPPEN APPLE!
RagingPanic
They wouldn't really make much there. That market is fairly small for them, so each of these additional products would be small batch and not really gain benefits of the economies of scale. They would also need a fair range of them for it to be worth bothering. They would probably be better off making one highly specced sealed box for gaming. But hey, I'm thinking of what's best for Apple instead of what's best for you, and that's exactly what Apple does too. Why not support adding games to the things Linux does well instead?
@@OneCrazyDavis Yes, and no. Because MacBooks use the exact same kind of disk drives that the rest of the industry does, you CAN replace the hard drive. Same with SDRAM sticks - you can replace them, and the MacBook will use these without complaint. BUT, I used to work in Apple Technical Support, so I know this to be true, if you sent your MacBook in to Apple to be repaired, and they saw non-Apple-supplied disk drives or memory sticks or battery, they would return the machine without doing any work on it at all. And there's a reason for this: Apple goes to great lengths to qualify specific hard drives and memory modules, to ensure that they are fully compatible with the rest of the Apple hardware. So if you send them non-Apple hardware, they don't want to have to prove that a fault was caused by incompatible modifications to the machine, so they just refuse to work on it. This is whether or not the machine is under warranty. So I always told customers when they asked, "Yes, you can upgrade this yourself. But please hang onto the original hardware, in case you ever need it to be serviced by Apple."
@@RagingPanic It's really up to game developers, whether it's worth their time to port their games to Mac OS. It's really not a matter of the hardware being up to "gaming standards". Apple designs its systems to support its applications, which is part of the whole hardware + software = application focus. And while they value having external developers creating applications that run on the Mac OS platform (which is why they make their extensive Xcode development environment free to developers), they do not develop hardware to support applications that they do not control. So if a MacBook happens to have a decent graphics chip, it's because they needed it to make Final Cut Pro work smoothly, not because game developers asked for it. And Apple does make applications that need high performance graphics.
Do you know what drives my loyalty towards PC? That when I'm living in a country with average salary below 500$, PC gave me the opportunity to enjoy my hobbies, that I would never been able to afford at Macintosh. I would never forget my first computer my parents bought me when I was 11 years old, that became reality because the PC's were out there.
In the end the biggest market dominates everything, I can have higher performance on pc for lower price. Yeah the Macintosh is beautiful, but no one needs beauty when you have no food. Thanks to the PC that have been bought for me 12 years ago, I've managed to learn English, meet my wonderful girlfriend, make nice friends all over the world, get a great education and find a job. I'm sorry, but I doubt the Macintosh have done more to someone else than the PC for me.
That's why i started using Linux. I could just install Web servers, data bases, mail servers etc and play with them. Back then they didn't run on windows. Still have my apple internet server cd :-)
But with Linux you could run any sort of server free.
My first several PCs were what I hobbled together from parts. In a Mac world, I would never have had an opportunity to even own a computer until I was an adult. And then I probably wouldn't have been able to afford one working a non-IT job.
@@donrobertson4940 "back then they didn't run on Windows" huh? Windows NT predates Linux.
@@jn1mrgn Linux is from 1990. First NT windows came out in 1993 but not very popular. 4.0 from 1996 was the first one that was used, but windows didn't really drop until 2001 when XP came out.
@@laszu7137 I stand corrected.
#Microsoft / #IBM really democratized the PC industry in a way that people forget. For the first time, an operating system was available that could run on non-proprietary hardware which drove down prices, and the ISA bus opened up a market for third party cards/peripherals. It was a golden age which ushered in open source free software and eventually the web which allowed device independent access to information. Ever since the resurgence of Apple however and that bloody iPhone we have seen a return to balkanization with app stores and the return of proprietary hardware and software which personally I think has been a major backward step. Opinion!
***** Agreed. Funnily enough I've only recently started to tinker with Android and have been surprised how open it is.
***** indeed things are changing, though Lion, being released in 2010 is quite recent in the context of my original post. I was harking back to an age in the 80s and 90s and my point was that the first 'open' standard that kicked off the popularity of personal computers was the IBM/Microsoft model. Any suggestion that Apple was doing anything other than closed shop hardware/software at that time reveals a glaring ignorance of the history of the micro-computer.
When smartphone modulation technologies are matured, then it would be the right time to talk about third party modules/peripherals.
If you can give me some examples of a democracy which isn't capitalist I may take that on-board. My point is before the PC there were a whole raft of companies selling computers with incompatible software, hardware and peripherals. The PC gave manufacturers an open standard to design to, which really accelerated growth in the market and drove down prices.
***** you need to do a little more study on the Hegelian process of the dielectic. Just being rude and insulting people doesn't really do much to further an argument. Try and get a thesis / antithesis type discussion going, then we can learn from each other's point of view.
Being a keen Windows user, when I tried Ubuntu I was really pleased with its performance and the fact that everything works without the need to jump through a bunch of hoops. I think Windows 8 is great if you buy into Microsoft's ecosystem and "vision" but for something that's plug-and-play which requires minimum setup and works with any hardware, Linux is really good. I don't really see the benefit in Mac unless you are desperate for Apple's software
Windows 10 has turned me off, I think Microsoft thinks they're Apple now... it may be time to move to Linux. A little intimidating though.
MacOS is the worst
@@RijuChatterjee it’s not too bad
@@Dunger974 Its that bad
MacOS is most likely the best os for web development (less so now with wsl). Having access to the most used browser on Mac is a huge advantage
The main difference is 1,000 dollars.
+futurefox128 it's worthy in some aspects but if we're thinking hardware raw computational power wise definitely not.
I cherry pick my examples so that my argument isn't as ridiculous therefore I'm right. -Alex Gowers
The store price is not the most important consideration. Total cost of ownership is more relevant. Average life expectancy of a non-Apple PC is about 3 years, and it's 14 months for 35% of laptops to be unserviceable or stolen. Average life expectancy for a Mac is 6 years. I've never had a Mac become completely unusable in about 24 years of owning them, and having used and owned at least 20 devices, including an original iMac G3, which is still in use, having only needed a HDD replacement and upgraded memory in 18 years. My workhorse Mac has run for almost 10 years, nearly 24/7/365, with no issues. (Speed is not the prime consideration here.) It's still running the latest OS, as well as Linux. Prior to using Apple products I was always spending money on PC's, trying to keep them running Windows, replacing failed parts, etc. TCO for our Macs is about 35% to 50% of the cost of Windows boxes, including the cost of the electricity needed to power them.
