What PC (I hope that's not copy righted!!)


Novice Member
I have all of my finances in place, I've read all the posting to get an idea of specs., I'm ready to move in and part with my money. The issue is, PC or MAC?
I know this is age old, but it still hasn't been properly answered. The PC I was going to buy would be a Medion Titanium for Aldi future proved spces and all. But I know from all I have read/heard/learnt that MACs are better for graphics. So in this PC dominated world, should I stay mainstream and relish in compatability or should I 'not be a number' and go Apple? Are PCs closer now to the MACs abilities? Could I get a MAC with as much power as the Medion for the same price. I think my head is going to explode if I ask anymore self searching questions! I value your opinions, and will use them in my final decision.


Novice Member
It depends what you are going to use your PC for? Proffesional or Home?

If pro then you'll probably get more respect from other pro's by getting a mac.

If it's not for pro use (or maybe it is, but you don't care) then get a PC.

Personally, I'd get a PC. Which I do use for home and pro use.

Certainly for video editing both PC and Mac each have their own pros and cons.

Duncan Craig

Active Member
I'd seriously consider the new Emacs from Apple, nice fast G4. Comes with free editing and DVD software, Firewire cable, Word Processing App, Music creation App. Photo Library App. And thay are really quite cheap. Don't get the model with the internal DVD Writer (Superdrive) get the combi model.

Compact machine and easily fast enough for editing, I still run Final Cut Pro on my old G3 and it runs well, A 1.2Ghz G4 will rip along nicely. Buy a DVD+- writer and stick it in an external Firewire case. While you are there get a nice big IDE HD and put that in an external case too.


Novice Member
Well lads,
Thanks, for that. one vote for each!!
I'm defientely not a proffessional, and being called an ameteur would probably insult other ameteurs!!
Duncan, you recommend a 1.2Ghz G4, is this better than a P4 3.0Ghz PC?
I know Windows probably uses the other 1.8 to brush it's teeth (or something else totally irrelevant!!) but there does seem a hugh disparity. (I don't know if that's a real word, but it sounds good!!)


Even in the pro world the performance of Mac to PC for video editing is getting very close. Add to that the fact that many of the newer editing packages are just not available on a Mac (Well the Macs own Final Cut Pro is so good so why bother?) and prices of all computer equipment is getting so cheap it is now more a case of what you know rather than what is best.
I would personnaly stick to a PC if I was upgrading because I know my way around many of the PC software packages and more so the OS. I can get my fingers dirty by going inside the case for upgrades etc etc. However I have never even used a Mac and therefore would have to learn everything from scratch. Any problems would also need far more help from others to solve. As I work in the IT industry and spend a lot of my time at work sorting out other peoples problems with PC's & servers I like to stick to what I know.
Also I still think that you will find upgrades for a PC to be a fair bit cheaper than the equivelent on a Mac ie RAM etc. Equipment that is specifically for a PC will be cheaper as it is made by 101 different companies pushing down prices, where as just about everything for a Mac is made by Apple or under licence pushing up the prices.

So my advice is to stick to what you know. If you know one platform but not another or even both but prefer one over the other then its easy. The problem is that if you don't know either my post has been of little or no help.



Novice Member
Thanks Mark,
I've been PC'd since '94 so i have a fair understanding of their gubbins. And I must admit to leaning towards the familiar. That's not to say I wouldn't go with a Mac. I think my main bone of contention is with what Dunc said about the 1.2 Ghz brain of the Mac. I find it hard to understand why a PC with twice it's power would come out second rate.
This time next week, I'll be writing this mail alot quicker!!


The thing is that an Intel & Mac processor are completely different architecture to each other (as is the AMD). Therefore the actual clock speed of the chip does not even closely relate to its performance from one to the other. If you look at an AMD chip it is called for example an Athlon 2000, but its clock speed is only something like 1800. AMD call it a 2000 as this relates its performance to the equivelent (P4 2Ghz) Intel chip. So I would assume the Mac processor to be far more efficient than an Intel, therfore a lower clock speed can give as good or better performance.

The above ramblings are just my take on the subject and may not stand up in a court of law :p

Top Bottom