Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: mridul on 15 October 2002, 19:26
-
Can any body please tell me how an apple computer running mac os is better than an intel pc running microsoft windows for a multimedia development center.
-
It isn't. Windows XP can do everything OS X can do on the multimedia front. All the Mac programs like all the adobe programs, flash, dreamweaver, etc. are also available for Windows. With Apple, you pay more money and you get more style, but that's usually all you get.
-
in my experience the mac is better than a windows pc. I am running a dual athlon 1.2ghz windows box and a 800mhz g4. i beat both macines up with heavy use all the time ( i am a graphic designer/animator). in lab controlled benchmarks the mac is either smoking the windows box, or they are very close, with the mac slightly ahead. In my own "real world" benchmarks, using photoshop, illustrator, golive, fireworks, flash and premiere, on both machines regularly, the mac wins. My mac has NEVER CRASHED. ever. my windows box crashes regularly, i have to restart the computer, or it BSODs on me, and restarts itself. If you are going to do video editing, the mac beats windows hands down. No drop in frames, very clean editing. i was also a skeptic about this mac vs windows thing. then i got a mac, running osX. after a little adjustment to a new OS, i would never go back to windows. NEVER. i admit, i still use windows, i use 3D Studio max. That is the only software i will use on windows now. granted, the mac does cost more, but you are paying for a system that works. and works well. when i compare how much i paid for the mac, and how much i paid for the windows pc, i can honestly say the mac was well worth it, and the pc, well, i would like to throw it out of a very high window. I guess it all comes down to personal preference. i like stability, style, and power, and the mac creates an environemtn for me where i want to design. I can focus on my work, instead of the computer.
I suggest giving it a try yourself, dont listen to anybody elses opinion of it. i would of course, try to push you to mac, where as XPUser372814712347891 will want you to use windows xpee. If you can get your hands on a mac, give it at least a month of testing and play around with it.
ecsyle one
-
The Mac hardware is designed by Apple, as is the OS. The PC hardware is designed by Intel and the OS is designed by M$. One company that does both parts knows exactly what is going on in the system, Intel has to compete with AMD, and it has to fight off M$ telling them what to design in, when their ideas conflict, you get discrepencies in design. Hence a good reason why Macs are inherently more stable.
I have had a Mac lock up twice, but I'm working on hardware that sits on the Internal bus (that's going to happen occasionally), with M$ I tried, but spent too long trying to just get things done on a day to day basis.
-
Quality is remembered long after cost is forgotten...
DJ
-
The simple reason Mac's are better than PC's is, as the poster(s) above me noted, quality vs. quantity.
Mac's are running OSX, a powerfull UNIX based OS that is nearly impossible to take down. There are no issues with viruses, or stability. There are no issues with hardware conflicts or compatability. Anything you want to do, you can do it with no hasstle at all. This is something I have never found possible in the Wintel world.
Mac's are well built machines that last far longer than PC's. A used Mac from 3 years ago is still worth something today, unlike PC's which pass like the leves in autumn.
The Mac isn't designed by a Monopolistic organization bent on dominating every aspect of the user experience (Refering to Intel and M$). Instead it's designed by a company which has allways had a strong commitment to Quality and bettering compouters for the common user.
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax:
Mac's are well built machines that last far longer than PC's. A used Mac from 3 years ago is still worth something today, unlike PC's which pass like the leves in autumn.
Funny, I still run several x86 machines that are over 4 years old, Lets not turn this into a discussion of hardware though because you will be stepping on many of us linux users feet. Instead lets focus on the software. Microsoft multimedia software is less capable.
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax:
Mac's are well built machines that last far longer than PC's. A used Mac from 3 years ago is still worth something today, unlike PC's which pass like the leves in autumn.
i think a reinterpretation of this would kepp away from the linux users feet. Mac's are well built machines that last far longer than windows PC's. Because with each new release of windows, the bloat and added baggage require you to "upgrade" your pc to the latest hardware, thus rendering the old hardware useless. Unless of course you run linux (which doesnt have the bloat or bullshit system requirements of windows), whose hardware maintains its value. i think that sounds right?!
ecsyle_one
-
quote:
Originally posted by xyle_one:
i still use windows, i use 3D Studio max. That is the only software i will use on windows now.
Why use get Virtual Coonectx for your mac install windows on the mac just for that peice of software and you will not need to use 2 pc's again?
Then with your windows box put nix on it! (http://smile.gif)
-
Hey arya! Welcome to the boards!
I use my Mac for all of my multimedia and web content design. OK, enough about me.
The Mac is better because:
Video:
It comes with excellent movie maker software, called iMovie. iMovie can import movies from a camera (and is the only movie editing program I have used that can import movies faster than real time, for example 2x or 4x), and add many special effects. The edited movie can then be sent back to the camera, or exported to about 50 different formats, including MPEG4.
http://www.apple.com/imovie/ (http://www.apple.com/imovie/)
If you get a Mac with a DVD burner, you can easily make DVDs with cool-looking menus with iDVD
http://www.apple.com/idvd/ (http://www.apple.com/idvd/)
If you need heavy-duty movie making software, Apple makes Final Cut Pro, which can do anything to any format you can possibly think of. Also, Apple makes Shake, DVD Studio Pro and Cinema Tools.
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/ (http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/)
Pictures:
Apple's iPhoto is rather light in terms of features, but has the basics. If you need more, Macromedia Fireworks MX and Adobe Photoshop 7 are availible for Macs.
http://www.apple.com/iphoto/ (http://www.apple.com/iphoto/)
http://www.macromedia.com/software/fireworks/ (http://www.macromedia.com/software/fireworks/)
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html)
Sound:
iTunes is great for listening, ripping CDs and burning. Other than that, sound isn't my field so I can't help you much.
http://www.apple.com/itunes/ (http://www.apple.com/itunes/)
Web Design/Animation:
Macromedia Dreamweaver MX, in my opinion is the best WYSIWYG HTML editor availible. It is heavily integrated with Macromedia's Flash MX, which can be used to do just about any animation on a web page. Apple also makes WebObjects, a Java editor (I haven't used this so I don't know much)
http://www.macromedia.com/ (http://www.macromedia.com/)
http://www.apple.com/webobjects/ (http://www.apple.com/webobjects/)
The Mac can use all of these programs, and some of the good ones, especially in the movie category are Mac exclusive. The Mac can also use many of these faster than a PC, and definately crash-free.
OK, hope all of these links helped!
-
quote:
Originally posted by: Crunchy(Cracked)Butter
Why use get Virtual Coonectx for your mac install windows on the mac just for that peice of software and you will not need to use 2 pc's again?
Then with your windows box put nix on it!
ahha, i have the ever elusive, computer number 3. it is running mandrake 9 right now. (i was also playing with redhat8, which i absolutely love, and before that, suse8.0). i might try this Virtual Connectx, though then id have an extra machine... maybe i would just sell the windows box for another mac!! or better yet, a powerbook G4 (http://smile.gif)
-
main reason...
Mac OS X
Nearly all the advantages of Linux, but with a UI developed by Apple. Power, stability, elegance, speed... it's all there.
I was a radio/TV major for two years and worked with digital audio and video. We had a mixed department of G4s and some Shittium 4 Dells with then new XP Pro. We couldn't use our DV cameras with the Dells because Windows disabled bus power on the FW ports.
When we finally made it work, it was shit. We captured 30 seconds at 320x240 and it was garbage. Dropped frames, poor sound, ugly compression. Then, BSOD before we could save it. We ended up ripping the garbage machine open and stopping the CPU fan with a screwdriver just to see what would happen.
It died horribly and we threw it off a building along with an x box.
Windows sucks for media production. Fuck it.
[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: The Jimmy James / Bob ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Jimmy James / Bob:
main reason...
Nearly all the advantages of Linux
Uh, not quite, it only runs on Apple hardware and it's expensive (not free). Maybe you should stick to picking on Windows so's we don't have to get in an argument.
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Jimmy James / Bob:
main reason...
Mac OS X
Nearly all the advantages of Linux, but with a UI developed by Apple. Power, stability, elegance, speed... it's all there.
I was a radio/TV major for two years and worked with digital audio and video. We had a mixed department of G4s and some Shittium 4 Dells with then new XP Pro. We couldn't use our DV cameras with the Dells because Windows disabled bus power on the FW ports.
When we finally made it work, it was shit. We captured 30 seconds at 320x240 and it was garbage. Dropped frames, poor sound, ugly compression. Then, BSOD before we could save it. We ended up ripping the garbage machine open and stopping the CPU fan with a screwdriver just to see what would happen.
It died horribly and we threw it off a building along with an x box.
Windows sucks for media production. Fuck it.
[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: The Jimmy James / Bob ]
You are so full of shit. How do I know you are full of shit? Simple...because if you stuck a screwdriver in the HSF to stop the fan from working on a P4 system the CPU *will not* die. A P4 will simply underclock itself to keep at a safe temp if it gets too hot. A P4 will not even get hot enough to underclock itself with a Heatsink and no fan, if you remove the heatsink it will underclock itself.
A P4 is not like an AMD Athlon/Duron. The P4 does not have serious heat issues and serious design flaws. My conclusion is you have *never used a Windows XP box to do anything on and you go around making up shit to make people think that your overpriced, all propriarity Macs are somehow better.
An x86 box can do everything a Mac can do(wether it be running Windows, Linux, BeOS, etc). Actually a single 2.53ghz Pentium 4 Northwood and a Dual AMD Athlon MP 2000+(I'm sure a single Athlon MP/XP 2000+ could to) smokes a dual 1ghz G4 Mac. I've posted the article to the benchmarks in the past and I'll do it again if nessicary. ;P
(EDIT)Ahh fuck it, I'll through in the benchmarks.
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm (http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm)
Now tell me that the Mac does stuff better than a x86 PC. Heck, I think they were even using Windows in these benchies. ;P(EDIT
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
Also, I don't get why people don't call Apple a Monopoly. Apple intergrates Apple software into thier OS(Quicktime, Finder, iTunes, etc.) just like MS intergrates MS software into thier OS.
But at least MS doesn't force you to buy computers built by MS to run the Windows OS. I bet if Apple wasn't so propriarity and control hungry they would be doing alot better in the computer market than they are right now.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
But at least MS doesn't force you to buy computers built by MS to run the Windows OS.
No, they just strongarm all the major hardware vendors who don't have their own OS to sell said hardware with a copy of Windows. Ever tried to buy a desktop/laptop machine in a store or from a major computer manufacturer without a copy of Windows? It's no easy task I can assure you.
Like it or not (I don't), Windows is the most popular OS out there at 97% of the market so all hardware manufactures surely want to be able to sell their equipment preloaded with Windows. Problem is, if they don't sell *every* desktop/laptop computer with a copy of Windows Microsoft will punish them by not giving them as good of a deal.