* U N I X *
BrotWurst
G3 ran on iOS 9.x before the days of the iUnix zoo-animalesque menagerie revue.
Sorting computers into Macs and PCs is just weird if you end up talking about the OS for most of the time.
The distinction that ***** does really doesn't make all that much sense either:
_by PC we are referring to machines running Windows or a variant of Linux_
I've seen people run Linux on Mac hardware with great success. Does that make their computer a PC? Even though the hardware is that of a Mac?
Yes.
Or, more specifically, once you've installed Linux or Windows on a Mac, you've just bought an expensive PC.
Yes
Alcesmire I would say a Mac is a PC the same way an iPhone is a mobile phone, it's just that if you know if something is a Mac or not you would usually call it a Mac if it is thereby implying that it is not a Mac if you call it a PC but in the end you still can and have to specify what operating system you use on what hardware
This is what I keep trying to tell Mac users. Apple have a monopoly over their hardware where Microsoft have managed to 'open source' it as such, allowing people to make their own and Windows can deal with it. A much more powerful operating system.
What an accent!
It's so satisfying, I feel like I can understand one more language.
Guz Man which accent is it anyway.
I often confuse Scottish and Irish
@@jj-or2jn It does if you aren't very proficient at English.
Whut in iccent!
The real difference: Developers make games for windows.
You can get linux to run windows games with some effort (or if the dev was nice enough to port it but that's not always an option, looking at your directX).
To get games to work on a mac, however, you need to install windows instead.
Out of all the macs we own, not one of them has actually booted in macOS for well over a year or two, mostly because that's when we bought them and installed windows.
Most of the computers in my house are either gaming computers running windows with linux as a dual boot option for fixing windows whenever it breaks, or just linux if the computer can't/wont run games.
And that is another flaw of OSX, it is extremely incompatible which means you are ripped of by Apple every time you buy a piece of software.
+Szymon Gorczynski How about someone that doesn't give a damn about playing video games on their computer? You Apple haters are laughably transparent. Be an adult and hide your cognitive dissonance, you'll be taken more serious in the end.
And that is coming from someone that doesn't even own a mac.
+armoredp I'm not talking just about games. Most of the software for OSX is owned by Apple, that includes video and audio editing software abd the likes.
+armoredp if you dont play games why buy a expensive pc?
+crazy dutch people Because an expensive PC is still cheaper than a cheap mac.
tl;dw: "Apple makes their own hardware, so the software can be more efficient, but Windows is cheaper because you've got more hardware available".
If Apple were car manufacturer they'd be putting out steam powered vehicles that cost 5 times the market average for their specs and features, and the only category where they win anything against their competition is paint polish and bragging rights. Meanwhile comparably priced Tesla blows them out of the water and Ford makes affordable nice vehicles that still outperform it in places.
@@michaelbuckers a little harsh in your metaphor but I like it.
Yeah, that statement is just plain wrong. Apple includes the cost of maintaining their operating system with the computer, and does not charge for updates. The only exception was the upgrade to Snow Leopard, Apple's first 64-bit OS, which cost $30. Microsoft has a long history of making you buy (for $100 or more) a new operating system every time it stops supporting the last one you paid $100 for. Saying that Windows is cheaper is just wrong. Windows COMPUTERS can be cheaper, because the company making the hardware does not have to support the software.
@@BrightBlueJim Windows computers are cheaper, because you can have a low-end rig. You can have a PC for $200 without OS. After we add a price of a Windows license, still it will be way cheaper, than any Mac.
@@RanmaruRei Yes, that's another point, and I said that in response to another comment, but, and yes I know I didn't say this in my reply, but building the hardware doesn't make Apple's code more efficient, it just makes it easier for Apple to develop, because it only has to work on one manufacturer's computers.
I wanted to really clear up the difference between Apple and PC and how it started. Originally Apple used a processor developed by Motorola. This was in all their first machines. The PC platform was using the intel chip The difference and reason for the split in preference was due to the fact the Motorola chip was a good as a graphics processor but could not do floating point arithmetic. The intel chip was designed specifically to handle arithmetic functions like divide by zero. This allowed technical uses in engineering etc that needed math capabilities to do what Apple could not do.The apple machines had the first GUI interface which Microsift copied but primarily Apple could do this more easily with the Motorola chipset. That split the market between geeks and users. Some people wanted convenience and good user interaction while others needed the high end math functions over fancy screen menus. That is where the split started. Since then Apples and PCs have come to look very similar in all aspects. Eventually Apple included a math coprocessor and eventually Microsoft and Intel added graphic capabilities to their processors. Originally Macs did not even support a basic spreadsheet. It is still the same market in a way though. If you want flexibility build a P. If you want convenience and no brain usage then buy a Mac.
"No brain usage" that sounds like an insult to Mac buyers (and it isn't an accurate one, obviously, and anyone who says it is has no brain usage).
"The intel chip was designed specifically to handle arithmetic functions like divide by zero. "
Are you insane?
@@MrRobertX70 Yeah, that's what I thought, if giving an "Error" message is what he meant by handling division by zero then I guess he's right
I would say the windowing system is an OS layer. There'd be a BIOS layer between the OS & HW too.
I find this video a bit lost in it's descriptional story because it's titled "How MAC & PC's differ" yet in the description says a PC is either running WIndows or Linux and is compared to a MAC. This is a bit weird because MAC OS (at least now) is based on BSD Unix and Linux is Linus Unix (used creatively for descriptional purposes only) so really Windows is the odd one out from a SW perspective and if you're talking HW then MAC is the odd one out only as far that Apple supplies their own HW (Surface not withstanding). Of course for a while now MAC has been ported to Intel's processor lines meaning that really with a device drivers and a BIOS tweak MAC OS really can run natively on PC HW. In fact people have ported it to PC's and Apple was not happy. Linux BTW has been ported to most processor architectures now, including pocket sized ones.
Anyhow, as I say the story is a little messed up and having trouble finding its way.
+etmax1 BIOS is only used to boot up, it is not running after the OS is loaded into memory.
Melvin Foo
That's true, but it doesn't have to be like that. It's only been like that really for PC's, there are other systems out there that don't follow the "bootstrap" methodology
+etmax1 The reason you have the "bootstrap" methodology on PCs (PC as in any modular machine regardless of OS) is because of the requirement of being able to plug in any number of different chips in order to create a whole working machine even if those pieces of hardware speak different languages, the bootstrapper figures out what's what and makes it all click. You can't make assumptions about what's plugged in when the hardware's coming from a plethora of manufacturers unless you're the technical type who can make anything work.
