Topic: Macs (Read 22997 times)

CamelFilters · « **Reply #50 on:** 08 May 2005, 08:04 »

Quote from: Kanno

Quote from: CamelFilters
we put vegas and soundforge against pro tools just for sound issues.

I rock the 17" G4 Powerbook, and I use pro tools all the time. It's a powerful little box, when I'm out doing live sound I can run 18 tracks straight from the board into my powerbook just fine. It could use a little bit more plug-in power, but it IS a laptop.

Other than that, I've had it for a while now, hasn't crashed yet. It does everything I've asked it to flawlessly. And it's nice and shiny.

the only things i can say i don't like about pro tool are:
a) depends on own hardware to function, so there is no way you can copy it.
b) it's windows are huge and one needs two 21" monitors just for usability.

apart from that it's a damn good tool. in fact i think is the only piece of software i know that actually deserves to have "pro" on the name.

Druid · « **Reply #51 on:** 08 May 2005, 13:49 »

Quote from: CamelFilters

se what you've done! you've put doubts in my fragile litle mind. now i'll just have to test vegas as soon as i stop depending on my school for propper hardware.

Sorry.

Kanno · « **Reply #52 on:** 10 May 2005, 05:16 »

Quote from: CamelFilters

b) it's windows are huge and one needs two 21" monitors just for usability.

cmd-= my friend, cmd-=

(command equals. makes non-stop rocking {protooling} possible.)

Sideways · « **Reply #53 on:** 10 May 2005, 10:20 »

The Mac UI (User Interface) is truly a thing of beauty.

Macs are also more efficient graphics processors, in general. Of course, you can upgrade your PC to high heavens (like mine) but most Macs, right out of the box, are better suited for high-end graphics applications (Photoshop, Maya, etc).

Macs are more intuitive, they tend to have less errors, they have a less complicated file installation protocol, and they are pretty.

PCs are much better for gamers, as many (actually most) games STILL don't come out for Mac... and if they do, it's through an often buggy port, or through the publisher themselves but delayed by months and months.

City of Heroes has been out for over a year, you still can't play it on a Mac.

nihilist · « **Reply #54 on:** 10 May 2005, 12:15 »

The whole "Macs are better for video/gfx" thing is somewhat passe, in my opinion. I firmly believe that there is no real reason to choose one over the other except for personal choice. You think the GUI is better, cheers. Some people don't (or won't). Others think that Linux is the way to go. Still more think that GUIs in general are evil, and a console is all you need.

The best G5 ($3800 CDN) comes with a Radeon 9650, in AGP format. Seriously. You can buy a top of the line Dell (single processor, 3.4GHz, dual core) with an ATI X850 XT PE PCI-e for about $2500 CDN. Or, you can buy a dual Opteron 242 with 2GB RAM and an nVidia Quadro from HP for about $3500. If you're feeling adventerous, you can put your own system together.

Quick example:
Tyan THunder K8WE (latest dual-CPU motherboard)
2GB Corsair PC3200 (DDR400) Registered ECC memory (2*1GB)
2 AMD Opteron 246 (2GHz) CPUs
2 Asus GeForce 6800 256MB DDR video cards running in SLI mode
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
Maxtor DiamondMax 10 250GB SATA HD (7200RPM/8MB buffer)
Plextory PX-716SA Dual Layer DVD+/-R/RW (SATA, fuckers!)
Panasonic 1.44 Floppy
Antec Titan 550 Case

Total price: $3700 (CDN).

The difference? A whack more RAM and two fucking HOT video cards in the x86-based system, faster CPUs in the PPC system. Will SLI help for rendering? No, but even a single 6800 is faster than the 9650 that comes in the G5. Do the G5 processors stomp the Opterons? Probably not, due to the way that AMD designed their processors. I'd imagine that a dual core AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ would probably incinerate most any and every system out there.

So, yeah. Right out of the box, there's no huge difference between the best G5 available and a generic whitebox x86.

It's all about personal choice. :p

Kanno · « **Reply #55 on:** 10 May 2005, 14:54 »

I think it's been widely accepted that macs are just designer computers. They aren't better or worse than PCs, they do the same things. They just look prettier and have higher price tags.

Like a designer handbag or some crap.

Matteh99 · « **Reply #56 on:** 10 May 2005, 17:28 »

Mac's don't really cost all that much more than PC's.. Just to see I just built a Dell with basicaly the same features as the middle model imac. 160 gb hd, fire wire, real graphics card, antivirus, xp pro, 17 inch DVI lcd, 3.2ghz processor and it was $1435 and the imac is $1499. So the imac costs like $65 more but you don't have to worry about spyware or viruses...