That makes it pretty unlikely that any competing OS will ever get a piece of that market with all the proprietary formats and protocols Microsoft can dish out by having that 97% of the desktop market. Users are stuck, unless they are willing to make a number of sacrifices initially (like I am willing to do).
-
Nope. I never have and never will buy a OEM computer. Know why? Because I prefer building my own systems. =0P I
BTW, the Windows being pre-installed wouldn't be a big issue for me even if I did buy an OEM computer because I feel Windows is just the best system to be running right now(I install Windows on systems I build for a living as well as systems I build for myself). All PC games are made to run in Windows, almost every *popular* graphical, office, video editing, etc. app runs in Windows(Photoshop, Maya, AutoCAD, Microsoft Office, etc.). With Linux you have to rely on Open Source knock offs of the popular apps that try thier best to support the formats of the popular apps but always fall short. With Linux you have to rely on stuff like Wine to play alot of the popular games(Wine does not run most Win32 stuff flawlessly though).
Another reason why alot of OEMs do not choose to use Linux as an OS to pre-install on consumer computers is because Linux is too difficult for most consumers. In one corner you have an OS that is all point and click, it runs pretty much everything useful and it has a decent GUI to boot(I don't care what you say, Gnome, KDE, IceWM, etc. are not nearly as good as the Windows GUI for looks and ease of use) in the other corner you have an OS that has a GUI added on to a command line OS(and to do stuff effectivley in Linux you need to use the Konsole instead of the GUI WM), it doesn't have support for most of the popular apps and games, it is a bitch to install some stuff on it because you have to be root to install certain things(alot of users wouldn't know about gaining root access) and it is not easy to use(the command line stuff is used alot in the GUI). Tell me, how many people would know that they need to manually mount and unmount something like a floppy drive wheras in Windows it mounts/unmounts all drives automatically.
Linux is not ready to be on the desktops of most users therefore it will not be pre-installed as an OS for consumers.
Linux has a long way to go.
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Nope. I never have and never will buy a OEM computer. Know why? Because I prefer building my own systems. =0P I
BTW, the Windows being pre-installed wouldn't be a big issue for me even if I did buy an OEM computer because I feel Windows is just the best system to be running right now(I install Windows on systems I build for a living as well as systems I build for myself). All PC games are made to run in Windows, almost every *popular* graphical, office, video editing, etc. app runs in Windows(Photoshop, Maya, AutoCAD, Microsoft Office, etc.). With Linux you have to rely on Open Source knock offs of the popular apps that try thier best to support the formats of the popular apps but always fall short. With Linux you have to rely on stuff like Wine to play alot of the popular games(Wine does not run most Win32 stuff flawlessly though).
Another reason why alot of OEMs do not choose to use Linux as an OS to pre-install on consumer computers is because Linux is too difficult for most consumers. In one corner you have an OS that is all point and click, it runs pretty much everything useful and it has a decent GUI to boot(I don't care what you say, Gnome, KDE, IceWM, etc. are not nearly as good as the Windows GUI for looks and ease of use) in the other corner you have an OS that has a GUI added on to a command line OS(and to do stuff effectivley in Linux you need to use the Konsole instead of the GUI WM), it doesn't have support for most of the popular apps and games, it is a bitch to install some stuff on it because you have to be root to install certain things(alot of users wouldn't know about gaining root access) and it is not easy to use(the command line stuff is used alot in the GUI). Tell me, how many people would know that they need to manually mount and unmount something like a floppy drive wheras in Windows it mounts/unmounts all drives automatically.
Linux is not ready to be on the desktops of most users therefore it will not be pre-installed as an OS for consumers.
Linux has a long way to go.
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
I really liked the RIAA kitten picture, what happened to it? I think the RIAA really would kill kittens.
Calling all open-source software knock-offs to popular apps is complete BS. Open source software often beats out the propriatary crud. Take Apache for example. It wipes the floor with ISS. How about Mozilla vs. IE. Alot of proprietary software is based on open source. Unlike Windows you get a choice of GUIs, and you can make it look however you want, so don't say windoze's GUI looks better. You say Lin is hard to install, and that simply is not true anymore. Wine works, I don't think you've ever tried it. You say you have to use the command line to do things effectively in Linux, but that is also not true. Tell me then, what do you need a command line for. You do need to be root to do some things yes. Windows catches viruses and is hacked more easily than Linux. There is a connection between the two. And its not exactly hard to get into root. Takes about 2 seconds if your a very slow typer.
More and more computer manufacturers are offering Linux preinstalls. The only thing ONLY thing that was holding them back so long were the penalties M$ would throw at them with their monopoly power. Linux is growing, and will gain more ground.
I don't think you have ever really used Linux, and if you have, it was a very long time ago because what you are saying is simply not accurate.
I hate the RIAA. Do you like the RIAA? DRMOS is on its way. I won't use it, will you?
V
-
Man, Zombie4848979784
you sure do have a way of degenerating a perfectly decent thread. I belive Jimmie James was being a bit sarcastic and takeing liberties with his story. Note the fact that he says he threw the PC off the roof with an X box!
Don't know about you, sounds like humor to me.
Whatever...
Yes, Windows PC's (damn these political corect computer terms :D )
-
quote:
Originally posted by Doctor V:
I really liked the RIAA kitten picture, what happened to it? I think the RIAA really would kill kittens.
Calling all open-source software knock-offs to popular apps is complete BS. Open source software often beats out the propriatary crud. Take Apache for example. It wipes the floor with ISS. How about Mozilla vs. IE. Alot of proprietary software is based on open source. Unlike Windows you get a choice of GUIs, and you can make it look however you want, so don't say windoze's GUI looks better. You say Lin is hard to install, and that simply is not true anymore. Wine works, I don't think you've ever tried it. You say you have to use the command line to do things effectively in Linux, but that is also not true. Tell me then, what do you need a command line for. You do need to be root to do some things yes. Windows catches viruses and is hacked more easily than Linux. There is a connection between the two. And its not exactly hard to get into root. Takes about 2 seconds if your a very slow typer.
More and more computer manufacturers are offering Linux preinstalls. The only thing ONLY thing that was holding them back so long were the penalties M$ would throw at them with their monopoly power. Linux is growing, and will gain more ground.
I don't think you have ever really used Linux, and if you have, it was a very long time ago because what you are saying is simply not accurate.
I hate the RIAA. Do you like the RIAA? DRMOS is on its way. I won't use it, will you?
V
Q. What happened to my other sig? A. I got sick of seeing it so I took it down. =0P
The last distro of Linux I used was Mandrake 9.0. I never said that Linux was hard to install so I don't know where that came from. LoL
Open Source software couterparts to popular propriarity software are knock offs. I have yet to see any open source software that actually beats out propriarity software. I'll give some credit, Apache is an excellent solution for a server(I'll even go as far as to say it is better than IIS in alot of ways)..but guess what, Linux and Unix were designed to be used on servers and not as a desktop OS, so knock on wood, *nix has excellent server solutions available.
Now lets get to the rest of the stuff Open Office in no way beats MS Office. Honestly, OpenOffice has some problems with MS Office file formats(MS Office is the DEFACTO standard office format used these days so Open Office does not offer anything better than MS Office...Open Office formats are not the DEFACTO standard you know ;P). Mozilla does not beat out IE. I garantee I can view more pages correctly in IE than I can in Mozilla. IE doesn't have sites that are incompatible with the IE browser(which is the case with Mozilla). Just for an example, go to Homestead and try logging into the site builder/file manager with Mozilla and you will get a nice lil message saying that Site Builder does not support your browser. There are other sites just like that out there. ;P
The Gecko engine has always had problems with properly rendering CSS(Cascading Style Sheets). That was a big turn off for users trying Netscape in the past and the same problem still exists in Mozilla(which so happens to be almost like NS 4.x), luckily for some of you CSS isn't used nearly as much in pages as it used to be though.
Now for the command line in Linux. You can do things much more effectivley in the command line(like compile drivers, install drivers properly, configure your newly installed drivers, compile software packages, etc.). Void Main is a Linux guru so I'm sure he knows that the command line is much more effective than the GUI. For the root acess...you may know that you have to gain root access and you know how to gain root access as well as I know...but how many average consumers know that they have to be root sometimes and know how to?
For the you can make Linux look how you want it to statement. Wow, you can change your GUI's color. I'm so impressed. Most Linux desktops use KDE or Gnome as a GUI. No matter what color it is, it still looks like KDE or Gnome. I'm impressed that you can change the color of an ugly GUI. :rolleyes:
Example of having to use command line stuff in the Linux GUI. When I used Mandrake I had to manually type /file/mnt/hdc to access my Master drive file/mnt/cdrom to access my CD-ROM, etc. in Konquerer whereas in Windows I would just double click My Computer and double click the drive/partation I want to access.
I bet that MS isn't holding OEM's back from using Linux as much as you try to claim. I bet if MacOS was ever ported to x86 you would see it being pre-installed on OEM computers just like you see Windows pre-installed. You know why? Because MacOS *is* easy to use and is consumer ready. The only thing MacOS really lacks is good gaming support. It already has support for all of the popular apps available today for work. To make a long story short, the only thing holding OEM's back from pre-installing Linux on most of thier consumer systems is the fact that they know Linux is not ready to be the OS for most desktop conumers. If MS really held OEMs back then why do OEMs offer Server computers with Unix installed? Oems don't have to worry about admins having a Unix system that they don't know how to use because chances are if a person spends the kind of cash that they do on a server then they figure the admin knows how to use Unix. There is a Windows XP 64bit available, Win2K Datacenter server, etc. but OEM's still don't use only MS OSes on thier server line of computers. That is enough to show that MS isn't holding OEM's back.
Mac OSX is a great OS, it is just a crying shame that Apple demands that it has to be run on thier inferior computers.
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
quote:
Uh, not quite, it only runs on Apple hardware and it's expensive (not free). Maybe you should stick to picking on Windows so's we don't have to get in an argument.
void main, those are the advantages that it lacks. that's why I said *nearly* all =^)
Zombie, yes. P4s will overheat, and they suffer from the most serious design flaw of all... INTEL ACTUALLY MADE THE DAMNED THINGS.
Shittium 4s are the biggest waste of silicon since the Itanic. I hope Inhell goes the way of all the companies that MS has screwed up the bunghole.
Oh yeah, and even though I like AMD, they still make shitty x86 processors. The only reason x86 has an "edge" over PPC is that when you throw 3,000 MHz at something, yeah... it's gonna be faster.
It doesn't change the fact that WINDOWS SUCKS BIG FLOPPIN' DONKEY BALLS
And zombie, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS THE BALL LICKER!