+etmax1 Yep, the difference between them is subtle. There is a small number of different Apple hardware systems, as compared to almost infinite PC systems from various manufacturers, so Apple has control over the hardware used and only has to make the OS work with what they've made. They can tailor future hardware development to fit the OS, and vice-versa. So taken as a group, Apple hardware is quite distinct from the group of PC hardware, but individual specimens of each are pretty much the same, except that Apple's OS might not have drivers for the PC, and it will also detect and refuse to operate on the PC.
And obviously Apple hardware looks distinct, and people generally run Apple's OS on it, and generally run a non-Apple OS on PC hardware.
The windowing system is not part of the OS layer, I can use my computer just fine without starting one.
Difference? Several hundred dollars.
poor sap
When you buy a Mac you get the machine Apple has decided you need. The original Mac came with zero options. It was intentionally designed to not allow upgrading memory so that the programmers would always know exactly how much they had to work with. And who needs more than one meg of RAM?
With PCs (okay, IBM PC Compatibles) you get what you choose to pay for, or add on at a later date. When your PC gets old you upgrade. When your Mac gets old, you buy a new one.
Upgrading an original mac was easy. Computerphile even has a video about it.
You could upgrade the RAM on the first Mac. Also the first computer that Apple made. the Apple 1 was just a circuit board that you had to solider parts on to get it to run.
AndraBullar That was not an original Mac. That was a Mac Plus. But I made a mistake in my previous comment. The originals were 512K. I was one of the first certified Mac techs way back when. The school I worked for had us install third party piggyback RAM boards to get our 512Ks up to 1 Meg. Heating and cooling would push the boards up off the soldered RAM and about once a month we had to open the cases and push the piggybacks back down.
Sort of true, but there comes a point where you have to replace the motherboard and/or PSU to facilitate more upgrades, and to keep compatibility with those you often need a newer CPU and RAM, at which point you are upgrading nearly the whole PC. I mean, you can still re-use the case, CD drives and hard drives, but those are usually relatively inexpensive.
Oliver Stevenson "This is the best ax ever. I've been through 4 heads and 12 handles and it just keeps going."
Explain to me how Apple "makes their own hardware" if the CPUs are Intel, the motherboards are Foxconn, and the memory is ASUS. If you mean that some vice-president says "we want our next PC to not have right angles" and thus Foxconn shaves the corners off their motherboards, then yes, I can totally see where Mac is pushing the envelope on computing architecture.
+angelikmayhem They used to make many of their own parts, but nowadays they use parts from other companies for the sake of compatibility and just connect the parts. That's unlike Microsoft which only writes the software.
+angelikmayhem While it's true that Apple doesn't actually manufacture the parts, they are the only ones who design what parts go into a Mac and how they are arranged. Or look at it this way, how many brands of computers are meant run Mac Os? Just Apple. How many brands of computers are meant to run Windows? or Linux? To many to list here. This is why we can say apple makes it's own hardware, as while it doesn't actually manufacture the hardware itself the people working on Mac OS know exactly what kind of hardware it's going to be running on as they only care if it works on Apple approved hardware. Neither Linux and Windows get to do this, They have to accommodate a much wider range of hardware.
or a 3rd way of looking at this, You where just able to say what brands of hardware make up a Mac computer, and that Apple can to some degree tell the parts suppliers what it wants the parts that go into their system to do.
With a Windows or Linux or other OS computer can you come up with the brands that make them up? no, you could with some effort come up with lists and combinations of parts that could make up say a Windows computer, or a Linux computer. But no one answer will work there, unlike with Apple computers. So while they don't technically make the hardware, They do control what hardware goes into a Mac, so it's effectively like they have made it, especially when developing software .
+angelikmayhem Yeah they don't really make it. But they do choose exactly where it's sourced and write their code based on those static expectations. Similar to how people would say AMD makes CPU's but technically they don't own the manufacturing process - they instead send specs to a company that just physically makes them to AMD's specifications. So the meaning is a bit blurred.
+angelikmayhem This is what I was wondering. I just started following this channel... and it already seems a bit discredited with the seemingly incorrect information... The argument of design could be made, be he goes on the state that making the hardware helps know how to most effectively use it... implying that the CPU/Mobo/GPU architecture are made by Mac, which is pure wrong.
Bridden
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they copied something that was put out there for everyone then find a way to claim it's theirs now. One might argue that by the fact that they do know what kind of hardware is in the machine to a much greater extent then on the PC side they can better fine tune their os and the drivers. But have they actually? I don't think so. Really the difference comes down is Apple has it's own ecosystem that your buying into, the option is there to expand outside of it but there's also no need to. it's more made for those who don't want to have to think about how to design and manage their digital life. As the iStuff is already designed in so you don't have to mess with what features do I want what kind of tasks do I need they already have it all planned out for the most common types of users. Where as on the PC side it's more build your own, Even if you buy the branded pre-built windows computers You just get a fairly vanilla box that you usually need to add in the software and hardware for it to do what you want it to do. And to get it set up well you do have to learn at least some of the details about how computers work or get help from someone who does. So to me that is really the separation between the two Apple caters more to the casual user who while they may spend a lot of time working on a certain task that uses a computer they aren't focused on the computer itself but rather just using the computer to complete a task they aren't really concerned with how it does the task as long as it does. Where as PC is more oriented to those who do like get into the details of their computer and how it works.
I prefer PC's mostly because I have the ability to fix or modify them as needed. A Mac is a sealed unit, and must be sent back to the manufacturer if it breaks. I can fix my PC in the field, and on the fly, so PC's work out better for me.
Plus I can build a PC for one third the cost of a similarly equipped Mac, but with twice the performance.
I think Louis Rossmann and Paul Daniels would disagree with you these days.
Was expecting comparisons between NT and Darwin, not comparisons between graphical interfaces. Mac OS doesn't just run on a specific piece of hardware, it's a licensing and marketing decision, hardly a technical decision. Disappointing video.
+Matthew Thompson So in short, video is not biased against Apple enough for you tastes?
+armoredp what a low-quality comment. For the record, I own an iPhone and a rMBP. This is just a terrible comparison on all accounts, because it isn't looking at the reality - OS X runs fine on any x86_64 machine with appropriate kexts, Apple only prevents licensing to make money.