You can build your own pc for cheaper or buy a dell for less money if you cut out some features. The dell is also more upgradeable but the iMac comes in a sleak all in one package. Overall I think they are pretty close both in spec's and price.

Eric

festerius · « **Reply #57 on:** 10 May 2005, 21:57 »

But the Dell has much more available software, being that it is running windows, and it's easier and mostly cheaper to upgrade it later down the road. You can actually find parts for a PC.

nihilist · « **Reply #58 on:** 10 May 2005, 22:07 »

Apple now uses more 'standard' parts, which is handy, but with the OS being pretty different, stuff isn't ported over as much. With GCC working under win32 just as well as under Linux, things are ported a lot more often. Even the GTK stuff is being ported, which is nice. OS X, on the other hand, is somewhat different. Yes, it's a BSD under the hood, but the GUI on top is... unique. (And round. Oh god, it hurts.)

LiterSize · « **Reply #59 on:** 10 May 2005, 23:11 »

I want to make the jump to a mac, mainly because I think macs are a bit more user-friendly and I'm admittedly a friggin' idiot when it comes to working on my Gateway (yes, I work on a Gateway. Take my nerd/geek card away)

Addius · « **Reply #60 on:** 10 May 2005, 23:57 »

If I'd ever buy a PPC I'd probably just install Gentoo on it anyway so I don't really se the point. A note on the "MACs don't have neither viruses nor spyware".. It isn't true. It is not widespread, nor does it have the same "hatred" towards it, but do I need to point to the safari-hole? The more people that switches to Apples alternative the more viruses will spread and malware infest.

nihilist · « **Reply #61 on:** 11 May 2005, 00:41 »

Quote from: Matteh99

Mac's don't really cost all that much more than PC's.. Just to see I just built a Dell with basicaly the same features as the middle model imac.

I tested this out. The mid-leve iMac is a 2GHz processor, 512MB DDR RAM, 160GB HD, Radeon 9600. Cost in CDN moose money: $1849. A Dell 8400, which is nearly the top of the home PC line, with a P4 3.2 (the new one with 2MB cache), 1GB DDR2 RAM, 250GB HD, ATI Radeon X300. Amount of beavers require: $1968.

So, for $120 more, you get a significant boost in power. At least games would play nicely on the 8400.

So, I'll get back to my basic point. x86-based computers are generally cheaper and more powerful, but don't run OS X. Which, in my world, is not a problem. Windows XP is very stable for me, and hasn't crashed once in the past year, 18 months. Oh, yeah. The point. It's a personal choice thing.

Mebbe I'll install PearPC and give Tiger a go. :p

TheCourtJester · « **Reply #62 on:** 11 May 2005, 02:24 »

XP is stable enough that if there's a crash, it's most likely a problem between the keyboard and the chair, if you catch my drift.

I PREFER Windows because I do loads of video editing and like Premiere Pro 1.5 more than any of the other editing programs I've tried. I used to like Vegas because the old Premieres were INCREDIBLY buggy...then Pro came along

My last experience with a Mac (a fairly new one, no more than a few months ago) put me off of it. It was like the computer decided "I am gonna FREEZE now!" for no reason. I didn't like the interface or the programs either. It's all amatter of preference. I built the PC I'm working on now and haven't had any problems. BTW it's got an AMD 64 3200+, GeForce 6800 GT, 1 gig RAM, 200GB SATA HD (which is now all but 5% full because of the video stuffs), and a kickin soundcard with good speakers. All for well under the price of the afforementioned mid-range Mac.
It is NNNEAT.

Addius · « **Reply #63 on:** 11 May 2005, 04:05 »

nihilist, that X300 would hold you back if you planned on playing any videogames. PCs mostly come to their real justice in price when they are built from scratch.

nihilist · « **Reply #64 on:** 11 May 2005, 06:15 »

As an entry level videocard, the X300 is still better than the 9600. Granted it's not an X850 or 6800, but it is functional.

Built from scratch generally makes it more expensive. When I go out to buy a new computer, I spend months researching all the parts I want, and generally end up getting the best that I can find. That's how I ended up with a dual Athlon MP 2800+ as a workstation. (Which is now a server, and my current workstation is a P4-based system.) Tier one or tier two vendors make some compromises, but because of the quantities they buy, etc, they can put pretty good systems together for not so much cash.

Unless it's Alienware. They're stupid pricey.

mosfet · « **Reply #65 on:** 11 May 2005, 06:49 »

i think I've said earlier in another thread that its all about the developers. Mac and PC hardware is about the same. Its mostly about who makes what software for what OS.