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Jimmy James / Bob:
void main, those are the advantages that it lacks. that's why I said *nearly* all =^)
Zombie, yes. P4s will overheat, and they suffer from the most serious design flaw of all... INTEL ACTUALLY MADE THE DAMNED THINGS.
Shittium 4s are the biggest waste of silicon since the Itanic. I hope Inhell goes the way of all the companies that MS has screwed up the bunghole.
Oh yeah, and even though I like AMD, they still make shitty x86 processors. The only reason x86 has an "edge" over PPC is that when you throw 3,000 MHz at something, yeah... it's gonna be faster.
It doesn't change the fact that WINDOWS SUCKS BIG FLOPPIN' DONKEY BALLS
And zombie, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS THE BALL LICKER!
You really are a stupid fucking idiot aren't you?
Proof that the Pentium 4 does not suffer heat failures.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/index.html (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/index.html) for the whole "How Modern Processors Cope With Heat Emergencies" article.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/heatvideo-02.html (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/heatvideo-02.html) for the results of what happens to a P4 when it gets too hot. For those of you who are too lazy to read it, the P4 slows down but is fully operational and no damage occurs to the CPU. I love how Tom the hardware guru says "It is pretty much impossible to 'fry' a Pentium 4 processor" which is opposite of what you the know nothing not a hardware guru says. It is obvious that you know nothing about hardware because you buy pre-built systems(made by Apple). It is obvious that you don't self build your systems. :rolleyes:
A PIII doesn't die from thermal issues either. If a PIII/Celeron gets too hot they simply freeze all operation to prevent damage to the CPU(they are fully functional again after you reset your comp).
Now, where is your proof to backup that Pentium 4s do burn up? I own several P4 systems(my 2.53ghz system handidly smokes any of your beloved Macs mind you. ;P) and I've tested out the thermal protection for the hell of it..and guess what, results from my testing prove to me that P4's don't burn up(even though little articles from reputable hardware gurus like Tom is enough proof to make me believe it).
If Intel CPU's were so much trash then why are the P4's reaching 3ghz+ speeds while AMD can barely produce any Athlons rated at 2800+(right now they are Sold out of the limited stock they had according to an article I read not very long ago and AMD is having trouble restocking them because the Athlons fail at the 2800+ speeds) and the G4 isn't even making it much farther than 1ghz. ;P
If you can't even get your facts straight about CPU design then how can anybody believe anything else you have to say? You are full of shit, end of story.
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
You sit here and say that nobody wants to use an OS that requires command line knowledge with a beautiful gui on top, but it wasnt that long ago when everybody was using windows 95, and everyone was trying to learn dos commands. Whats the difference? Some people refuse to believe that learning the *nix command line is as easy as learning dos. Linux is in a progression stage right now, just like Windows was back then. However unlike windows which attempted to completely eliminate all use of the command line, linux will provide both a graphical and a command line way to do almost all things. I guarantee that one day we will reach the point where there will be no benefits of choosing windows over linux, because we will have reached the same functionality, and ease of use as them. At the same time we will offer lower costs and greater reliability, not to mention unparalleled flexibility. We arent there yet, but 5 years from now is a different story. If you dont believe linux will ever be a true competitor to windows, just look how much better linux has become in the recent past. Linux is the #2 OS for the x86 platform, and even though our numbers are low, thats still something to be proud of.
-
Here! Here!
Well said Preacher!!
*applaus* *applaus*
-
I haven't heard anyone reply on the processor subject, but the only thing that i can say is that i've heard about them not blowing up your fan and your socket when you get to blow it up ... but i'm really not a processor geek ...
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=f00bar=-:
I haven't heard anyone reply on the processor subject, but the only thing that i can say is that i've heard about them not blowing up your fan and your socket when you get to blow it up ... but i'm really not a processor geek ...
This (http://panosg.netfirms.com/6WhoHasThePower.pdf) is a PDF document describing in some detail why PPC processors are technically superior to Intel's microprocessor. I uploaded it on my page but I can't remember where I dowloaded it from cause I've lost that bookmark. Anyway, credits go to the guy who wrote it, whoever that is.
The opinions expressed on this document reflect his own, so that doesn't mean I agree with everything read there. Keep in mind that I'm not a hardware expert (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by arya:
Can any body please tell me how an apple computer running mac os is better than an intel pc running microsoft windows for a multimedia development center.
welcome to the forums. in answer i say, try them both out and see which you prefer. HOWEVER don't be fooled if you are familiar with one setup and unfamiliar with the other. It WILL take a little while to get acquanted with an unfamiliar system.
-
Zombie...
As I said earlier... crank the numbers and it'll be faster.
If I made a 5GHz 80286, it would seriously fuck up your Shittium.
throw enough clock cycles at something, and yeah, it'll be fast. I've never refuted that x86 processors ARE faster. But I'll never agree that they're better.
As for AMD... ain't if funny how their Athlon 2800 is rubbing Intel's 2.8GHz offering into the mud and it's only clocked at what... 2100MHz? 2000?
AMD still relies on engineering and good design to create a superior product. Intel compromises their shit so they can crank up the numbers and then spend big bucks on marketing to get people to think that "INHELL INSIDE" means something.
Last Intel processor I had was a 486/33. The 486 was the last time Intel was respectable. The original P5 was a waste of time, and the worst possible competitor to the old school PPCs (back when PPCs actually mopped the floor with Inhell)
I doubt that we'll ever see PPCs match clock rates with CISC chips, but then, I doubt any RISC chip will ever do that. RISC is a drastically different design, and very little compares between the two. You seem to be fairly acquainted with microprocessor technology... you should know about this.
Moto and Apple marketing have really given Mac users the shaft in recent years. Moto's inability to deliver a new processor design, or at least increase clock speed on a regular basis, combined with Apple marketing's brain-dead adherence to the G4, when IBM was kickin' ass with GHz G3s over a year ago have really put us in the dumps as far as clock speed goes. They stuck it out with the G3 in the iMac as long as they could, but since they won't use G3s over 700MHz, they just couldn't keep it going without a G4. The current iBooks are nice, but $1800 for a 700MHz G3 is looney.
Intel's marketers push big numbers. Apple marketing seems blind to customers' needs for "faster across the board". They're both guilty of absolute stupidity.
Apple's afraid that if they make the G3 'books as fast or faster than the G4s, that it'll harm the G4 sales, because "pro" users will get iBooks instead of TiBooks. May be so, but Joe Public who walks into CompUSA will look at an iBook and think it looks nice, but be turned off by "low numbers". If he saw an iBook with a 1.3GHz PPC750fx, he'd see style and comparable numbers, and choose the iBook. Sacrificing sales to new customers in the name of the product matrix.
On the PC side of the fence, though, well-designed processors at 1.8GHz are really the accessible high-end. 3GHz Shittium 4s are priced HOW HIGH? A 1.8GHz Athlon 2200 runs roughly $150 to $175 while a 2.2GHz Sh4 is around $350? $400?
AMD sells a slower-clocked processor that uses less power, generates less heat, and keeps up with a higher clocked Inhell... for less.
Give it up, Inhell makes garbage. They've made garbage since the early 90s (except the P3, it was l337) they make garbage now, and they'll always make garbage, and then have stupid commercials that make ignorant n00bs buy their bullshit.
Any processor can overheat, dipshit. No amount of core-controlled downclocking can stop it. Even if the CPU locks itself, it's still a heat-induced failure. G4s will overheat. Athlons will overheat. Inhell chips will overheat. MIPS RISC chips will overheat. They all farkin' overheat if they don't get cooled off.
Oh, and wow... Intel actually engineered a good feature into the P4. But one thing can't change the fact it sucks. It's just the difference in a wet turd and a dry turd.
Fuck Intel, fuck the Shittium 4, fuck the Itanic, fuck ia32, fuck Microsoft, fuck Windows
please 'scuse the broken nature of the post. it's pretty much stream of conciousness
Zomb... you need to learn not to take life so seriously. Just keep in mind that you won't get out alive!
-
Actually, you are wrong on Pentium prices too.
Prices from priewatch.com
Athlon XP 2400+ - $199
P4 Northwood 2.4ghz - $184 533mhz FSB
2.53ghz/533 FSB - $234
It looks like the Pentium 4 is actually cheaper than the competitive Athlon and the Pentium is a better quality product and is of course more compatible with all of the x86 programs(Yes AMD processors *do* have problems with properly running some apps/games). Remember, Intel invented x86, AMD simply tries to emulate Intel x86 code(kinda like how Via and Sis emulate a real Intel AGP bus through driving control...Intel invented AGP too ;P) How fast is AMD's 2400+ FSB? 266mhz/DDR, Intel's FSB is 533mhz(which means the P4 communicates with the PCI, AGP, Memory, etc. bus alot faster than the AMD pprocessor does and the memory in a P4 system works at much higher speeds(even with DDR) than it does in an Athlon. Notice how the 2400+ is the highest speed that you can buy of the AXP? That is because the Athlons at speeds any higher than the 2400+ rated speed fail. Like I said previously, AMD is having trouble producing Athlon chips that can successfully operate at 2600+, 2700+ and 2800+ speeds(there are very few out there and I doubt any of us will get our hands on one anytime soon). The reason why Athlons fail at higher speeds is because AMD CPU's have sever heat issues and serious design flaws. Learn how to accept that already. ;P
Even if the Intel chips were more expensive than the comparable competitor chip it is worth the extra money because the Intel CPU is better quality is more reliable, more stable and will never fry. ;P
AMDs' days are numbered for having the best price/performance ratio.
What happens to a G4 if you remove the heatsink? I haven't researched how G4's handle thermal emergencies.
(EDIT)WoofuckingHoo I don't have to use a proxy to access this site anymore! (http://smile.gif) (EDIT)
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
Oh, and for you saying an AXP 2800+ wipes the floor with a 2.8ghz P4. You are sadly mistaken once again. Out of all of the benchmarks in that article, the AXP 2800+ oply comes ahead in a few of them(and the ones the AXP do win are only by like 4fps in games or a few seconds in rendering). I love how even the 2.26ghz P4 wipes the floor with the AXP 2800+ when SSE2 is enabled(an option not available for the Athlon). SSE2 optimizations are available in almost every rendering app out there so the P4 definatley has the edge in performance for rendering. ;P
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1718&p=5 (http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1718&p=5)
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
BTW, the Windows being pre-installed wouldn't be a big issue for me even if I did buy an OEM computer because I feel Windows is just the best system to be running right now(I install Windows on systems I build for a living as well as systems I build for myself).
That's fine.... for you. I should not be forced to pay for a Windows license when I will not use it. What's so hard about offering a system with no OS?
quote:
All PC games are made to run in Windows, almost every *popular* graphical, office, video editing, etc. app runs in Windows(Photoshop, Maya, AutoCAD, Microsoft Office, etc.). With Linux you have to rely on Open Source knock offs of the popular apps that try thier best to support the formats of the popular apps but always fall short. With Linux you have to rely on stuff like Wine to play alot of the popular games(Wine does not run most Win32 stuff flawlessly though).