+Matthew Thompson I do agree i would have liked a more os oriented comparison. on the other hand licensing and marketing decision are importante if it effects the end product in this case you can buy mac on mac appple made machines.
i don't know if you can run mac on an other machine as efficiently. i have heard of hackintosh but that not apple
+MrTheboffin Their main advantage is being able to test their stuff for the specific hardware they need, and they don't need to code the operating system and apps for a wide range of hardware. Also, knowing what hardware is in all the devices running Mac OS or iOS is great for developers: They don't need to do fixes for that one weird Chinese Samsung Galaxy knockoff, you know.
About hackintoshes, you can build a computer and install Mac OS on it yourself, but you're not allowed to do so due to licensing and Terms of Service issues (even if you buy Mac OS). Another limitation is that not all hardware will work, you need to watch what you can use. (I believe there are some processors you can't use) and there might be driver issues for the hardware and add-in cards and ports you wanna use.
***** OK thank you for the info
LINUX!!! Everything in my house runs linux. I installed it on my toaster she runs really smoothly now.
ok?
He seemed so happy at the end when talking about Linux, lol.
Apple does not build the hardware for its computers. Unless by build, it is meant to assemble. Apples use the exact same CPUs found in PCs like intel i5s and i7s , the exact same graphic cards like NVIDIA cards, the exact same sound cards, and other hardware. If any, they only build their motherboards.
It is true that assembling their own computers permits users to have no worries about drivers. However, that is where the benefits end. Someone can effectively buy a PC with the exact same hardware than a MAC for a much lower price. Moreover, given the price difference, someone can also buy a PC with better performance than a MAC for the exact price of a MAC.
Also, one difference not mentioned is the availability of applications. Software companies design the overwhelming majority of applications for Windows.
+TwoNiStop they use the same hardware but they have custom shapes and sizes for them so its more expensive to get parts to upgrade them with
+TwoNiStop It really doesn’t matter who makes the parts or who puts the parts together; what matters is that Apple designed the computer, and it knows exactly what the hardware that runs their computer will be.
+TwoNiStop Splitting hairs, regardless they chose the hardware for their computers. If you had listened to the video you would have understood that was the point he was trying to make as he followed it up by saying that Apple knows exactly what hardware the OS will be interacting with.
@Melee Wonka You see, that's where you're wrong.
Mmmh, but this misses the most important: before 2006, Macs & PCs were different beasts, because the CPUs were different. Since 2006 and Apple's adoption of the x86, a Mac & a PC mainly differ by their OS. That is, you can build a PC that's just like a Mac, & even running the Mac OS on it would be possible, just like the opposite.
Sure, a computer isn't just the CPU, but it's not like Apple was using exotic graphic chips or whatever, they only make a choice. Apple makes software and sells it only along with its dongle, while Microsoft does not. Software & marketing, that's what they mostly do. As for testing, it's not like all Macs share exactly the same hardware anyway, so even the Mac OS has to be generic enough. They only know what a Mac will NOT run on.
@Crooked Skate Supply Co or more precisely x86-64, but anyway, Apple is back to ARM now and Macs are gonna differ quite a lot now
I can understand that someone likes OS X more than Windows or Linux. What I don't understand is this: what is the necessity of buying a Mac? There was a time when PC and Mac hardware where different (e.g., the processor), but that is not true anymore. So basically we have people that instead of buying a PC and installing OS X on top of it, they go out and buy a Mac, which may have EXACTLY the same hardware as a generic PC that you can buy at your favorite store, BUT that costs you twice as much. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's so great about Macs per se, that makes it worth paying that much money.
When watching this vids like these, I always find myself wondering which is the best for me. Most important point to me generally are:
- Windows offers the greatest degree of compatibility and is the primary scope of most games being made, however, it tends to be quite fiddly as well with certain issues.
- Linux offers a great deal of customizability, which as a programmer is jolly good fun, but it lacks the convenience, and scope of most industries.
- Mac OS offers the most stable platform of all and still retains a good amount of customizing. Yet generally it is more expensive, less supported, and has no customizable hardware.
If I ever get rich enough to afford and maintain all 3, I'll put a windows in my living room for general use, A mac for developing and work and art in the study, and a Linux in my "workshop" (garage or something) for experimenting and server related work.
However, when it comes down to picking one, I pick windows cause A: Thats the only thing I'm experienced with, And B: Cause in general use it offers a good balance of flexibility, compatibility, and support.
Nowadays, the biggest problem with Linux is the lack of software support for visual creative industries (Photoshop, CAD, etc). But it also became a very user-friendly option for home users
I wish this video would go deeper into the difference looking at the kernel level and display servers and the likes of that
I'm a PC guy. One of the reasons is, that Mac is first and foremost about DESIGN. And I don't give a flying f*** about how the device looks. I care about how powerful it is and what I can do with it.
PC Master Race
+Xeverous *Glorious
be*
At least we don't have red ring of death
You realize that the use of MacBooks is extremely common in the programming community, right? It's not because "they're pretty".
***** The primary reason is that it's linux-based and far more usable and reliable than linux distros. Programmers don't purchase macs for their hardware - they purchase them for their software.
And people are still arguing over which is 'better'. Quite sad really.
+StarDustSid
I agree. The only real argument to be had here is, which is better for you personally.
+StarDustSid For me personally, I use Unix based systems just because they are more reliable than windows. you can write one piece of software and it will run on mac, linux, BSD without much change. just my 2 cents.
+StarDustSid they both have things that they are better at, that's why i use both :D
Only a moron would use Windows or Mac OS. Real men use a freedom allowing OS like GNU/Linux.
+:^) Snowman Face With A Caret For A Nose :^) your neckbeard is scratching me through the internet
I watch a lot of British media, but as an American I still haven't gotten used to you guys treating company nouns as plural. For example saying "Apple are...". In America it's "Apple is...".
To be perfectly frank, this is not the general British accent for as far as I'm aware. As far as I'm aware, it's always "apple is..." if it's to be correct English.
I wonder how much of that has to do with the BS legal concept we have of "corporations as people"?
I'm English and I'd use "Apple is..."; I've never noticed this but yeah, come to think of it, a lot of British people do say "Company X are...". Neat! : )
IceMetalPunk Nothing. It's just a difference in how people think of companies.
Whether they are a single unit making single, unified decisions/actions or a group of people that make decisions/actions as a group. It's just a different way of thinking, though "Apple is" would be the standard in English, I believe.
*****
So then I have cause and effect wrong. It's that we think of them as a hive mind that we have that idea of corporations as people.
I've always hated when people think of groups--either political parties, governmental groups, countries, companies, etc.--as one entity. It totally distorts the concept of motivation.