The only reason Macs aren't "gaming comps" is because people 1. don't make as many games for OSX as they do for Windows. and 2. When people do port games to OSX, they don't spend any time optimizing it and it ends up running like crap.

Personally I like OSX/Macs better than PCs. Too many years being a sys admin has me leaning towards the Linux/OSX side of things. I'll always keep a PC handy to do certain things with, but if at all possible I try to go mac.

Arent the X300 and 9600 essentially the same core?

nihilist · « **Reply #66 on:** 11 May 2005, 07:01 »

Nah, the X300 is a cut down version of the new chip (R420?) and the 9600 is a cut down version of the prior one. And the X300 is PCI-e, though that doesn't really count for much.

The OpenGL implementation under Windows is pretty good, since it's had years of refinement. Also, with DirectX being built right into the OS, you can get a lot of goodness out of it. I wouldn't really blame developers for making games run poorly on OS X; I believe that a lot has to do with drivers, and the OS itself.

mosfet · « **Reply #67 on:** 11 May 2005, 07:57 »

The big problem comes when developers port over games from directX to openGL, but they only do a rough job at translation, not spending time to find the optimum functions and reprogramming for OpenGL performance.

One example of this is WoW. Blizzard admits to the issue but is only slowly fixing it. Unfortunately its most likely a manpower and money issue, but this leads on to the next problem below.

The other big problem is the vicious cycle of the "stereotype"
People think Windows is better for gaming
So Management and Marketing focus on Windows.
Development then focus on Windows.
People see theres all these cool games for Windows but hardly any for OSX.
People then think "Windows is much better for gaming"
- repeat process -

Unfortunately this sort of goes for Linux as well. I'd like to see more games for that OS as well.

Apple has their own equivelent of DirectX which I wouldn't mind seeing people take advantage of as well.

nihilist · « **Reply #68 on:** 11 May 2005, 13:15 »

I don't think that you can simply things down to a stereotype, as it were. Remember, OS <number/character here> has been around for longer than Windows. The stereotype was that consoles were for gaming, and that computers were for computing. It wasn't until Microsoft started building the DirectX API into its OS that things started to change. By giving developers lower level access to hardware, simplifying tasks, etc, they attracted developers to their platform. Sure, DX sucked at first, but MS kept pumping time and money into it, and look what they got out of it: a console.

It also helps developers that they can target a console with a large audience, and roughly 90% of all computer users at once by using one API. It's not so much that 'Windows is better' it is that 'Windows is ubiquitous.'

Remember that OpenGL has been around longer then DirectX as well, and look where it is now, compared to DX. You have certain game development shops that swear by it (id springs to mind), but the majority go for the easy route. Take EA. They can cover a huge swath of people by using DirectX. So, at the end of the day, it's a money-driven decision that probably won't change for a while. Either OpenGL steps up and starts covering the entire media aspect instead of just focusing on graphics, or... Well, not much. There are things like SDL that cover what I'm talking about, but don't have the acceptance of the industry.

Unified API is pretty much the thing that drives the game development industry. (And by development, I mean idiotically large companies that care more about their bottom line, their stock price, and upper management then about games.)

mosfet · « **Reply #69 on:** 11 May 2005, 13:31 »

I think we actually agree on most of this. I'm just bad sometimes at making points.

More marketing is whats needed. Market to the people and the developement companies. Make it worth developing for, and what not.

I guess it'd help if Apple sold more Macs then they do now, but then they need to make Macs more marketable with software in the first place. :p

Good news is, rumor has it that Apple is starting a gaming devision, that may help with making Macs more popular than they are now.

nihilist · « **Reply #70 on:** 11 May 2005, 13:53 »

I have my own specific beef with gaming these days, and the badness that has happened when it went from gamer/developer driven to marketing driven/corporate global domination.

Apple needs to do a few things to make their computers more popular: lower the price, open up the code in certain places, change their target audience from the hipster crowd. The biggest problem that I can see is that of the processor: the PPC core is entirely different from the x86 system. Porting is a serious effort, and one that requires a lot of time. If Apple made an API that developers could use, it'd probably make life a lot easier. Wonder how the new Xbox will touch this, since it's PPC based, will MS be releasing a version of Windows for the PPC? That'd be so goddamn funny, I'd have to die laughing.

mosfet · « **Reply #71 on:** 11 May 2005, 14:04 »

Actually I think I still have a copy of Windows NT4 for PPC in a box somewhere. But that was the IBM PPC, and not the Apple PPCs, Not that theres a huge difference.