Again, that's fine.... for you. I don't use Windows apps, I don't use Wine (Wine sucks, and not just because it's purpose is to run Windows apps). And I'm perfectly happy rely on those open source apps. I have been for years. I find them to work better and are more reliable than the apps you mention.
quote:
Another reason why alot of OEMs do not choose to use Linux as an OS to pre-install on consumer computers is because Linux is too difficult for most consumers.
I'm not asking for Linux preinstalled. In fact I would rather get the PC in a "naked" state because chances are the OS would not be installed the way I want it installed anyway (or not be the flavor of Linux I like). Again, what's so hard about offering a naked PC? It would certainly be easier on the manufacturer as they wouldn't have to deal with all that Microsoft red tape. That is, except for one thing. If they sell a naked PC Microsoft will fuck them.
-
okay, you've got me convinced, then.
the benchmarks you link to are different from the ones I saw.
you've also finally made me decide that all x86 processors suck ass. If the P4 really is the best they have to offer, then fuck 'em all.
as for prices, that's based on local retailers' average prices, and on non-bleeding edge units.
AMD sucks, just not as much as Intel. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Besides, the issue is x86 vs PPC, not x86 vs x86.
PPC makes anything x86 look like a turd.
-
If you want a naked PC then buy a barebones system and add a hard drive, CD-ROM, Floppy and Ram.
Barebone systems aren't hard to find. ;P
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Jimmy James / Bob:
okay, you've got me convinced, then.
the benchmarks you link to are different from the ones I saw.
you've also finally made me decide that all x86 processors suck ass. If the P4 really is the best they have to offer, then fuck 'em all.
as for prices, that's based on local retailers' average prices, and on non-bleeding edge units.
AMD sucks, just not as much as Intel. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Besides, the issue is x86 vs PPC, not x86 vs x86.
PPC makes anything x86 look like a turd.
You missed the benchmarks I posted a few posts back showing a single x86 CPU system(2.53ghz P4 Northwood) and a dual x86 CPU system(dual Athlon MP 2000+) wipe the floor with a dual 1ghz G4 system. The fastest PPC CPU available today doesn't have the balls to outpace the fastest x86 offerings. Sure, PPC may do more per clock cycle, but x86 reaches higher clock speeds which equates to the slower x86 CPU at higher speeds wiping the floor with the faster PPC that is stuck and has been stuck at lower speeds for a long time now.
By time Apple can make a CPU that competes with the current P4/Athlon line of CPU's Intel will already have 5ghz+ CPU's out.
Just to save you the time of finding the posted benchmarks I mention...here you go again. http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm (http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm)
Macs are not all that like some of you people try to claim it is.
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
If you want a naked PC then buy a barebones system and add a hard drive, CD-ROM, Floppy and Ram.
Barebone systems aren't hard to find. ;P
They are hard to find in a store. It's hard to find laptops barebones (although I put up a link to a nice site that sells naked laptops).
The thing is, I want a Dell Inspiron, but I refuse to pay the Microsoft tax. Dell has lost a sale but they would lose a lot more by Microsoft penal action if they sold me that naked Inspiron. I would like to be able to buy a name brand PC without an OS or software. Actually I would still probably build my own desktop machines even though the name brand machine would likely be cheaper. Just can't build a laptop.
-
Hey Zombie, perhaps you should dl the pdf file I linked my previous post to. Read it and pay close attention (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Panos:
Hey Zombie, perhaps you should dl the pdf file I linked my previous post to. Read it and pay close attention (http://smile.gif)
Everything that compared the PPC to P4 in your PDF was compared to the P4 Williamette. The Williamette core sucked big balls. Notice how I compare the P4 Northwood to the PPC. You need to update your shit man.
For the MTOPS, the PPC may achieve higher MTOPS numbers, but it doesn't show in modern apps. MTOPS don't mean a thing for real world performance(hence why the x86 can handidly beat the PPC in graphics, digital editing, audio, definatley gaming, etc.). Who gives a fuck about numbers that don't mean a thing in real world performance? :rolleyes:
Reasons for the G5 not being released yet - issues with the clock multiplier and cache coherency glitches . Man, that would make me want to put alot of faith into the G5.
Umm, I just noticed that the G5 article was written Oct. 18, 2001. It is Oct. 16th 2002 right now...where are the G5s? It has been about a year since that article was written.
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
Not taking any sides (so don't flame) but here is something I found on a PowerMacG4 to add to the conversation we are all having
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html (http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html)
Sorry wanted to add this on as well
MacBidouille posted a rumor regarding the G5. English translation is provided by Sammy:
- Jaguar server will make it possible to netBoot os X and remote administration. - the factory which will manufacture new the G5 microprocessor will be in Grenoble. It is not finished yet.
- G5 will not even be available until the end of 2003, on the other hand it really exists and runs reliably. The manufacturing is, however, not very reliable in terms of loss and is too expensive for the moment.
- G4s will evolve -- but very little -- it is motherboards using Hypertransport (that of Xserve) and cache systems which will evolve.
- the new models of motherboards do not support os 9, it is thus finished definitively on the next machines.
- the core following of jaguar will be clusterisable on the system level... one then supposes a very evolutionary machine out of turn of xServe. (On a standard 42u rack, 39 Xserve dual 1Ghz machines and an xserve Raid with 1,68 To, using only one screen)
- For the first time of the history of Apple, a standard machine is made with recycled materials (Aluminum, etc) (??? not sure of this translation ???)
- The system composes of a main server and a slave server. The xServe slave autoswitchs to a Master, (in the event of breakdown of the Master), reswitches automatically when the solution of the breakdown is found! the user sees nothing there, only the administrator receives a message of breakdown of the first server.
A little old but the full story can be seen at Clicky (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/06/20020621225247.shtml)
for anyone who hasn't seen it yet
DJ
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Engineer ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Everything that compared the PPC to P4 in your PDF was compared to the P4 Williamette. The Williamette core sucked big balls. Notice how I compare the P4 Northwood to the PPC. You need to update your shit man.
For the MTOPS, the PPC may achieve higher MTOPS numbers, but it doesn't show in modern apps. MTOPS don't mean a thing for real world performance(hence why the x86 can handidly beat the PPC in graphics, digital editing, audio, definatley gaming, etc.). Who gives a fuck about numbers that don't mean a thing in real world performance? :rolleyes:
Reasons for the G5 not being released yet - issues with the clock multiplier and cache coherency glitches . Man, that would make me want to put alot of faith into the G5.
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
First of all it's not "my shit" :D . Secondly, who the fuck cares about Williamete or Northwood "shit"? All I know is that Macs are faster, that's why they have always been the choice of Graphic Artists, Web designers etc. Perhaps you should update your "shit" :D
The x86 platform is only for Linux which runs great on it and not for your pathetic excuse of operating system. Man I've been following your posts since the beginning and I have come to the following conclusion: you either have mazochistic tendencies or you may be under the illusion that posting in the MES forums will actually convert people back to Windows :D :D Which one is it then? What do you hope to accomplish by posting here? Are you maybe trying to prove something?
Get something straight: Your arguments are based on rotten foundations, and anything THAT unstable can easily collapse. Perhaps that's why the only person who is convinced by your "arguments" is YOU.
:D
-
Look buddy, I already posted benchmarks showing that in th real world the modern x86 CPU's beat out the fastest available PPC's. I don't give a fuck about the stuff in that article that compares PPC to over a year old x86 processors.
Like I said, get some updated shit man. Oh yeah, you never answered me, where are the G5s'? That year old article in the PDF talked about G5's being available soon. Now where the fuck are they? Thats what I thought. :rolleyes:
-
quote:
Originally posted by Engineer:
Not taking any sides (so don't flame) but here is something I found on a PowerMacG4 to add to the conversation we are all having
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html (http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html)
DJ
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Engineer ]
Those are benchmarks done by Apple. I wouldn't trust any benchmark that comes from the manufacturer(I wouldn't trust benchmarks from AMD, Intel, Apple, etc). Steve is known for benchmarking the G4 processors w/AltiVec enabled while leaving SSE2 disabled in the P4's.
You can't trust manufacturer benchmarks because the manufacturer(I don't care who it is) will do whatever they can to make thier product look the best.
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Oh yeah, you never answered me, where are the G5s'?
Hmm, I don't know I haven't talked to them recently. :rolleyes: :D . As for benchmark tests the web is full of them, biased and not (i think) and enough with this shittalk! I told you, it's not my shit honestly :D
And why would I give a fuck about the G5s? My G3 and my 128 MBs of RAM do a great job with OS X (note: it has yet to crash) :D
Oh yeah, you never answered me, what do you hope to accomplish and why does almost every web designer and graphic artist in the worls uses a Mac?
PS I'm saying this one more: The only OS that's good for the x86 platform is Linux or any other *NIX flavor!
-
Not every web designer and graphics artist use a Mac. There are lots of them that use Windows x86 systems, Linux x86 systems, Unix on x86, Sun Sparc, DEC Alpha, etc.
As a matter of fact, most rendering farms do not consist of Macs. Apple holds a very small share of the computer market, like 3 or 4 percent I believe. More than 4% of the people in the world do web design, graphics art, digital video, etc. So what am I trying to say?..? I'm saying that you are full of FUD when you say MOST of those people use Macs.
For the what am I trying to accomplish posting here question. I'm not trying to accomplish anything actually. The forum is a nice little time waster. Besides, I enjoy debunking some of the lies that are posted at these kind of site(like saying a Pentium 4 will burn up...HAHAHAHA!).
Besides, I have just as much of a right to post here as you do so if you are trying to make me leave you may as well go talk to the walll or something. 'P
If Unix/Linux are the only thing x86 systems are good for then why do Windows PCs hold so much more marketshare than Unix, Linux and Mac boxes combined? Maybe because Unix and Linux are too difficult for most consumers and don't have support for popular apps and games, Macs are controlled by a control all egotistical freak like Steve Jobs and they have almost no gaming support whatsoever(Yeah, alot of people want a computer to work and play...not just work ;P).
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
Whatever makes you happy man! If being flamed makes you feel good then go ahead, this a democratic site after all.
Oh yeah, it was MADE ON A MAC too :D (http://tongue.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
If Unix/Linux are the only thing x86 systems are good for then why do Windows PCs hold so much more marketshare than Unix, Linux and Mac boxes combined?
I think you already know the answer to that but it's not really to your interest to admit it. ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Panos:
Whatever makes you happy man! If being flamed makes you feel good then go ahead, this a democratic site after all.