This video is pure BS. Apple does not make audio cards, graphics cards, CPUs, Hard Drives, RAM etc. The Apple computer also need drivers. They are already installed from the factory but if you get a third party audio card video card or even a USB 3.0 PCI Express Card for the older Mac Pros it needs drivers to work 100% correctly.
TechTVusa Apple also does not “own”, they lease iOS. They do also have ‘driver-updates’ just the same as any PC would, except that regular PC updates are more granular and most won’t access the firmware for fear of breaking other minor functionality unless that’s what they’re on to do: see ‘USBgate’ scam.
Surface 3 (admittedly junk) needs a whole OS to work properly not just a driver, and stretching posix terminology to fit iOSX’s unixlike shell-commands, drivers would be called daemons and kernel-modules instead.
Where's Richard Stallman when you need him?
After the majority of us uses computers for face book they are both pretty much indistinguishable.
Well, except that Apple seems to have this philosophy that *everything* stored on our passing through your computer belongs to Apple.
Install Gentoo, optimise everything.
i just found this channel when i was doing my TAFE study. defiantly subing this vid helped me alot and i even linked it in my work as a reference for my answer. thanks a bunch.
Yes, that is the main difference. Mac is built for limited set of hardware, which limits the hardware you can pick when you make your own "Hacintosh". Windows work for much more didn't hardware, therefore Macintosh is able to streamline it for the kind hardware it supports. - But people try to argue that Mac is better at image editing, or that there are functions that one can do that the other can't. But this isn't true at all.
OSX has not only be run on non macs, but it has now worked on 3 completely different CPU architectures without break compatibility during transitions. Maybe they are just better at streamlining period, regardless of platform.
This video was actually really helpful. I don't actually know very much about computers in general and to have the basic differences broken down like this in simple language was super helpful. Also, the guy's accent was great! Thanks!
You gotta warn a brother before flashing those Windows 8 tiles, I almost had a heart attack.....
Classic start menu ftw
Happy 100th video computerphile
I love this guys accent
Interesting that you mentioned RISC-OS in passing: it did everything that we accept as normal forty years ago - and in ROM with a couple of MBS!
How Macs and PCs differ? Well Macs are expensive and shows how rich the owners are. A PC shows shows that they are MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE, and MORE RICHER than Mac users. :)
Are MAC users even willing to spend at least 4,000~5,000 usd for a thoroughbred gaming rig running multiple top of the line graphics cards while the cpu is liquid cooled? All the while playing on a 120hz monitor at 120fps at 4k. Suck on that Mac.
its not a fair fight. Ur taking a mac laptop ( which can only have so much hardware/ power? and comparing it to a tower that has more than enough physical space to put all those GPUs and a bigger and more powerful power supply along with the rest of the accessories
***** maybe the OS factor
ApexPredator_ No because Macs are used for learning and working, somethings you obviously don't do.
Now with the M-series SOCs you might want to make and updated video and link it in the description here
Linux all the way. There is so much freedom involved along with it being unix-like. It still has a way to go (especially with turning X.org into a piece of history), but it is a great OS to use, and I prefer the unix mindset over what Microsoft decides. it just makes more sense in my opinion.
linux is nice, but there isn't that much software avalible for it. I also really like coding in visual studio 2015.
StarTrek123456 the limited software library is shrinking. Especially now that .net is cross platform.
>says linux can't compete
>doesn't site any sources or statistics
I'm personally a Hackintosh user, but I run a Debian server at home and so I can use X11 forwarding to access Linux programs (or I just install them on my Mac)
Syphist Prime What distro do you use?
What about Hackintoshes?
I still prefer my old Amiga. :P But until the inevitable rebirth of the Amiga, I will stick to PCs as I build them myself, I choose the parts and I can do it dirt cheap and get decent performance.
Apple don't really make their own hardware, other OEMs make it and they just pay and assemble.
They still have unified hardware specifications, which is the point in this case.
true. the only thing they still manufacture themselves are the frames/cases and other exterior design. Back in the days they even produced their own poc cpus. The fact that they outsource their production does not mean that there aren't a lot of unique components.
If he would just replace the word "build" with "choose", the entire video would be fine.
Indeed, but the mac products are standarized, so waht he means is that you cant buy a mac with diferent specs than the ones in the apple website because they are the only providers of that product.
Jesper Christiansen This
Apple builds its own hardware for Mac computers? Huh? Apple may lay out specifications they need for for their Macs, but Macs use Intel processors, AMD graphics, and DRR3 memory manufactured by various companies...just like Windows PC's. Apple doesn't build it's hardware for Mac's, other companies do. Mac's dont use an Apple CPU, or Apple GPU, or Apple memory. This guy is wrong when he says apple builds its own hardware.
Jeffroc421 It doesn't "build" any of it's hardware but it custom engineers most of it, that's his point. That's the whole reason why macs are proprietary. Meaning that the specific circuitry developed by apple is sole property of apple unlike PCs that were originally built on IBM hardware and not proprietized which has been developed by many people & many companies through out the years.
I just love Computerphile videos. Simple, Informative and to the point. !! (y)
Mac's are PC's. They use x86 chips and all the PC standards like PCIe, sata, etc..
They're been PC's since they switched to intel chips.
Also, this guy is wrong, apple doesn't fab their own hardware, they order it all from foxxcon.
They don't make the GPU's or CPU's in their system, or even design them. All they do is pick and choose which parts to use.
68k-based Commodore Amiga, Mips-based SGI and Sparc-based Sun were PCs as well - PC means personal computer, not a specific hardware coming with an Intel/Amd compatible CPU
For me it has always been a question of function. -
Word processing? PC
Art tool? Mac.
Gaming? PC
Using a professional (technical) computer programme ? Mac
Here's a difference between Mac and PC.
If you're spending less then a grand, you can only get a PC.
If you're spending more then a grand, the PC will be a better machine then the Mac.
Time to update this video
I won't get a Mac because 1. I can't pay over a thousand bucks for something a Windows PC can do cheaper, and 2. The animations make me feel sick
jo l I don't like to waste money, and watches are mostly just a luxury product. On computers I'd like to have the most bang for my buck, and with macs you can't get that. Sure, it may provide a nice user expierience, but that isn't worth the extra money IMHO
***** But if you use a computer as the main entertainment device in the house daily than the difference does'y really matter, and then the build quality of a tank, the battery life, the looks, the lightness and thins make themselves a lot more important than a few hundreds of bucks. Plus, most Apple devices have higher life spans, either from high quality build or frequent and more along term software updates, and higher resell value, so the investment pays off.