I would love to see some competitively priced PowerMacs. I'm in the market for one right now, but that requires me selling my Powerbook first. (not to mention suddenly finding at least $1000)

nihilist · « **Reply #72 on:** 11 May 2005, 14:25 »

I'm trying to decide if I want to buy a Mac Mini, or one of the knockoffs. Mac Mini is cheaper, which is odd. But it's mini. And I'd just put Gentoo on it anyway.

mosfet · « **Reply #73 on:** 11 May 2005, 15:49 »

would that be a Gentoo Mini?

One of my fantasies involves a cluster of Mac Minis.

nihilist · « **Reply #74 on:** 11 May 2005, 16:00 »

Heh, I found a chassis that supports 4 mini-ITX motherboards at once. Via is churning out dual-CPU dual-core mini-ITX systems. I'd like to put 10 of those together. Not very fast, but cheap, quiet, low power, low heat. And clustered... Mmm.

Matteh99 · « **Reply #75 on:** 11 May 2005, 20:15 »

Quote from: Addius

If I'd ever buy a PPC I'd probably just install Gentoo on it anyway so I don't really se the point. A note on the "MACs don't have neither viruses nor spyware".. It isn't true. It is not widespread, nor does it have the same "hatred" towards it, but do I need to point to the safari-hole? The more people that switches to Apples alternative the more viruses will spread and malware infest.

I know it is possible for a mac to get a virus or spyware. However I haven't seen one yet. Probably 90% of all PC's that I work on have some sort of virus and even more have spyware. It will probably happen on the mac to but right now it seems pretty safe.

Can you name one virus for any version of os x? Because I can't.. Ok there have been security holes and I am sure there will be more.. But an actuall in the wild virus, not that I can think of.

Eric

Matteh99 · « **Reply #76 on:** 11 May 2005, 20:24 »

Quote from: nihilist

Quote from: Matteh99
Mac's don't really cost all that much more than PC's.. Just to see I just built a Dell with basicaly the same features as the middle model imac.

I tested this out. The mid-leve iMac is a 2GHz processor, 512MB DDR RAM, 160GB HD, Radeon 9600. Cost in CDN moose money: $1849. A Dell 8400, which is nearly the top of the home PC line, with a P4 3.2 (the new one with 2MB cache), 1GB DDR2 RAM, 250GB HD, ATI Radeon X300. Amount of beavers require: $1968.

So, for $120 more, you get a significant boost in power. At least games would play nicely on the 8400.

So, I'll get back to my basic point. x86-based computers are generally cheaper and more powerful, but don't run OS X. Which, in my world, is not a problem. Windows XP is very stable for me, and hasn't crashed once in the past year, 18 months. Oh, yeah. The point. It's a personal choice thing.

Mebbe I'll install PearPC and give Tiger a go. :p

Did you actually test the two or did you just look at the spec sheet? The spec's can lie either for or against. Mhz aren't everything and being able to process 64 bits does nothing unless you have an application written for it. For mac vs pc performance it really does seem to just be what application you are running. Apple can tweek their bench marks to make the mac look like it kicks ass and the other way around to.

nihilist · « **Reply #77 on:** 11 May 2005, 20:31 »

I wasn't debating the speed of the core system; I'm sure they have their strengths and weaknesses. Video encoding on a P4 is awesome because Intel tweaked the CPU to be that way. I was making a point that you can generally get a bit more bang (more RAM, better video card) for roughly the same price. I could argue the whole OS thing, but that's really a personal preference. In fact, that's been my point all along. While Apple is still priced a bit on the high side, they're not outrageous like they used to be. Yes, Windows has more applications. Same with Linux. However, Linux can run under PPC, though not everything has been ported.

So, yeah. It's personal. Some people like the 'trend' associated with Apple. Me, I don't. That's pretty much that.

Matteh99 · « **Reply #78 on:** 11 May 2005, 20:32 »

Quote from: nihilist

I'm trying to decide if I want to buy a Mac Mini, or one of the knockoffs. Mac Mini is cheaper, which is odd. But it's mini. And I'd just put Gentoo on it anyway.

I don't quite get why you would put linux on a Mac. You can compile most open source applications for the mac if you really want to.. The Unix part is already there, x11 is there. You can buy a bare bones PC with no os for alot cheaper than a mac. It seems silly to throw out all that software which you paid for...

Some one said there arn't as many software programs for the mac. Which is true but for most people the mac will do every thing a PC will. If you want bad software support try linux.. There is software out there but both mac and windows are easier..