Oh yeah, it was MADE ON A MAC too :D (http://tongue.gif)
Actually I don't get flamed all that much. Alot of the Linux breathen like void main, Calum, MOR, etc. actually have some common sense and can debate without flaming.
The flames generally come from Mac zealots(with the exception of psyjax). A little flaming doesn't bother me, so I'm not going to run and hide from any of you. ;P
BTW, this site was made on a Mac but it bares a resembalence to Microsofts' site. The Mac can copy web designs and web layouts(You can do the very same stuff on a PC), big deal :rolleyes: . I bet you I could have a Microsoft lookalike site built and up in less than a half an hour using Frontpage(which is by no means the best web creator program out there).
How ironic is that?
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Actually I don't get flamed all that much. Alot of the Linux breathen like void main, Calum, MOR, etc. actually have some common sense and can debate without flaming.
The flames generally come from Mac zealots(with the exception of psyjax). A little flaming doesn't bother me, so I'm not going to run and hide from any of you. ;P
BTW, this site was made on a Mac but it bares a resembalence to Microsofts' site. The Mac can copy web designs and web layouts(You can do the very same stuff on a PC), big deal :rolleyes: . I bet you I could have a Microsoft lookalike site built and up in less than a half an hour using Frontpage(which is by no means the best web creator program out there).
How ironic is that?
[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
Firstly, I'm not a Mac Zealot. I just happen to enjoy the hell out of mine. You could try using one, it won't bite ;)
Secondly, I totally agree with your judgement on those specific board members you mentioned above as well as for the majority of the MES boards members. They must have some common sense since they don't use Windows (http://smile.gif) Furthermore, I too can debate without flaming. After all, I didn't flame you, did I?
Thirdly, who told you to run and hide from me? who am I anyway to start chasing you around the boards? I'm not some weirdo you know :D
Fourthly, the resemblance this site bears to M$s one is by all means intentional, so why did you bring that up. When I said that this site was made on a Mac, I commented as to the Webmaster's choice in using a Mac and nothing more.
Uhm, it's not ironic at all (referring to your last sentence) with the strict definition of the word irony. Of course you can, but why bother to mention that?
Anyway, to sum it up, I don't have anything against you personally. I just find it a bit odd for a pro-Windows user to have fun posting in the fuckmicrosoft forums. But then again it could be just me....
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
If Unix/Linux are the only thing x86 systems are good for then why do Windows PCs hold so much more marketshare than Unix, Linux and Mac boxes combined? Maybe because Unix and Linux are too difficult for most consumers and don't have support for popular apps and games, Macs are controlled by a control all egotistical freak like Steve Jobs and they have almost no gaming support whatsoever(Yeah, alot of people want a computer to work and play...not just work ;P).
Actually you were doing pretty good up until this. I submit to you that the *only* reasons Microsoft has the market share that they currently hold is due to *massive* marketing and strongarm tactics. Joe User goes to best buy to buy a computer, or he reads a Dell/Gateway add in the newspaper/magazine. Does Joe have a choice of what operating system he gets? For that matter, what percentage of Joe Users even *know* that there is any other operating system, or even what an operating system is? Sure some might give you a choice of operating systems. Let's see, would you like WindowsME or WindowsXP with that?
Again, Microsoft will not let any desktop/laptop leave Joe Users store without a Microsoft operating system license. Pretty easy to keep market share when this is the case. And it's pretty easy to understand why application developers would want to write apps for the OS that has that 97% market share. But that's ok, I'm happy building my own machine even though it costs me more to do so. I end up with a better machine and the money I save by putting better free/Free software makes up the difference and then some).
You always bring this market share issue up and always have your facts incorrect on this particular issue. It is probably the biggest thing you have wrong. I actually agree with at least half of what you say lately, except for your incorrect beliefs about how M$ got to the market share they are at.
-
I can have an exact duplicate of Microsoft's site in one command:
$ wget -r http://www.microsoft.com/ (http://www.microsoft.com/)
That is, if I didn't have it blocked at my firewall. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
Actually you were doing pretty good up until this. I submit to you that the *only* reasons Microsoft has the market share that they currently hold is due to *massive* marketing and strongarm tactics. Joe User goes to best buy to buy a computer, or he reads a Dell/Gateway add in the newspaper/magazine. Does Joe have a choice of what operating system he gets? For that matter, what percentage of Joe Users even *know* that there is any other operating system, or even what an operating system is? Sure some might give you a choice of operating systems. Let's see, would you like WindowsME or WindowsXP with that?
Again, Microsoft will not let any desktop/laptop leave Joe Users store without a Microsoft operating system license. Pretty easy to keep market share when this is the case. And it's pretty easy to understand why application developers would want to write apps for the OS that has that 97% market share. But that's ok, I'm happy building my own machine even though it costs me more to do so. I end up with a better machine and the money I save by putting better free/Free software makes up the difference and then some).
You always bring this market share issue up and always have your facts incorrect on this particular issue. It is probably the biggest thing you have wrong. I actually agree with at least half of what you say lately, except for your incorrect beliefs about how M$ got to the market share they are at.
Well, Microsoft does have an OS monopoly going, I already know that....but the MS Operating Systems had to have been preferred in the beginning for OEM's to install them on every computer they sell. If people didn't like Windows in the beginning(and if most people didn't like Windows now) and the OEM's got nothing but complaints for pre-installing Windows I'm sure they wouldn't pre-install it on every machine.
The software had to have been something for it to gain market dominance in a course of a few years(Windows started to really take over since Win95).
-
quote:
Actually you were doing pretty good up until this.
Doing pretty good meaning?
quote:
I submit to you that the *only* reasons Microsoft has the market share that they currently hold is due to *massive* marketing and strongarm tactics. Joe User goes to best buy to buy a computer, or he reads a Dell/Gateway add in the newspaper/magazine. Does Joe have a choice of what operating system he gets? For that matter, what percentage of Joe Users even *know* that there is any other operating system, or even what an operating system is? Sure some might give you a choice of operating systems. Let's see, would you like WindowsME or WindowsXP with that?
Simplistic but true nonetheless....
quote:
I actually agree with at least half of what you say lately, except for your incorrect beliefs about how M$ got to the market share they are at.
Now that's an unpleasant surprise....
quote:
I can have an exact duplicate of Microsoft's site in one command:
$ wget -r http://www.microsoft.com/ (http://www.microsoft.com/)
That is, if I didn't have it blocked at my firewall.
If that makes you happy.... (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Well, Microsoft does have an OS monopoly going, I already know that....but the MS Operating Systems had to have been preferred in the beginning for OEM's to install them on every computer they sell. If people didn't like Windows in the beginning(and if most people didn't like Windows now) and the OEM's got nothing but complaints for pre-installing Windows I'm sure they wouldn't pre-install it on every machine.
In the beginning (of PCs) there wasn't much of a choice. If you wanted an IBM or compatible you pretty much had to deal with Microsoft. They were pretty much the only game in town. Even IBM PC-DOS was written by Microsoft if I remember right. And when OS/2 came out it was just as good or better than Windows but Microsoft was a marketing machine and really took over the clone vendors with strongarm deals. The clones were a lot cheaper than IBM machines. IBM was not happy about clones thus leaving Microsoft as the only OS vendor to go on the clones.
quote:
The software had to have been something for it to gain market dominance in a course of a few years(Windows started to really take over since Win95).
And I suppose you don't remember the *huge* marketing campain they had for the launch of Win95? They even bought popular songs (wasn't it Beetles songs?) to promote the release. Mass marketing. How many OS/2 Warp ads did you see? How many desktop ads have you ever seen for Linux? Not one, as in *no* marketing. The only marketing I have seen for Linux is from IBM for mainframe systems.
The point is, it would be easier for Dell, in addition to selling PCs with Windows, to also sell naked PCs. Microsoft won't let them. Or do you not believe me when I make the statement that Microsoft won't let them?
-
::burps at Zombie::
I never flamed you... well I guess I kinda did after you said I was "full of shit"... oops! Didn't mean to sound bitter... oh, yeah I did.
Now, you keep asking why we insist that Macs are better and then throw benchmarks at us...
Better and faster are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
I went from a 1.1GHz PIII to a 500MHz iMac G3 when I switched. Speed doesn't mean shit for 98% of the things that people do.
How many people REALLY need a 3GHz processor? Few. How many people really need more than a 300MHz processor? Few.
Our Power Macs and Powerbooks and iBooks and iMacs and all are BETTER. That's all there is too it. We have a better OS (it's always been better than Windows, even before OS X), better hardware designs, better industrial design, better software packages, better user experience, everything is superior to a Windows PC.
Compared with a Linux PC, we're pretty well even on stability.
Now, here's a question. Why do people like you insist on rankin' on people because of what damned hardware platform we choose? Why does it really matter to you? How does the fact that I have an Apple computer hurt you?
I don't go around telling people that since they have a PC that they're misguided, or stupid. I simply inform them of the shortcomings of Windows, then I help guide them away toward whatever they choose, be it installing Linux, buying a Mac, or even going farther and trying something really different (had one friend scour eBay and get a PPC upgraded Amiga).
Windows sucks for nearly everything, but ESPECIALLY for media production. Get over it. Even a crappy x86 CPU becomes a respectable piece of equipment running Linux.
BTW, my computer can kick your honor student's ass.
-
Why do these threads always degenerate into processor pissing contests?
The main issue with me (and many others is not the hardware, but the OS[/i].
A VERY simple for instance, something that we all do occasionally, taking a screencap.
In this case, we'll look at a screencap of the lower left portion of your screen.
Windoze (all versions, AFAIK), hit "Print Screen" THEN go to an image editing app. Using the standard MSPaint, for instance, PASTE the clipboard, hitting the YES button when it tells you the clipboard contents are larger than the selected area. Use MSPaint to crop out the bits you don't want. Oh wait, you CAN'T crop using MSPaint. You're SOL.
Anyway, you're stuck with a full screen cap, using ONLY M$ supplied tools.
Finally, SAVE the screencap as a bitmap that is 3 Megs in size.
In OS X, hit command+shift+4. Using the crosshairs that pop up, drag around the area you want. Done. A PDF of your screen cap appears on your desktop.
It's total bass-ackwwrads Windoze bullshit that eats up all the time that your x86 processor supposedly save you.
THAT, people, is what is more important to me than running a Photoshop filter I hardly ever use 5 seconds faster, or a few extra FPS on a game I never play.
Oh, that, and NEVER having to deal with a Virus. :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by cocoamix:
Why do these threads always degenerate into processor pissing contests?
The main issue with me (and many others is not the hardware, but the OS[/i].
A VERY simple for instance, something that we all do occasionally, taking a screencap.
In this case, we'll look at a screencap of the lower left portion of your screen.