Nitay A. But IF I use it as the main entertainment device, then the amount of games I can play on it is much less. Also, I don't particularly care about how thin a laptop is or how heavy. And as I have stated, why would I use a device which makes me feel sick when I look at it?
***** What animations are you referring to? I've never noticed any.
Enlightenment Like when you minimize a window and it looks like it's peeling it of the desktop or something like that
In my experience, this is the most salient difference between Windows and OS X: Microsoft decided to corner a certain market by investing in DirectX, so that game developers could really lock down their usage of graphics cards and make really incredible experiences for gaming. Apple decided to corner a certain market by investing in CoreAudio and CoreMIDI, so that audio interfaces and MIDI controllers work effortlessly, making it the premier platform for audio engineering and music production. Obviously there are other perspectives based on other computing needs, but those are the big ones for me.
In general a Mac is a PC.
PC = Personal Computer.
Mac's are computers, therefore if a Mac is for personal use it is a PC.
PC is not a brand, but technically not a technical term -- the original meaning was simply "personal computer" (often used synonymously with "home computer," even if its become popular to use it to mean "Windows computer." It was at first applied to Ataris, Apples, Commodores, etc. -- then, when the "IBM clones" (as they were at first called) became dominant PC became associated with them (and eventually Microsoft replaced IBM as the basis of the label). But the core, literal meaning is simply "personal computer" -- Mac is a brand, there is no actual brand called "PC," the label gets applied to many brands and to brandless machines people like me build themselves.
Jared Blackburn Thank you for sharing that, me personally get a little bit annoyed when people refer pc's to windows computers and windows computers only. :)
Whatever -- the meaning of words is arbitrary -- therefore PC means any absolutely, undeniable mean personal computer because I say it does and that makes it true -- its the meaning I choose so that's the meaning it has. People want to complain about this being here and having comments, yet hippocritically make more because they clearly care more about this than I ever did when I pointed out the original meaning of PC, that was universal in my day and which I prefer. Whatever, this is going on MUTE now because I really don't care or see arguing -- I have defined reality and so it is.
Jared Blackburn IBM's line of personal computers were called PC/XT, PC/AT, etc. So "personal computer" is the general term, "PC" is the model line, if not an actual brand name. IBM's decision to make the PC architecture an open standard has, of course, done a lot to confuse the issue. Strictly speaking, of course, all the non-IBM brands of personal computers are "PC-compatible," not PC's themselves.
Just as a matter of general interest, you might like to know that the graphical user interface used by the Apple operating system and by Windows was developed in the early 1970's by Xerox at its Palo Alto Research Center, under contract to the U.S. Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), as part of the development of what eventually became the Internet.
Shawn Hawkins No one ha a superiority complex, its just the common way to differentiate the two OSs that originated from Apple's marketing. No need to over react, PC peasant.
It's good to see that there's still an unbiased viewer here...
I'm saving this video just so I can study his accent! So CUTE!!! xD
I've learnt all of this in my current course am doing right now. But a great video never the less.
I'm so confused. Are we talking about hardware or software? "Mac vs PC" is a very confusing term because there is so much confusion about where the operating system begins and the hardware ends, many people do not even know what an OS is!, let alone that there are many more besides Mac OS and Windows. Besides, a Mac IS a PC. :S
+CowLunch "Mac vs PC (vs Linux)" is an OS conversation now; they all run on "PC" hardware.
angelikmayhem I would agree but I feel like part of it was about the hardware though so I'm still confused. I think it was a bad idea to lead in with a title that echoes mainstream ignorance about computing.
+CowLunch How can this possibly confuse you? Is has been convention for decades to refer to Macs as apple software running on apple hardware and PC as any other hardware running windows or linux. Also, he covers the hardware/software issue in the video.
bbbb111111 Asking questions is a way of highlighting a point without coming across as combative or condescending. I don't actually need the question answered, I just wanted to talk about the issue of how those terms could be confused.
+CowLunch Some history may be in order here. Originally, the Macintosh was a proprietary system, made by and/or for Apple, and the details of which were a trade secret. IBM promulgated the PC standard as an open-source hardware standard, which other manufacturers were invited to implement as well. (IBM's own products were the PC line--PC/XT, PC/AT, etc., and everyone else's products were termed "PC-compatible.") The unifying factors were the Intel 80x86 chip (the latest version of which is the current incarnation of Pentium) and the Disk Operating System (DOS), which IBM hired an unknown software startup called Microsoft to write for them. As Microsoft began to dominate the PC world, IBM receded into the background, especially once Microsoft released version 3.1 of Windows, which was the first Windows version to actually implement the graphical interface designed at Xerox PARC under contract to ARPA (as part of ARPA's efforts to design and develop the Internet), and which the Mac OS already implemented. The situation has only gotten more complicated from there, but therein lie the beginnings of the rivalry.
Perhaps someone who lived through all this ancient history can be forgiven for viewing the rivalry between Microsoft and Apple as being essentially similar to the rivalry between the Yankees and the Red Sox, but there still persist the ethos of an open standard on the one hand (however diluted) as against the ethos of a proprietary system on the other (again, however diluted).
As he mentioned linux is open source, but a rather important thing to add to this i'd say is the abilty to recompile the kernel, thus optimising for your specific hardware, and that's why it has an important edge in non-consumer market, some consumers (or rather tweakers and enthusiasts) do care about it too.
Linux master race! Superior customization, superior software system, superior morals.
And a superiority complex to boot
Please more technical explanation about computers with this guy !!
Did he just call Linux an operating system?
For 90% of the people, Linux is an os. Get over it.
nosuchthing8 I think you mean OS family but yes, it's an OS.
When you correct people for calling Linux an operating system you only make the open source community look like pretentious douchebags.
That's because they are :P
@Helliosophist You're kind of proving my point with the tone of your reply.
Mac = for people with visions. PC = for people with actual jobs.
Could you make an entire video on Linux?
by Linux you mean just the kernel, right?
No mention about UNIX origins of Linux and MacOS, file system differences and limitations, or file permissions? And a Mac _is_ a PC.
Dear Computerphile
There are a number of things wrong in this video:
1. Linux is not a port of Unix, it is a Kernel that is used commonly with the GNU operating system.
2. Linux is not an operating system an operating system if it was it would be the most useless operating system ever all it would do is load itself into memory, for an operating system you also need a base set of utility and applications. Most people referring to Linux are in fact referring to GNU + Linux, or in some edge cases GNU kFreeBSD but that is even worse as there is no Linux in that.