Eric

Matteh99 · « **Reply #79 on:** 11 May 2005, 20:50 »

Quote from: nihilist

So, yeah. It's personal. Some people like the 'trend' associated with Apple. Me, I don't. That's pretty much that.

Yeah in the end it is personal preference. I have said the same thing in previous posts. However, most people are idiots (both mac and PC users) when it comes to computers and I think mac's are more idiot proof.

Last week I got ~150 emails because some idiot(s) at the school i work at (not the computer store) opened an attachment and got a virus and it sent a ton of emails. Sober.somthing.

I don't really like being part of the apple trend either.. But I would rather run a mac than a windows machine.

Eric
PS.
I posted this link a while back but I think it also fits in now and incase any one hasn't read it.. http://www.macsupportpro.com/~eric/mini/. It is a test between a mac mini and a dell dimension 3000.

nihilist · « **Reply #80 on:** 11 May 2005, 21:12 »

Let the fun begin!

Quote from: Matteh99

If you want bad software support try linux..

Oooh, that's a scary thing to say. I find that unless you have a crazy specific problem with open source software, there is support to be found everywhere. FOSS is very community driven, and people generally try to help out. I also like it because software that is free runs under both Linux and Windows. For me, it doesn't get any better.

Quote from: Matteh99

Last week I got ~150 emails because some idiot(s) at the school i work at (not the computer store) opened an attachment and got a virus and it sent a ton of emails. Sober.somthing.

That's not a problem with the OS itself. That's just a problem. Yes, that crap targets Windows-based PCs more, but it's like the whole gaming argument: it deals with market share. Target the popular systems. Besides, if you have a proper e-mail client, a proper mail server setup that filters that crap out, etc, etc, it wouldn't have happened. So stop blaming the OS.

Quote from: Matteh99

I posted this link a while back but I think it also fits in now and incase any one hasn't read it.. http://www.macsupportpro.com/~eric/mini/. It is a test between a mac mini and a dell dimension 3000.

Yeah, but that's a Mac person's view. You can get a Dell 3000 with a P4 processor for the exact same price. A P4 is far superior to a Celeron. So why test with a Celeron if not to favour the Mac? Tsk tsk. Besides, it's an apples-to-oranges thing. P4 has far greater CPU speed for a reason; it was designed to scale high, but doesn't perform well at lower speeds. Celerons are for people who just don't know. If you want to do things on a clock speed basis, I'd love to see a comparison between an AMD 4000+ (2.4GHz) and a G5 2.4GHz. Hell, throw in a Pentium M 2.4Ghz in there as well. Be a very interesting benchmark.

mosfet · « **Reply #81 on:** 12 May 2005, 02:54 »

I find sooo much worse software for windows than Linux.

Here you go: http://fink.sourceforge.net/
Use that and Fink-Commander to download a bunch of linux stuff to osx. Like I said, its BSD based, but that combined with fink and X11 lets you do some cool stuff.

It doesn't quite do what I want as RedHat would do, but I'm trying to make it so I can SSH into the mac and use it remotely. Like open a web browser and forward the GUI vis X11 forwarding. or other X11 apps. The goal here is forward X11. I could use VNC, but thats always slower.

-sam · « **Reply #82 on:** 12 May 2005, 04:36 »

Quote from: nihilist

I tested this out. The mid-leve iMac is a 2GHz processor, 512MB DDR RAM, 160GB HD, Radeon 9600. Cost in CDN moose money: $1849. A Dell 8400, which is nearly the top of the home PC line, with a P4 3.2 (the new one with 2MB cache), 1GB DDR2 RAM, 250GB HD, ATI Radeon X300. Amount of beavers require: $1968.

You're forgetting something very important in your price calculations. The iMac comes with iLife '05 (iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand) preinstalled. How much would it cost to purchase all that software for a Windows machine? Apple provides the total package my friend, the total package.

Spec-wise, Apple's not very price competative in the mid-range desktop market, but at the high end with the PowerMac, and all throughout their portable line they provide tremendous value.

Quote from: nihilist

Apple needs to do a few things to make their computers more popular: lower the price, open up the code in certain places, change their target audience from the hipster crowd.

Apple's target market has never been hipsters. That's the way it's shaken out, but Job's vision has always been far more egalitarian than that. The consumer end of the Apple product line is geared for people who want a computer "That Just Works(tm)." That lets people do a little bit of photo editing, a little bit of video editing, a little bit of sound editing. Apple has taken these fantastically powerful tools and taken them out of the hands of professionals and given them to everyone.