Windoze (all versions, AFAIK), hit "Print Screen" THEN go to an image editing app. Using the standard MSPaint, for instance, PASTE the clipboard, hitting the YES button when it tells you the clipboard contents are larger than the selected area. Use MSPaint to crop out the bits you don't want. Oh wait, you CAN'T crop using MSPaint. You're SOL.
Anyway, you're stuck with a full screen cap, using ONLY M$ supplied tools.
Finally, SAVE the screencap as a bitmap that is 3 Megs in size.
In OS X, hit command+shift+4. Using the crosshairs that pop up, drag around the area you want. Done. A PDF of your screen cap appears on your desktop.
It's total bass-ackwwrads Windoze bullshit that eats up all the time that your x86 processor supposedly save you.
THAT, people, is what is more important to me than running a Photoshop filter I hardly ever use 5 seconds faster, or a few extra FPS on a game I never play.
Oh, that, and NEVER having to deal with a Virus. :D
Ehh? I don't know who in thier right mind would use MSPaint over Photoshop, PaintShop Pro, etc. In MSPaint you don't have to save files as Bitmaps. It is perfectly capable of saving as gif, jpg, tif, png, jpe, jfif, jpeg, tiff as well as dib and bmp.
Your right about MSPaint not having a good cropping tool, but oh well, thats life. It isn't like people don't choose to use Photoshop on thier Macs over whatever crap paint program that Apple gives you(if any). Windows users have Photoshop too, so it is the same case scenerio in both boats. :rolleyes:
-
(http://home.midsouth.rr.com/fett101/crop.JPG)
Looks cropped to me. And .jpg. Gave me 8 other choices for file types as well.
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: fett101 ]
-
with MS paint, you must open a file in it before you can save as that type. just last week at my friend's house we tried to save a screenshot as jpg then upload it to tripod but we couldn't so i downloaded any old jpg from the net, opened it in MS Paint and we were suddenly able to save as jpg, weeeeee (http://smile.gif)
what is the crop btw
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Chooco ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Chooco:
with MS paint, you must open a file in it before you can save as that type. just last week at my friend's house we tried to save a screenshot as jpg then upload it to tripod but we couldn't so i downloaded any old jpg from the net, opened it in MS Paint and we were suddenly able to save as jpg, weeeeee (http://smile.gif)
what is the crop btw
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Chooco ]
You must not be using paint in XP. The paint in XP isn't like that(it is actually improved just like everything else in XP). Of course not, you guys are afraid of XP.
Anywyays, the paint in XP lets you save as any of the file types I listed on the fly(right as soon as you paste a copied image you can save it as a jpg). It lets you convert any supported file type to another file type with no hassle at all...like gif to jpg, bitmap to gif, etc.
(EDIT)Look at this, I don't even have an image to save on MSPaint in XP and it still gives me the option to save as any file format that is supported by paint.
(http://www.ticz.com/homes/users/waltw/mspnt.jpg)
Anyways, if some of you people would use a versions of Windows that isn't primative(like the Win9x variants..they are primative) I'm sure that you would see that most of the crap you say about Windows isn't really true anymore. ;P
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
Like I said, still a hitload of work compared to hitting Command+Shift+3...
And another thing, what if you want to take a SEQUENCE of caps over time?
You have a flash file and a QT movie file playing at the same time and you want to take a sequence of the whole screen every 2 seconds?
In OS X (and even in OS9), you just keep hitting Command+Shift+3 every 2 seconds and the files automatically appear on your desktop.
So how would you do this in Windoze?
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: cocoamix ]
-
who cares about windows? i've got gimp. (it's free, and if you're a REAL mor00n, you can run it in windows so you can bitch about how it's not the same as photoshop if you like).
also, i just had to comment: quote:
They even bought popular songs (wasn't it Beetles songs?) to promote the release.
no, it was 'start me up' by the stones. The rolling stones had NEVER in 30 years sold the rights to use one of their songs in any advertising campaign. they said they never would. All of a sudden Bill Gates offers them $100,000 (or maybe 1,000,000 i forget what the stupidly large sum actually was) and hey presto 'start me up' is windows theme music on televisions across the whole world.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
also, i just had to comment: no, it was 'start me up' by the stones. The rolling stones had NEVER in 30 years sold the rights to use one of their songs in any advertising campaign. they said they never would. All of a sudden Bill Gates offers them $100,000 (or maybe 1,000,000 i forget what the stupidly large sum actually was) and hey presto 'start me up' is windows theme music on televisions across the whole world.[/QB]
They should have used the line "You make a grown man cry" for promote Win95.
-
i love how heated these mac vs windows debates get. But it looks like it switched again to a hardware faceoff. again. i honeslty could care less about the hardware. i just want computer that works. i dont want to get inside of it and toy around. it is fun, but i havent the time to get that into it.
when i get a x86 system, the whole time i own it, im worryng about the hardware, trying to get everything to work together, and then just dealing with that one piece that refuses to cooperate. on my mac, i take it out of the box, plug it in, and im done. not once have i needed to open the case (except of course to show off how goddamn clean it is inside). out of everyone i know who owns a windows pc, all of them bitch and complain about how this doesnt work, that used to work, why is it crashing... and on and on. I have one freind who also owns a mac, and he has never bitched about it being buggy or crashing, or wanting to throw it out of a window. I have never had a complaint about my g4 either. given that, i would never go back to a windows pc. mac owners are "fanatics" for a reason, and i completely understand why.
ecsyle_one
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
who cares about windows? i've got gimp. (it's free, and if you're a REAL mor00n, you can run it in windows so you can bitch about how it's not the same as photoshop if you like).
also, i just had to comment: no, it was 'start me up' by the stones. The rolling stones had NEVER in 30 years sold the rights to use one of their songs in any advertising campaign. they said they never would. All of a sudden Bill Gates offers them $100,000 (or maybe 1,000,000 i forget what the stupidly large sum actually was) and hey presto 'start me up' is windows theme music on televisions across the whole world.
I tried gimp with Mandrake 9. Personally I think it sucks, I'll stick with Photoshop and Paintshop Pro. BTW, a name like GIMP is enough to make a person want to laugh at it. (http://zombie9920.homestead.com/files/4.gif)
-
quote:
Calum: no, it was 'start me up' by the stones. The rolling stones had NEVER in 30 years sold the rights to use one of their songs in any advertising campaign. they said they never would. All of a sudden Bill Gates offers them $100,000 (or maybe 1,000,000 i forget what the stupidly large sum actually was) and hey presto 'start me up' is windows theme music on televisions across the whole world.
I like the parody by Bob Rivers "Hook me up" (also know as "Windows 95 sucks").
Download the song here (http://www.enemy.org/gallery/audio/windows95_sucks.mp3).
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
And I suppose you don't remember the *huge* marketing campain they had for the launch of Win95? They even bought popular songs (wasn't it Beetles songs?) to promote the release. Mass marketing. How many OS/2 Warp ads did you see? How many desktop ads have you ever seen for Linux? Not one, as in *no* marketing. The only marketing I have seen for Linux is from IBM for mainframe systems.
The point is, it would be easier for Dell, in addition to selling PCs with Windows, to also sell naked PCs. Microsoft won't let them. Or do you not believe me when I make the statement that Microsoft won't let them?
True, MS uses thier Monopoly to force OEM's not to sell computers without Windows. OEM's don't want to fuck up thier contract with MS because they would lose alot of business if they could no longer pre-install Windows on thier machines(cause most of the world wants a PC with Windows).
At least you can get a Name Brand(name brand doesn't make shit to me cause I can build a better PC with a better looking case for cheaper than an OEM ;P) PC without an OS. Have you ever seen the Microtel line of computers without an OS pre-installed? They may not be Dells, but they are still name brand.
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
I somewhat agree that "most people" want them, but not for the reasons you are eluding to. Most people want them because 97% of the other people already have them, other people are producing documents in formats that are proprietary. The easiest way to be compatible with others is to use what others use. But proprietary data formats is another subject.
As far as the Microtel PCs go, they don't sell a Dell Inspiron laptop. I want a new Inspiron but I can't get it without buying a copy of Windows which I will never use. In my mind, it's not right, and not fair that I can't get an Inspiron and install whatever OS I want.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Void Main
I want a new Inspiron but I can't get it without buying a copy of Windows which I will never use. In my mind, it's not right, and not fair that I can't get an Inspiron and install whatever OS I want.
hear hear. i agree, it isnt right. i would love to be ablt to order a dell without an os, or with any os. why should we be forced to purchase an os we will never use?
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
I somewhat agree that "most people" want them, but not for the reasons you are eluding to. Most people want them because 97% of the other people already have them, other people are producing documents in formats that are proprietary. The easiest way to be compatible with others is to use what others use. But proprietary data formats is another subject.
As far as the Microtel PCs go, they don't sell a Dell Inspiron laptop. I want a new Inspiron but I can't get it without buying a copy of Windows which I will never use. In my mind, it's not right, and not fair that I can't get an Inspiron and install whatever OS I want.
Can't you get a refund on an unwanted copy of Windows if you do buy a PC with it pre-installed(providing you get a Windows CD instead of a restore CD)? I don't know much about getting a Windows refund so please enlighten me?
If no, can't you find somebody who wants XP to sell the CD too? Tell them it is still in the wrap, has never been used, doesn't have any scratches on the CD, etc. and I'm sure they would buy it.
-
you shouldnt have to go through that kinda bullshit. i dont want to pay for windows. i dont want the cd, and i dont want to have to try and sell it to get my money back. About refunds on Windows, i understand it is near impossible to get one. i have never tried before, so i honestly dont know.
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: xyle_one ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by xyle_one:
you shouldnt have to go through that kinda bullshit. i dont want to pay for windows. i dont want the cd, and i dont want to have to try and sell it to get my money back. About refunds on Windows, i understand it is near impossible to get one. i have never tried before, so i honestly dont know.
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: xyle_one ]
I agree that you should have options to buy any OEM PC with no OS pre-installed. I really don't see how selling a naked PC would be breaching Microsoft agreements. MS doesn't want other OSes pre-installed and it would be a direct violation of Microsofts' OEM licensing agreement to sell a PC with another OS pre-installed...but I'm sure there has to be a loophole for OEMs to be able to sell a PC with NO OS at all(nothing is installed so how is that breaking the "do not install another OS agreement" in the contract?).
It seems to be a complicated issue, but I do have to whole heartidly agree that you should not be forced to buy something you don't want.
I come from the DIY world so I'm not too keen on the issues of dealing with OEM's.
(EDIT)Just to throw some fuel on the Mac vs. PC fire....can you buy a new Mac with no OS pre-installed? What if I want to buy a naked Mac to install Linux on and I don't want to pay for MacOS?(EDIT)
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
(http://www.calumsmusic.netfirms.com/applause.jpg)
GOOD POINT! answer that, mac people!
