In my flat there are both Apple computers and PCs. I use the PCs and my flatmate uses an eMac and a PowerBook. In the last 4 years, I've been noticing the issues that each OS encounters on a frequent basis. Neither type of OS is without glitches but each has its own personality that users should be aware of when buying a system.

The XP clock

Running Windows XP, I have not once managed to get the clock to update properly. This only sounds like an insignificant issue but in actuality it has made me miss trains before now. The clock will begin to lose minutes in a matter of weeks if it is not calibrated on a frequent schedule and for some reason it can't find the timeserver. On the other hand, Apple's operating system doesn't have any trouble at all keeping the time updated and it even accounts for daylight savings. A lot of techies try to get a definite answer to the question, "Which are better, Macs or PCs?" However, no one has anyone pointed out this glitch in any of the discussions. It looks like many people don't have to perform maintenance on both Apple and Windows computers, day in day out for a few months.

It's all about the CPU

Both systems were bought roughly at the same time and for approximately the same amount , so they ought to have similar processing power. Then again, Macs are normally dearer than PCs. Testing them side by side, we launch the same file in Photoshop and then apply some filters. The Windows-based system can repeatedly outperform the eMac by two times. If you want to use your system for Photoshop work, video encoding, or other CPU demanding jobs then you perhaps get more value for your money with a Windows computer.

Hibernation and sleeping

Lots of PCs are left running overnight. If you've driven past a block of offices at night you might have noticed many screen savers from computers that have not been shut down. This might not be because of sheer laziness, it may be because Windows isn't well designed to hibernate. In contrast, Apple computers will awake from sleeping in seconds and is then ready for use. Taking an electricity saving stand point the Apple wins easily - standby is available on some PCs but in my experience it often fails to wake.

Aesthetics

Everyone says that Windows XP was a monumental step forward from Windows 2000 or 98, but people say it isn't as visually appealing as OSX. Every part of the interface in OS 10 has been drawn to create a top notch presentation. This extra "eye-candy" sometimes does reduce the overall performance if you have a low spec Apple, but for the recent Intel Macs this should no longer be a problem.

Overclocking

This doesn't apply to many users, but overclocking is a fun technique to enjoy colossal speed increases from a budget PC . By running the processor at a higher "overclocked" speed you can get the kind of performance that you might expect from a system priced two times as much. I've seen Macs overclocked, but I think that there is far less support on the Internet for this type of pursuit.

Conclusion

In 2004, my PC was unquestionably the right machine to get in terms of value. If you're a totally non-technical user then the Mac would have been a more suitable choice. Currently, with the death of the Old PPC processor, I think that my next machine will probably be Mac Book Pro. The cost may be 15% more, but OS X is supposedly the best around, and every last program for the Mac is very impressive.

ComputerGuruZach is the author of Speed-Up-Windows-XP.com, a site that can teach you how to make your computer faster . Instead of complaining, "why is my computer slow", you can breathe new life into XP slow startup PCs.