Quote from: nihilist

That's not a problem with the OS itself. That's just a problem. Yes, that crap targets Windows-based PCs more, but it's like the whole gaming argument: it deals with market share

It's not all security through obscurity. OS X handles things in a more sane way than Windows. There's no registry to speak of, if I'm installing an app that's going to affect the system I have to type in my admin password, even if I'm logged in as an admin of the machine. It's all that *nixy goodness.

mosfet · « **Reply #83 on:** 12 May 2005, 05:15 »

Theres no registry, but there is a whole crap load of xml based files!

Gotta love the simplicity of the OSX interface layed over the *nix security! The moment we can afford it, I'm replacing my kid's PC with a Mac. That thing is an admin nightmare. I've pretty much locked the comp to keep her from breaking it... again... but now I have to go in there every other day to help her with this or that involving the crappy windows security settings.

McTaggart · « **Reply #84 on:** 12 May 2005, 05:48 »

If it can run Photoshop, it's a good computer.

Addius · « **Reply #85 on:** 12 May 2005, 15:12 »

mosfet: I fully agree that windows largest problem is its way of handing out rights to do this and that in a rather free manner. It wasn't always so but it was what the consumer wanted so they changed back =/

nihilist · « **Reply #86 on:** 12 May 2005, 15:25 »

Quote from: -sam

You're forgetting something very important in your price calculations. The iMac comes with iLife '05 (iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand) preinstalled. How much would it cost to purchase all that software for a Windows machine? Apple provides the total package my friend, the total package.

Using FOSS software, nothing. Using, ahem, otherwise acquired software, also nothing. Besides, the packages that people generally compare, like Photoshop, are very much not free. Besides, not all people like the iLife applications. Me, I'd be more likely to chop off a leg then I would be to use iTunes. The rest of the software provided by iLife is generally shipped with new PC hardware. Not pro stuff, but easy and functional.

Quote from: -sam

Spec-wise, Apple's not very price competative in the mid-range desktop market, but at the high end with the PowerMac, and all throughout their portable line they provide tremendous value.

Not really. I posted up above and debunked this. You'll get more bang for a bit less buck with an x86-based system.

Quote from: -sam

It's not all security through obscurity. OS X handles things in a more sane way than Windows. There's no registry to speak of, if I'm installing an app that's going to affect the system I have to type in my admin password, even if I'm logged in as an admin of the machine. It's all that *nixy goodness.

Every OS has its flaws, and typing in an admin password again isn't going to catch them. I mean, go sudo, but there are ways around that, especially if you're logged in as an admin. *nix stuff have flaws galore, just like every other piece of software.

Kelamin · « **Reply #87 on:** 12 May 2005, 17:21 »

I have to say i prefer pc's over macs because of the choice in components and the 'look' of the pc. I have to use a mac at uni and i hate it, mostly due to one fact.

'What can a PC user do that a Mac user can't?'
'right click'

mosfet · « **Reply #88 on:** 12 May 2005, 17:35 »

So you based your decision on Macs because you didn't go get yourself a new mouse?
Every mac user I know uses a scroll wheel mouse and uses right-clicks.

Thats like buying a Ford with stock hub caps and saying that all Fords suck because of the wheels.

if you could see me know, I'm right-clicking with my mac!

tehpie · « **Reply #89 on:** 12 May 2005, 19:25 »

Just to specify. I can run Warcraft 3 pretty darn well on my 1ghz, 380mb iBook G4, maxing out most of the video and it not lagging. My Athlon 1.7 ghz 512mb PC would only operate "kind of okay" on the lowest settings and a low resolution (note the graphics card on the PC was comparable to that on the iBook).

So any argument that a mac is not a gaming machine is out of the question.

Matteh99 · « **Reply #90 on:** 12 May 2005, 20:12 »

Quote from: nihilist

Using FOSS software, nothing. Using, ahem, otherwise acquired software, also nothing. Besides, the packages that people generally compare, like Photoshop, are very much not free. Besides, not all people like the iLife applications. Me, I'd be more likely to chop off a leg then I would be to use iTunes. The rest of the software provided by iLife is generally shipped with new PC hardware. Not pro stuff, but easy and functional.

In my experience the software shipped with new pc sucks a lot. Dell music match? Twice as slow as iTunes or you can uncripple it for 20 bucks. Free MSN and AOL trials. Preview editions of this and that. The mac does do the same thing but to a lesser degree. When I launch an internet browser for the first time the mac doesn't take me to a page that wants me to subscribe to Apple Internet like windows machines have a habit of doing with MSN internet. There are some things that do piss me off about mac. Quicktime should be able to play full screen without paying 30 bucks. But then as you have said for the windows side Open source stuff fixes a lot of things. No right click sucks.. but I use a track ball that won't ship with a new PC either.. The no eject button sucks. I like the key but I also want a button.