(i'm sure there is a good answer, so in liht of recent criticisms of my style, nobody take this challenge personally, okay? ;)
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Can't you get a refund on an unwanted copy of Windows if you do buy a PC with it pre-installed(providing you get a Windows CD instead of a restore CD)? I don't know much about getting a Windows refund so please enlighten me?
If no, can't you find somebody who wants XP to sell the CD too? Tell them it is still in the wrap, has never been used, doesn't have any scratches on the CD, etc. and I'm sure they would buy it.
I believe the answer is no in both cases. From everything I've read, those that have tried to get a refund for a preinstalled OS will get nothing but a runaround. And I believe you can not resell a preinstalled version of XP.
And even if I could, it is insulting to me that I would have to do this. How friggin' hard can it be just to sell me a naked Inspiron? Technically it's easier than selling a Windows preloaded version. But as I said, Microsoft will not let them. I do buy Dell PowerEdge servers with RedHat preloaded (I usually wipe them and reinstall RedHat the way I want anyway so I would rather get them without an OS but that is not an option AFAIK).
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie:
Just to throw some fuel on the Mac vs. PC fire....can you buy a new Mac with no OS pre-installed? What if I want to buy a naked Mac to install Linux on and I don't want to pay for MacOS?
to be perfectly honest and fair, you cant. same bullshit, apple bundleing their os with hardware. There should be a choice. personally, i wouldnt by an apple computer with no macOS. if i wanted to run linux, id run it on an x86. but i think that argument can get all turned around by windows fans. I would however, love to by a g4 case for my dual athlon system.
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: xyle_one ]
-
What the fuck are you saying? The main reason I bought my Mac was OS X that beats the shit out of windows. If I want to run Linux on it, I'll do so by installing a Linux PPC distro! So what's the point in asking such a dumb question?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Panos:
What the fuck are you saying? The main reason I bought my Mac was OS X that beats the shit out of windows. If I want to run Linux on it, I'll do so by installing a Linux PPC distro! So what's the point in asking such a dumb question?
It is a legit question. My point is, Apple does the very same shit that Microsoft does but some people tend to overlook that fact. Apple is a monopoly also..and if they were the big guys and MS were the little guys Apple would be a far worse monopoly than what MS is. MS wants control of the software market, Apple wants complete control(of the hardware and software market).
You see, maybe some people like the way a Mac box looks but they don't want to run MacOS. Maybe the person doesn't want to pay for MacOS considering he/she won't use it.
At least with a PC you can get a naked box(maybe not the one you particularly want..but there are some naked PC choices). You don't get that option with Macs.
Saying MacOS kicks the shit out of Windows is a personal opinion. Maybe some people like Windows better than MacOS. Maybe some people like Linux better than MacOS and of course some people like Linux better than Windows. It is all personal preference. As a matter of fact, Windows can do more out of the box than MacOS can(I'll dig up the comparison article I posted a long time ago in a few). ;)
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
Ahh, here we go.
This is updated since the first time I posted it and it throws Linux in there also. Unfortunatley OSX 10.2 isn't in the comparison, but I'm sure that it still has alot of shortcomings. MAcOSX doesn't even support DVD-RW and Floppy drives out of the box. What a joke. Windows has had support for DVD-R AND DVD-RW for a long time..so why does Apple only want to support DVD-R? From the way it appears, Linux is technically superior to MacOS also. ;)
Once again, I'm not afraid to show that MacOS is not all that and a box of chocolates.
http://thetechnozone.com/comdex/2002/OS_Shootout-2002.htm (http://thetechnozone.com/comdex/2002/OS_Shootout-2002.htm)
(EDIT)Ahh, I see that there is some OSX 10.2 comparison in there..whats this? FTP uploads are broken in Jaguar, there are 802.11b issues in Jaguar, etc. How interesting.
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
It is a legit question. My point is, Apple does the very same shit that Microsoft does but some people tend to overlook that fact. Apple is a monopoly also..and if they were the big guys and MS were the little guys Apple would be a far worse monopoly than what MS is. MS wants control of the software market, Apple wants complete control(of the hardware and software market).
It's not the same thing. Apple has their own hardware to sell their operating system with. Microsoft does not. Same with Sun. Same with IBM (RISC/PPC servers, and mainframes), same with HP (high end PA systems). They are computer system manufacturers that also happen to have developed their own OS. Apple from the beginning created their own hardware and wrote the OS to go along with that hardware.
I can understand hardware manufacturers wanting their own OS to go on their hardware. But for those hardware manufacturers that do not have their own OS, I believe they should have the right to sell that hardware with any OS they want, or no OS at all at no penalty.
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
It is a legit question. My point is, Apple does the very same shit that Microsoft does but some people tend to overlook that fact. Apple is a monopoly also..and if they were the big guys and MS were the little guys Apple would be a far worse monopoly than what MS is. MS wants control of the software market, Apple wants complete control(of the hardware and software market).
You see, maybe some people like the way a Mac box looks but they don't want to run MacOS. Maybe the person doesn't want to pay for MacOS considering he/she won't use it.
At least with a PC you can get a naked box(maybe not the one you particularly want..but there are some naked PC choices). You don't get that option with Macs.
Saying MacOS kicks the shit out of Windows is a personal opinion. Maybe some people like Windows better than MacOS. Maybe some people like Linux better than MacOS and of course some people like Linux better than Windows. It is all personal preference. As a matter of fact, Windows can do more out of the box than MacOS can(I'll dig up the comparison article I posted a long time ago in a few). ;)
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
Most of what you say is true except for the out of the box thing where I believe that OS X and XPee offer more or less the same apps. For instance, OS X comes with iTunes, iPhoto, iMovies, AppleWorks, Internet Exploder (yak!) and a shitload of other apps like ichat, Quick Time and not to mention the utilities like Network Utility, Netinfo manager etc. The list is really long.
Opposite of that and on the Windows side you have what? Internet Exploder, MS Paint, Media Player, Movie Maker and? What about an Office suite? You have to pay a shitload of money to buy MS Office. Now if you want to talk about the alternatives like Abiword, openOffice etc they all run in OS X under the X window system and they are all for free.
To correct something that you said in your post, two or more corporations form an oligopoly not a monopoly and M$ was mostly accused for monopolistic practises and not that it is a monopoly. Of course there are alternatives out there but if M$ continues to act like that ie coming out with proprietary file formats etc, then it will tend to be a monopoly, by having eliminated all its rivals. That's what the fuss is all about.
Finally, you certainly have a point in the hardware part of your post and i totally agree there.
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
It's not the same thing. Apple has their own hardware to sell their operating system with. Microsoft does not. Same with Sun. Same with IBM (RISC/PPC servers, and mainframes), same with HP (high end PA systems). They are computer system manufacturers that also happen to have developed their own OS. Apple from the beginning created their own hardware and wrote the OS to go along with that hardware.
I can understand hardware manufacturers wanting their own OS to go on their hardware. But for those hardware manufacturers that do not have their own OS, I believe they should have the right to sell that hardware with any OS they want, or no OS at all at no penalty.
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
Oh, so if MS started making thier own PC's to sell there wouldn't be a problem with MS Windows being pre-installed? But If MS started making PC's would'nt you guys start calling them an even bigger monopoly than they are now?
It is a catch 22. LoL
-
FTP uploads broken in Jaguar?? Where the hell did they get that from??? :eek: :eek:
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Oh, so if MS started making thier own PC's to sell there wouldn't be a problem with MS Windows being pre-installed? But If MS started making PC's would'nt you guys start calling them an even bigger monopoly than they are now?
It is a catch 22. LoL
Microsoft does make their own PCs. It's called the X-Box. It comes with Win2k. I have no problem with Microsoft selling their own PCs, as long as they don't force other PC manufacturers to sell their PCs with a Microsoft operating system.
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
Microsoft does make their own PCs. It's called the X-Box. It comes with Win2k. I have no problem with Microsoft selling their own PCs, as long as they don't force other PC manufacturers to sell their PCs with a Microsoft operating system.
I totally agree to that! well said void.
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
Microsoft does make their own PCs. It's called the X-Box. It comes with Win2k. I have no problem with Microsoft selling their own PCs, as long as they don't force other PC manufacturers to sell their PCs with a Microsoft operating system.
The Xbox is technically a PC but it is labeled and marketed as a console. To use it as a PC(a multi-function machine that can surf the net, play games, do work, etc.) you have to install a mod chip into it. So technically MS doesn't make thier own PC's(due to how the XBox is marketed).
-
Ok, so they should get their own PC, then they have every right to sell only Windows on it and not bully everybody else around.
-
quote:
originally posted by Zombie:
Ahh, here we go.
This is updated since the first time I posted it and it throws Linux in there also. Unfortunatley OSX 10.2 isn't in the comparison, but I'm sure that it still has alot of shortcomings. MAcOSX doesn't even support DVD-RW and Floppy drives out of the box. What a joke. Windows has had support for DVD-R AND DVD-RW for a long time..so why does Apple only want to support DVD-R? From the way it appears, Linux is technically superior to MacOS also.
Once again, I'm not afraid to show that MacOS is not all that and a box of chocolates.
http://thetechnozone.com/comdex/2002/OS_Shootout-2002.htm (http://thetechnozone.com/comdex/2002/OS_Shootout-2002.htm)
(EDIT)Ahh, I see that there is some OSX 10.2 comparison in there..whats this? FTP uploads are broken in Jaguar, there are 802.11b issues in Jaguar, etc. How interesting.
i liked the conclusion in this article. quote:
Conclusion
The features-oriented chart above does not take into account the ease of use of a particular solution. As Bruce Tognazzini notes in his discussion of Fitts's Law, it is important to look at the user's productivity, not the computer's. Generally, Mac OS X and Windows XP are far easier to configure than Linux-based systems. And, despite its limitations in a few areas, Mac OS X is arguably the most elegantly implemented and fundamentally usable operating system currently available, despite occasional user interface gaffes. See our Mac System Software Section for a closer look at Mac OS X 10.2.
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: xyle_one ]
-
there is no amount of bickering and arguing, or even cold hard facts that would make me switch. I switched from windows because i didnt like it. Im using mac osx right now, and i dont see myself switching back to windows anytime soon (at least, not as an everyday machine). Im playing with redhat 8 a little bit, but i dont see myself dropping osx for it. i really dont understand these arguments, unless of course its a childish "im better then you" sorta thing. "my x86 will mop the floor with your whatever", "my mac will kick the shit out of your p2.5", "i'll kick you in the nuts". I dont care what you use, even if your system can kick my computers ass, i might be producing higher caliber work on mine. So what does it prove. I think we get blinded by the "best hardware" and "fastest blah blah", that we forget what it is we are doing with the computer. I use mine as an extension of my artwork. it is another medium to add to my arsenal. I could care less if one system scored .25secs faster than another, or what some bullshit benchmarks prove. I am still producing work i like.
anyways, ill stop now before get too off subject.
ecsyle_one
-
I guess Zombie is never going to answer my question about taking sequential screencaps in Windoze.