3. FreeBSD is opensource OSX is based upon FreeBSD therefore parts of OSX are open source, GNU + Linux however is free software, there is a clear distinction between the two opensource means only that the code is available at the moment, not ensuring that the code will remain open in the same way as free software.
4. Windowing systems and GUI toolkits are generally thought of as library software, hence are bellow application software in the stack. The kernel and it's drivers handle input and output devises then send it to either the application directly or a windowing system that then sends appropriate signal to the users application.
5. You neglected to mention the fundamental differences between *nix (OSX, GNU + Linux) and dos (Windows, free dos) like operating systems. Such as the way *nix uses the idea of connecting small utility applications together for a larger purpose, where as dos would prefer a minority of large applications that do everything.
I appreciate that you are trying to put these videos on a level for children, but it is not an excuse for being wrong; also you are really under estimating children.
Fantastic! I had no idea Mac had a smoother pipeline from hardware->application than Windows did before this video, much less why the Mac systems itself are so much more expensive.
they're so much more expensive solely because they get away with it, there's no technical reason there.
PCs and mac are the same inside. Only difference: Macs are $1000 bucks more expensive, have aluminum cases which get warranty void if you open them, come with software which is uncompatible with almost everything, and though it works smoothly 99% of the time, that 1% of the time when it works badly, noone in the world will be able to fix it and it will give you nightmares. Just for objectiveness's sake, apple monitos are freaking awesome, but expensive as heck.
mac or pc?
this guy: "doesnt matter because either way youre not on linux."
Which doesn't even agree with the rest of what he says. He says that Apple has an advantage because it only has to make its applications work on one hardware platform, which they understand because they invented it. Which instantly gives Apple an advantage over Linux. What he doesn't mention is what Microsoft did to fix their biggest compatibility issues in the 1990s: they developed a set of Windows compatibility tools, which they gave to developers. If your hardware could pass all of Microsoft's compatibility tests, you could have reasonable confidence that Windows and Windows applications would work on it. And without passing these tests you could not slap that "Windows Compatible" sticker on it. Linux has no such thing. Linux has to assume you're going to install it on a Windows compatible machine OR a Macintosh, and has to work with either one. Which has turned out to be usually enough, especially once Apple came up with Boot Camp, a Windows installer for the Mac. But even today, Linux has the burden of having to work with any hardware, even hardware that ISN'T Windows OR Mac compatible. I'm looking at YOU, Raspberry Pi.
Specific case in point: installing Linux on a MacBook. Most MacBook Pro models have more than one graphics chip. They have the one that's built into the chipset for the CPU, and they have a second GPU for high performance applications that need it. But the high performance chip uses LOTS more power than the chipset graphics. Mac OS knows about this, and defaults to the low-power GPU, and Mac applications also know about this, and they switch to the high-performance GPU if they need that. What does Linux do? It just runs on the high-performance chip all the time. Result? Runs hotter, burns through batteries twice as fast.
"by PC we are referring to machines running Windows or a variant of Linux" - what about BSD tho
Ah ha, BSD isn't Linux. Allow Mac OS X (Apple) to stand in for BSD here.
@@rodericktimmerman9779 pretty sure our guy here meant the vanilla, free to use BSD, not Apple's Darwin
Wow! I never really knew what drivers were or were for. What a great video :)
If MACs strength is that the OS and Hardware are designed for each other, then it's a fail. I've run Windows 7 on a MacBook Pro for years, and benchmarks for both Operating systems, on the same machine, shows Windows with a slight advantage. Novabench score for Mac OSX was 325, the same benchmark for windows 7 (with correct drivers) is 375. Why? Because Mac makes too many choices and does not allow for optimal hardware functioning. Form over function, Style over substance.
There is one major difference not mentioned in this video. That would be the diversity and depth of applications available for either platform. Not just weather apps and social media apps, but full blown productivity applications that are accepted as industry norm.
I kind of wonder how people would react if someone tried marketing a commercial, command line-only operating system again.
Linux on a server is typically command line by default.
But not a commercial system that my aunt or your little sister would use.
(Unless your little sister is a computer scientist, of course.)
Non-nerds would never buy it, and they'd go bankrupt in a month. The irony is that a lot of Linux is terminal work. Then again...that might not be irony, since Linux is mostly a nerd OS anyway :P
To the server market? No problem, around 60% of the servers on the internet are Unix based, Unix servers generally come without a window system as that wastes resources that could be used serving data. To the desktop market though, not a chance.
coming from a long term mac and pc user I like my pc for standard work. Mac is more of a play machine because of all the cool features it comes with
why is the camera man swaying is he on a swing?
Because it's "cool" and "hip" and "engaging" and "modern" and whatever other weird reasoning is going on in Haran's and Riley's heads ...
mycollegeshirt the guy is high, sometimes you have take stress away at work.
I think he's falling asleep because this is all so boring to him.
You see, the problems I have with (most) of apples products is how closed off they are, you can't quite change your graphics card on a mac. As well as the fact that their products are almost always overpriced (although phones more than computers). And last but not least I believe that if you build your own computer, and know what goes into that computer, as well as what it can do, you are able to do more and make better decisions as a user.
same goes for cars, but how many people build their own cars? the majority will gratefully pay more for a simple to use and well working system.
That accent is awesome
I remember those days when you had to insert an MS-DOS floppy into the drive before you turned it on, so it would load when it booted. And then you had to run an autoexec.bat file and really protect the first 640k of memory because some programs, like games, would need so much of that base memory to launch and if you didn't, you would get the dreaded "NOT ENOUGH BASE MEM TO RUN" message. You would have to load MS-DOS into high memory to free up the base...I had a whole library of floppys to boot up for each different program I loaded. I don't miss those days.
This video had the potential to be a lot better. He spent far too much time talking about the hardware, when in actuality aside from the case most PCs and Macs nowadays are exactly the same. There is, however, a huge difference between OSX and Windows - and that's what the time should have been spent on. He opened the video with this nice big chart he drew and then didn't relate back to it at all.
I like the smart-assery involved in insisting to put PC in quote marks. PC, by its etymology doesn't simply mean personal computer, but was the trademarked name of a specific computer model released by IBM in 1981. A PC in this sense is not just any personal computer, but a computer that follows the line of ancestry from "IBM PC and compatibles".