Also with the benchmarks I did I didn't plan on weighting it either way. I test the systems I HAD no the ones I wanted. I would love to get a dual operand and a g5 and benchmark the two. Or what ever else you mentioned. However I don't have the resources to do so.

I am also not a mac Only person. I ran windows for several years and I know my way around, I used linux for several years to. For me the mac is better than both. I didn't mind linux but some things are a pain to do in it. Video editing was tough. Kino isn't as user friendly as iMovie and Mactor was slow, and there is one other that I forget that i also tried.. Getting my iPod to work was a pain. I used gtkpod or some such thing which worked but was buggy. My laptop hates me when it comes to video card drivers... Modems are pain in the ass. I have only gotten one to work reliably and it was an old ISA thing. It probably worked because it was a real modem not a winmodem.

I guess what really started getting me pissed off at windows was being able to get a virus just by connecting to the internet. That was really uncool. I am smart enough not to get a virus from and email or from a file sharing program. Yes it is patched now but still really really uncool. I got welcha in the short amount of time I was online trying to get the patch to stop me from it. If os X ever get so it can be )#@)($ up that easily I will find some other os to use. Maybe by that time longhorn with be out and it will be really cool... I doubt it but it could happen.. Maybe I will live some place where I can get high speed internet so I won't have to worry about using modem in linux..

My comment about linux having bad software support was misdirected and misunderstood. I more meant it towards another person who said that there aren't as much software for the mac. I basically meant there is more software for mac than there is for Linux. Yes open source software and forums offer way better support than the guy in india you talk to when you call dell.

Eric

Druid · « **Reply #91 on:** 12 May 2005, 20:57 »

Quote from: -sam

Quote from: nihilist
That's not a problem with the OS itself. That's just a problem. Yes, that crap targets Windows-based PCs more, but it's like the whole gaming argument: it deals with market share

It's not all security through obscurity. OS X handles things in a more sane way than Windows. There's no registry to speak of, if I'm installing an app that's going to affect the system I have to type in my admin password, even if I'm logged in as an admin of the machine. It's all that *nixy goodness.

Take Firefox for example. It has garnered a significant market share, and now people are looking for way around it's security features. Security through obscurity goes both ways whether it's closed source or small market share.

Root is disabled on OS X machines, so you're never in a true root account. Windows can be setup to do the samething. Most people don't like the hassle of typing in a password when ever spyware wants to install. *ix isn't saner then Windows; it's just simpler. One approach isn't necessarily better then the other just different approaches.

I'd rather run FreeBSD on PPC hardware, so I can get a True unix. In fact I'm thinking about getting a used powerbook just so I can run FreeBSD on a PPC platform.

CamelFilters · « **Reply #92 on:** 13 May 2005, 06:38 »

c'mon people. you are arguing about preinstalled software? either you are all pro's who actually publish stuff and can have an inspector come along to check you HD or you can always get it very easily. of course i'm talking about freeware :P

i wish there was a "kernel" version of windows that you could use as a foundation for all the other stuff you need to use. the "other stuff" would start by the gui and all the other software you would eventually use.

on another subject: the osx gui is a load of bull, someone complained about the fisher-price interface on xp but i have to complain about the stainless-steel interface on osx. i like simple interfaces, as soon as i format my machine (wich i am eager to do) i'm installing lite-shell cause cute is not an adequate adjective for a computer.

mosfet · « **Reply #93 on:** 13 May 2005, 06:44 »

FreeDOS... now that was cool.

McTaggart · « **Reply #94 on:** 13 May 2005, 07:05 »

Quote from: CamelFilters

on another subject: the osx gui is a load of bull, someone complained about the fisher-price interface on xp but i have to complain about the stainless-steel interface on osx. i like simple interfaces, as soon as i format my machine (wich i am eager to do) i'm installing lite-shell cause cute is not an adequate adjective for a computer.

...another completely subjective arguement. I hated the way xp looked and felt so I changed it. Now it looks more professional and minimal. I haven't had sufficient chance to poke around with OSX but I refuse to believe you can't change the way it looks and feels. Either through the built in tool or through third-party software there is a way to do it.

mosfet · « **Reply #95 on:** 13 May 2005, 07:09 »

Just like Windows, with the right app, you can change the look of OSX.
Just as you can make XP look like OSX, you can also make OSX look like XP. My personal favorite for nostalgic reasons is the MWM/Motif look.