How convenient that the subject was changed.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Oh, so if MS started making thier own PC's to sell there wouldn't be a problem with MS Windows being pre-installed? But If MS started making PC's would'nt you guys start calling them an even bigger monopoly than they are now?
It is a catch 22. LoL
you reckon, lol?
if M$ started making their own PCs, i suspect that not many people would actually buy them. The reasons would be threefold. Firstly, microsoft probably underedtimates people's identification with the hardware as opposed to the software, secondly the Microsoft PCs would be full of crippled stuff, trying to make sure nobody can actually do anything on their computer, and thirdly they would be crap.
They would sell about as well as a BeBox, or maybe... an XBox.
respect to you zombie, my fine fellow, for not figuring this out yourself! ;)
-
I thank everybody for joining this discussion. i joined this forum only a week back and it was the first message i posted. i got an assignment in which we had to specify the choice of computer hardware, os, network, software applications available, etc for a multimedia developement center mainly concerened with video editing.
we had to compare and contrast between "microsoft+intel" and "macos on apple systems" :eek: . i have never used a mac and none of my friends have any apple pc. iwas tired of google search so i thought to find out solution on yahoo chat.a gentleman(god bless him) gave me this url.
within 2 - 3 days i've loads of information. my assignment is almost complete. i thank everybody again. (http://smile.gif)
xyle_one asked my choice and it is a Macintosh both in the assignments and my next PC i buy.
a question i forgot to ask (http://tongue.gif) . is mac good enough to to be used in a lab of ten networked computer :confused: . and who has got better application support from industry Mac or Windows for multimedia development.
(Actually at first i thought i won't get any reply but i was wrong and now i feel this is the best way to find any information on the internet)
---------------Arya------------------
-
when you face off the two operating systems themselves it's quite a simple choice because of bad interface elements that microsoft uses.. the first example that comes to mind would be in adobe photoshop 5 under mac os 9. it's actually faster to switch between programs and import files between programs because the os prefers to use multiple windows per application program, and not just one window with other shit contained therin. the best thing i've seen microsoft come up with would be highlighting text and inserting it by dragging that and releasing where desired. i believe i saw that in 1992's grand release of microsoft word 5? could be wrong.
[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: pepto ]
addressing the original topic of the post, for multimedia development, a mac is actually essential. you don't need many, just a few, but you need them. for website production, video, or for 2d editing, perhaps in a portable, but i still think you need 'em. it's possible to work without having to use them, but to me, that's like refusing to use public transportation in hopes that you'll eventually find a faster shortcut. i can say that i just want to get my shit done and get on with my life. dankes for reading
[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: pepto ]
-
i am glad we could be of help. And i'm even more happy that you have decided on a mac. I promise, you will not be dissapointed.
quote:
Originally posted by arya: a question i forgot to ask . is mac good enough to to be used in a lab of ten networked computer . and who has got better application support from industry Mac or Windows for multimedia development.
Mac osX jaguar makes it very easy to network with windows machines, immediately after installing jaguar i was able to mount my windows shares to the mac desktop, and on window i was able to "map" the mac local drive to the windows desktop. Easy.
As for application support, im not entirely sure what you mean, but the majority of graphic designers and digital media enthusiasts use a mac, so finding support will be no problem, and you will deffinetely be supported by Adobe, Macromedia, Etc...
I have also found this forum to be one of the better sources of information, because if someone doesnt have an answer (and they usually do), they know where to send you. okay, enough ass-kissing.
ecsyle_one
(http://smile.gif)
-
Yes, a Mac is built for digital media! You will not bes disapointed :D
There is a reason Photoshop and all the other graphics program were practically invented on Macintosh, it's because it is the only computer with such tight integration between OS, software, and hardware. It is designed around graphics.
Deffinetly, MacOS is the way to go if your into multi-media and graphic design.
EDIT: BTW, let us know when you get your Mac :D us MacAddict's round here love hearing convert reactions and all.
[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by xyle_one:
[in reffrence to buying Mac's with other OS's] to be perfectly honest and fair, you cant. same bullshit, apple bundleing their os with hardware. There should be a choice. personally, i wouldnt by an apple computer with no macOS. if i wanted to run linux, id run it on an x86. but i think that argument can get all turned around by windows fans. I would however, love to by a g4 case for my dual athlon system.
Actually folks, you CAN buy Mac's with alternate operating systems!!!! YES!!!
Not from Apple tho...
Go to http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/ (http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/)
and you can buy a variety of Mac's pre-installed with linux :D
So, that's one over windoze OEM's ay ;)
[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]
-
quote:
originally posted by psyjax: Actually folks, you CAN buy Mac's with alternate operating systems!!!! YES!!! Not from Apple tho...
Go to http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/ (http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/)
and you can buy a variety of Mac's pre-installed with linux
So, that's one over windoze OEM's ay
Sweet, forget what I had said before. (http://smile.gif) ;)
-
Hmm, I've used both a windows machine and a macintosh when I was in design school (I was doing Illustrator work on my 486... and this was three years ago!!), both are equally capable when it comes down to it (OS 9/X won't give you magical design powers), especially considering the proliferation of web design as a medium... printing is the only real plus for the mac here compared to windows (albiet a minor one, and much better in XP), as it is a bit easier to set up color calibrations within the OS itself.
The PPC certainly isn't faster than the x86 right now, and I defy anyone to tell me otherwise... (by the way, avoid RC5 or Apple's Gaussian Blur tests, or I will simply laugh at you.) Yes, surprise, some people do need as much speed as they can get, I've render stuff in Truespace on said 486, and waiting for a screen was a pain in the ass.
Advantages? Hardware + Software integration. The combination works really well, and it gets rid of the awkwardness that I had always experienced using stock x86 pcs with an OS... they just don't jive like the Mac does, and yeah, that's something I notice and care about. I'm pretty anal-retentive about these things. (http://smile.gif)
[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: MacUser3of5 ]
[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: MacUser3of5 ]
-
Dude, Im sorry, I have to say the bigest advantage on the Mac side is the freakin OS. The computer's entire design works with the creative profesional in mind. As someone mentioned earlyer, the whole layout and MO of windows is counterproductive.
I work on Windows Machines and Mac's regularly, and I must say that working in PS7 is a dream on a Mac, where as on a PC it's a plodding nightmare.
YaY! The gaussian blur's prove.... that gausian blurs are faster on the PC?
WTF? Who cares, in the end, your overal productivity is improved on a Mac, I think most Mac users would agree.
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax:
WTF? Who cares, in the end, your overal productivity is improved on a Mac, I think most Mac users would agree.
I definitely agreed to that! Well said psyjax (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
YaY! The gaussian blur's prove.... that gausian blurs are faster on the PC?
That wasn't directed at you psyjax, it was directed at the mindless drones who claim the ppc is faster... duh. ;) Also, if multimedia development means rendering video stills, things that will tax processor/ram/io, etc... time is not an ally, nor is waiting for the machine. Sorry, but the x86 is beating the PPC right now. For graphic design, speed is a lesser point to argue, and for mostly political reasons, a mac is generally a better deal (less cross-platform bitching from print houses, generally less hassles, because some print houses are still running older software that does play as 'nice').
Yes, I am more productive on my Mac, relax... sheesh... I had to go for a moment, and was unable to write a long-winded dissertation on the usability benefits I experience under the single menu bar paradigm, or the more useful placement of keyboard shortcuts. I apoligize if I offended you. :rolleyes:
quote:
Dude, Im sorry, I have to say the bigest advantage on the Mac side is the freakin OS. The computer's entire design works with the creative profesional in mind.
No offense, but this is a poor argument. I've seen total shit designers use a Mac, I've seen total shit designers use Windows. I've seen amazing designers work on Windows, and I have seen amazing design being done on a Mac. Not every creative professional is built the same you know.
Don't confuse the OS with the person who is using it.
(http://smile.gif)
[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: MacUser3of5 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by MacUser3of5:
No offense, but this is a poor argument. I've seen total shit designers use a Mac, I've seen total shit designers use Windows. I've seen amazing designers work on Windows, and I have seen amazing design being done on a Mac. Not every creative professional is built the same you know.
Don't confuse the OS with the person who is using it.
(http://smile.gif)
Anyone can learn to work anywhere. That dosn't mean that where they are working is necissarly the best place to work.
-
quote:
Anyone can learn to work anywhere. That dosn't mean that where they are working is necissarly the best place to work.
This is true, and sorta my point. I know people who are more comfortable with Windows than OS X, and vice versa. Forcing one solution above all esle on someone doesn't allow for much happiness. I suggest a mixed environment for most production peeps : A dumb renderer/server (I recommend x86, it's cheaper and faster) a few wintels for those who like them, and a few macs for those who like them too. All in all, everyone is happy, and it works well too... I can attest to that.
I will say this: Everyone should at least try OS X for an extended time if they have an interest. Or just buy an iBook or something... ;)
-
I've said it more than once and I will keep saying it: I don't care if Intel's processors are, for the time being, faster than PPC processors. I really don't give a s**t if they are or not! All I know is that I can do my work faster and more efficiently in my cramped up iBook, than I could with my spacious HP Omnibook. Furthermore, NOTHING CRASHES in OS X. I have yet to see a application crash, let alone the Operating System itself! So, judging by these criteria, all I can say is that all those G(M)Hz zealots can suck my balls for all I care (that does of course apply to Windows users and not Linux ones)
:D
-
You != Everyone. Your needs do not reflect a lot of media professionals that I know personally who need fast machines. This isn't about Ghz, it's about performance. Right now, bang-for-buck, Dual 1.25 Ghz machines are not gonna cut it for a lot of people.
Also, OS X has crashed on my a few times. This is 10.1.5, so I cannot speak for Jaguar*. It isn't bulletproof, but it is quite stable.
*Which, if according to Apple's new K-12 offer (Jag == free for teachers), will arrive at my friend's (a teacher) school in a week or so... and then it will make a permanent home on my TiBook... ;) :D
-
Me=!Me :D
As I most clearly wrote in my post, I am talking about myself, hence those opinions above reflect my own. Now, I'm not a media professional or anything of the sort, so I wouldn't know how media professionals feel about Apple computers. However I happen to know a lot of graphic artists, web designers etc who would use nothing else but their Mac. ;)
-
That 'You != Everyone' comment was just playful jabbing.
It's too bad for Apple though, they have brand loyalty from long-time customers, but aren't doing much of anything to woo in 'the new breed' of designers I see in college classes...