What makes a Mac a Mac?

Forums › Desktop computing › What makes a Mac a Mac?

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#138474 6-Jan-2014 09:58

OK. I am not an IT guy, I am a photographer who uses it.

So I have a question that will no doubt be obvious to all the IT guys!

I take two piles of bits and build two computers. One is built from Apple bits and one from say HP bits.

What is it about the Mac one that differs from the HP one? That is to say, is there a fundamental hardware difference between the two?

1 | 2

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#961770 6-Jan-2014 10:07

A MAC can run windows ...

And a PC, well with a bit of work, can run hackintosh.

What makes a Mac a Mac is that its shinny, well designed, and nice to look at. A PC, well its normally cheap, made out of cheaper components and generally not as nice to look at. As for the internal components, not much of a difference as all the new Macs use Intel processors. The older ones had PowerPC processors which were unable to run Windows.

Edit: Unsure if talking about hackintosh violates the T&C of geekzone. My apologies if it does

gehenna

8667 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#961771 6-Jan-2014 10:08

No real difference in the usual components - CPU, memory, hdd, etc. Big difference in the logic board design compared to a usual motherboard. But effectively the only difference in a Mac these days is the EFI BIOS and the Mac OS.

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1041

Trusted

Vocus

#961773 6-Jan-2014 10:11

And other manufacturers are already using EFI BIOS. So the real difference is MacOS, and hardware integration.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#961777 6-Jan-2014 10:16

To me it seems to be complete design from bottom up. Although when broken down to its parts its tomatoes v tomato's, excluding OS but the sum of all its parts, design, selection, assembly etc make a whole that is better than most.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1630
Inactive user

#961778 6-Jan-2014 10:21

simply you're not licensed to run the Mac OSX operating system software on non Apple hardware

clicknz

477 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 94

Trusted

#961780 6-Jan-2014 10:25

As another photographer who uses computers (never saw that coming when I started this career), I just started using Macs cos' that's what the designers and people I deal with where using... that was partly cos' of their looks but also due to the Mac's handling of various graphic and video files with 'on board' software.
Over the years I've come to appreciate the simplicity and tight integration of both hardware and software coming from the same company.

Cheers,
Mike

Photographer/Videographer clickmedia.nz

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#961783 6-Jan-2014 10:26

I also don't believe Mac is better overall, and neither is the MSFT. It boils down to "horse for courses" use what works best for you.

I currently use Mac, Windows 8.1, Windows 8.1RT , Linux, Android and Windows Phone 8

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

saeran

139 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 18

#961784 6-Jan-2014 10:28

Compared to a lower end consumer computer, Apple tends to use higher quality components, however when compared to business class computers. we're talking essentially the same stuff. Build quality is subjective.
Also if you run a Hackintosh (I do personally, along with my Macbook Air) you are violating a End User Licence Agreement with Apple, they wouldn't chase down an indivtual for doing so (many people have hackintosh's) however if you did a commerically, they will (look into Psystar if you're interested).

gzt

18671 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7805

Lifetime subscriber

#961790 6-Jan-2014 10:47

Take your pick:
a) You cannot install OSX on any other hardware
b) Apple is a design centered company
c) The Mac user experience is consistent across the model range
d) Apple is not Microsoft
e) All of the above

Batman

Mad Scientist
30012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#961821 6-Jan-2014 12:11

gosh what a question. think of mac as an european car and pc as a japanese car. both have tyres and seats and doors and use the same fuel.

but there are some internal differences although a lot of the parts are the same, the unit controlling them are very different, and the softwares are not interchangeable. while the japanese car might let you manually open up the fuel hatch for example, the european car's fuel hatch might be controlled by a computer that needs a special tool (laptop + jack) to access in the event of a hatch-fail-to-open you cannot fill up your petrol tank even though it's right there ... that's the beauty of the mac. easy to use, hard to fix!

same but different eh

wasabi2k

2102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 860

#961828 6-Jan-2014 12:22

Hardware wise - next to nothing.

As has already been said - they run on an x86 platform - there is nothing unique there. Components can (but aren't always) higher quality than cheap PCs, but the same or less than business grade/high end PCs.

The hardware platform is also dictated by apple - so they can build their OS to run on a small number of specific hardware platforms - rather than the eleventy billion permutations possible with PC hardware. Much of a PC's reputation for instability normally comes down to rubbish drivers. However it means I can buy a brand new video card as long as drivers are available - without worrying if Apple decides they want to support it.

Software wise - it's BSD with Apple over the top - you can love it or hate it - it's software.

If Apple wanted to they could make OS X run on standard PCs - Hackintosh boot CDs do this - but that will probably happen after hell freezes over.

The new Mac Pro is again - high end PC components, but in a very different chassis. I can appreciate the coolness factor there - but as long as people are aware you can build a MORE powerful PC for less money - it just won't look as cool.

If you like OS X and Apple devices good for you I am glad you are happy - just don't go telling me how Windows is rubbish.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Buzz Bumble

332 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 56
Inactive user

#961860 6-Jan-2014 13:39

The older ones had PowerPC processors which were unable to run Windows.

Technically true, PowerPC Macs can't run Windows natively, but they can run Windows under Emulation - the commercial product was VirtualPC, but there are also shareware options. Some of the older Macs were also able to have a card plugged in which basically gave you a full Windows PC in the same box (at one point Apple even sold one model of Mac with such a card pre-installed).

As others have said, from a component point of view, there is not really any difference between a computer from Apple and a quality computer from HP / Dell / etc. these days. The main difference comes in the overall design and the Mac OS.

Also, although less of an issue these days, because Apple makes both the hardware and the system software, they have a known set of hardware they need to support, which gives greater stability and less bug problems. Microsoft on the other hand is a software only company (in terms of computers anyway) and has no real control over the hardware, so Windows has to try and deal with a much bigger range of weird bits and pieces being cobbled together by manufacturers and hobbyists, which is often the cause of the issues and conflicts some people have. This known set of components also makes it somewhat easier for other software and hardware companies making Apple compatible products.

gehenna

8667 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#961870 6-Jan-2014 13:45

Since the switch from Motorola to Intel the technical architecture has been much the same as the PC world, which is why Windows/Linux virtualisation has been possible since that change.

Buzz Bumble

332 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 56
Inactive user

#961977 6-Jan-2014 16:20

Since the switch from Motorola to Intel ...

There are on-going rumours of Apple switching again. For a while the rumour was they were going to switch from Intel to AMD, but more recently the rumours have them switching from Intel to their own ARM-based A-series processors (as used in the iPad and iPhone).

wasabi2k

2102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 860

#961981 6-Jan-2014 16:29

Buzz Bumble:
Since the switch from Motorola to Intel ...

There are on-going rumours of Apple switching again. For a while the rumour was they were going to switch from Intel to AMD, but more recently the rumours have them switching from Intel to their own ARM-based A-series processors (as used in the iPad and iPhone).

Yeah - sounds like a bit of a dick move.

Intel to AMD wouldn't be major.

x86 to ARM - yeesh. No virtualisation - no software compatibility..

x86 is a LOT more capable in a huge number of areas than any ARM implementation. Raw power wise there is no contest - ARM doing video encoding? I'll take my i5/i7 thanks.

They would effectively be moving the walled garden to a pacific island surrounded by sharks with lasers on their heads.

We saw what a raging success Windows RT was - what was everyone's main issue - I want my apps.

1 | 2