Kelamin · « **Reply #96 on:** 13 May 2005, 08:50 »

Quote from: mosfet

So you based your decision on Macs because you didn't go get yourself a new mouse?
Every mac user I know uses a scroll wheel mouse and uses right-clicks.

Thats like buying a Ford with stock hub caps and saying that all Fords suck because of the wheels.

if you could see me know, I'm right-clicking with my mac!

no my decision is based on the fact that i like the exchangeability of pc's for just about any component. Don't like it? Change it.

I can't change the mouse on the macs i am forced to use at uni, although i have thought about bringing my own in a few times

mosfet · « **Reply #97 on:** 13 May 2005, 09:00 »

Same thing is fairly true of macs. any of the usb ones at least.
I use PC usb mice, keyboards, media readers, drives, etc with my macs.

but yeah, when you can't change the mouse at uni, that sucks, but thats an issue with uni, and not the mac.

I bring in my own stuff to work all the time cause they're too cheap to get good stuff.

Funny story thats semi related is I had a friend that could touch type. So he took an iMac keyboard, popped it on a PC, opened notepad, and started typing out a paragraph really fast with one hand on the iMac KB, and on on the PC keyboard.

nihilist · « **Reply #98 on:** 13 May 2005, 10:13 »

Quote from: tehpie

Just to specify. I can run Warcraft 3 pretty darn well on my 1ghz, 380mb iBook G4, maxing out most of the video and it not lagging. My Athlon 1.7 ghz 512mb PC would only operate "kind of okay" on the lowest settings and a low resolution (note the graphics card on the PC was comparable to that on the iBook).

Warcraft 3 isn't exactly a good way to show what is good or not. Benchmark an FPS, not an RTS. RTS doesn't stress 3D in any way. Also, there is no way that WC3 should perform like shite on a 1.7 unless the OS is fucked up, improper drivers are installed, etc. I used to play it on my P3 933 no problem.

Quote from: Matteh99

n my experience the software shipped with new pc sucks a lot. Dell music match? Twice as slow as iTunes or you can uncripple it for 20 bucks. Free MSN and AOL trials. Preview editions of this and that. The mac does do the same thing but to a lesser degree. When I launch an internet browser for the first time the mac doesn't take me to a page that wants me to subscribe to Apple Internet like windows machines have a habit of doing with MSN internet.

I wasn't talking about complete systems per-se. When you buy a new video card or sound card or TV in card, they generally come with 'lite' versions of popular software. If you're only dabbling, that's plenty fine. Or, as CamelFilters states, you can otherwise get the software. The rest of the stuff (MSN firing up, etc) I cannot comment on, because when I reinstall XP and fire up IE, it doesn't ask me to sign up for MSN internet.

Quote from: mosfet

Just like Windows, with the right app, you can change the look of OSX.

I despsise using programs to change my look and feel. There is no reason why I have to run an app on top of my GUI to make it look different. The hacked uxtheme.dll for WinXP is pretty handy, so is the ability to change the shell. Yes folks, it is possible to use BlackBox as your shell for Windows instead of explorer.

CamelFilters · « **Reply #99 on:** 13 May 2005, 12:44 »

Quote from: McTaggart

Quote from: CamelFilters
on another subject: the osx gui is a load of bull, someone complained about the fisher-price interface on xp but i have to complain about the stainless-steel interface on osx. i like simple interfaces, as soon as i format my machine (wich i am eager to do) i'm installing lite-shell cause cute is not an adequate adjective for a computer.

...another completely subjective arguement. I hated the way xp looked and felt so I changed it. Now it looks more professional and minimal. I haven't had sufficient chance to poke around with OSX but I refuse to believe you can't change the way it looks and feels. Either through the built in tool or through third-party software there is a way to do it.

of course it's subjective, i was messing with the one who complained about the fisher-price interface.

on a more personal note: i share my machine (yes i know it's nearly a crime) with people who are not interested in gui changes and cannot do nothing about it.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Macs (Read 22997 times)

CamelFilters

Druid

Kanno

Sideways

nihilist

Kanno

Matteh99

festerius

nihilist

Addius

nihilist

Addius

nihilist

mosfet

nihilist

mosfet

nihilist

mosfet

nihilist

mosfet

nihilist

mosfet

nihilist

Matteh99

Matteh99

nihilist

Matteh99

Matteh99

nihilist

mosfet

-sam

mosfet

Addius

nihilist

mosfet

tehpie

Matteh99

Druid

CamelFilters

mosfet

mosfet

mosfet

nihilist

CamelFilters