The biggest difference is that Apple’s software design has good taste, and Microsoft’s is utterly tasteless.
I know it doesn't apply anymore, but since the "origins" were discussed.. how about RISC vs CISC discussion?
GNU'S NOT UNIX
I know. You'd think he would know this, if he's going to talk about Linux.
Mac vs. Windows should have been the title, honestly.
I'd love to see a real comparison between the OSes on the same hardware.
There are some rather outdated views on the differences between Macs & PCs expressed here. Sure, Apple is both a hardware and a software company, but with respect to the Mac at least, they have much more in common with Dell or HP: They all assemble a stack of 3rd party components into a working computer. Apple generally doesn't develop drivers for 3rd party hardware any more than Microsoft does. They just certify them internally and include them in system updates, rather than allowing the 3rd party company to directly push drivers to end-users. Since Apple made the move to Intel CPUs, the hardware gap has narrowed to basically nil. a Core i7 is a Core i7, whether it's running OS X or Windows, and the number of companies providing CPUs, GPUs, chipsets, and other internal components for Macs & PCs could be counted on one hand. That basically leaves external peripherals, like printers, scanners, keyboards, mice, USB drives, etc. Those devices are all expected to provide their own driver software for Mac or Windows, if no suitable built-in driver is available.
What is Amazing is that Linux have drivers pre-installed.
Had to use wi-fi on a Windows some years back, but it needed(?) drivers. Couldnt get Any since I didnt have Any CD and the USB receiver was supposed to supply the internet connection. The computer was too far away to be plugged in with regular cable as well.
I had a CD With ubuntu laying around, installed it. Plugged in the USB device, Bang - wifi!
Windows has basic drivers for almost everything pre-installed, but for the most important hardware you need the manufacturers' drivers to use them efficiently. Windows distributes certified drivers through Windows update nowadays so you don't even need to look for them.
100% excellent explanation,hit the nail right on the head.!
It's hilarious how insecure Apple haters get when you get an article or video that has a professional giving his opinion/facts and he's not universally bashing Mac's. They act like a great injustice has just been done upon them. It's actually quite entertaining.
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
+armoredp This is the internet. What, did you expect people to be civil?
+armoredp And yet, you are the one leaving defensive comments accusing people of being "Mac haters" without even understanding what their points are.
This is the internet, where no-one is civil and no-one is true.
But PC is better, so....
It's hilarious how pompous Mac-users are when comparing with PC.
Confirmation bias at its finest.
So my $1100 custom PC has just a little better specifications than a $3000 Mac, yes, a Mac is better optimized, but even counting that, my PC is just a little bit slower if not as fast. The price difference is not worth it, build your own PC.
And you play trove knight with it.
Watsonisawesome I do other things as well, and I rarely play Knight.
***** Nah, I like Windows 10. And some apps I use can only run on Windows 8.1 or higher.
'Apple tests their software for their hardware' ... lol, how mayn updates did they screw things up? I kinda stopped counting ...
But, what are the main structural (if any) difference between the CPU or a Mac and PAC? What does Windows do that iOS doesn't and vice versa?
Would this be a fair (broad) comparison?...
Apple is let's say an Aston Martin, desirable and handles well "out of the box".
"PCs" are a Ford Focus, all most people need but can be easily upgraded to handle as well, if not better than an Aston Martin if you know what you're doing and buy the correct parts.
More like Apples are cheap coupes: look quite shiny in the show rooms, seem quite fast on paper but in the end you're stuck with the same speed limits and traffic lights as everyone else, you just spent more than the average car. PCs on the other hand are every car that has ever and will ever be built: wide range of performances, wide range of styles, wide range of purposes and of course a wide range of costs.
You dont need to buy any parts..
Ha, very good. I was just sitting and trying to come up with a good car analogy but couldn't get one that fits as well as yours. I was thinking the Mac was an Audi R8 - the average driver could get it around the track pretty quick. But I was struggling to think of a car that was cheaper, built less well and slower than the average driver but quicker in the hands of a professional driver....maybe something like a Caterham 7 CSR?
Any pseudo-nerd male like myself should NEVER buy a mac. Simply a waste of money but it's soooo hard trying to explain this to arrogant hipsters.
This would be true if they were in fact the same car under the hood. What you are really talking about is a Chevy Suburban and a Cadillac Escalade. They are identical mechanically, but the Escalade has a badge so someone is going to pay a 50% premium because of the bling.
If you consider prices, pc's will outperform mac's when they're equally priced. Even without knowing what your're doing, you'll almost certainly get a better machine if you spend the same money on a pc instead of a mac. Probably even a beautiful one, which handles fairly well, nowadays. But then of course you won't get dat desirability. That feeling of consolidation and careful design and new born baby smell you get with brand cars such as Aston Martin.
Thanks to Professor Tom for plain and simple explanation. Now I have the knowledge :D
The difrence betweem Windows and Linux:
Browser freezes
Windows: Can you please shut down plox?
Linux: KILL IT KILL IT WITH FIRE!
Clearly you've never used task manager on windows. XD
The nuclear option is present and accounted for, it's just not the default choice. XD
KuraIthys except when task manager freezes
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Driver Signing kind of circumvent the need for mass testing of third party hardware? Saying Apple is "better" because its on its own hardware seems a bit biased if you're not mentioning the fact that most third party hardware requires drivers which must be tested by Microsoft. Of course that's also one way that Microsoft keeps its costs low, pretty much any hardware with a Signed Driver has to give MS a cut of its sales. At least that is what we were taught in Basic Operating Systems.
Are you that desperate for traffic? What's next? vi vs. emacs?
Very interesting video. The diffenece between the systems is larger than presented, but alot of basic concepts are simular, that is true.
But but but, what about hackintoshes?
I think they have to talk legally or something, Hackintoshes do not make up a significant enough market share so they sorta discount them... :(
Yeah, they aren't the most popular option, but I still think it's rather interesting. And it's not like it's illegal to talk about them. MKBHD did a whole series about how to build one.
Yeah but I think they are illegal? Its kinda piracy.. Idk :P
Not anymore, since OS X Mavericks is free and stuff :P
Free for Macs... Not anything else :P Idk lol
I was under the impression that the major split occurred in the 80's when Apple's RISC based hardware architecture was outpaced by developers' reluctance to adopt RISC as it was still emerging and CISC was a more mature and trusted design (even though RISC is superior we now know).
Window's 95 (and 3.1 I would assume) were designed for CISC and Intel was able to steamroll out evermore powerful CISC chip's to compete against Apple.