Mac or PC? You make the call. [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

yosemite

07-26-2003, 04:35 PM

First off, Kinthalis, it's Mac, not MAC.

I wouldn't say macs are for retarded people, but certianly for the less computer savvy.I don't know about that. I just now posted a tutorial (on another message board) explaining to a Windows user how to copy and paste. I would not underestimate the lack of computer savvy amongst PC users as well. In fact, while I am in NO WAY that savvy, I'd guess that I know more about PCs than maybe 75% of the Windows users I know. All some people want to do is click on that little AOL button, dontchaknow...
If you're not much into computers (you only use them for work or typing up school reports), I would STILL recommend a PC (you'd save money that way), but I can see the appeal of a MAC.I'm into computers quite a bit. Not enough to build my own system (so I don't care about that) and once again, I won't pretend to be that savvy, but still, I am quite enthusiastic.

I take my computer work seriously. I am mostly interested in graphic design and web design. Are these not "serious" endevours? And yes, I have compared the performance of my Mac and my PC when it comes to graphics, etc., and I personally prefer my Mac. OS X is the bomb.
If you are a serious computer gamer then you cannot possibly want anything other than a PC, simply for the power for the money ratio.True, if you are into games, a PC is where it's at. But, not to try to put down gaming, because we all have our hobbies and I know that gaming is a damned fun hobby, but how is gaming anything "serious"? It's a frigging game. ;)
If you are computer savvy, and are willing to learn your way around a PC, there is nothing more satisfying than building your powerhouse PC from the ground up that'll outperform any MAc and cost CONSIDERABLY less.You know, some of us just don't give a shit about building our own computers. Just like some of us don't give a shit about building our own car. We just want it to run.

Not everyone wants the same thing from a computer.

I don't think I'd get that much of a warm fuzzy feeling over building my own computer (it'd be nice, but not the center of my universe). I get a really warm fuzzy feeling over the feedback (and occasionally money) I get from the work I produce on my Mac.
Also, having piece of mind than any game/piece of software coming out will be made for your system is vital to gamers/PC users.I don't game, so I don't give a shit about gaming. A lot of us don't game.

I get the peace of mind knowing that my computer will run iDVD, iTunes, Final Cut Pro, and other Mac-only applications.

True, there are some things that will only run on a PC (and I do like my PC) but I'd hate to only have a PC to rely on. That would indeed be depressing.

rjung

07-26-2003, 05:09 PM

Windows is for people who don't know better. ;)

Originally posted by Kinthalis
I wouldn't say macs are for retarded people, but certianly for the less computer savvy.

You better not talk to this bunch (http://apple.slashdot.org/) or these folks, (http://mac.oreilly.com/) then...

Ringo

07-26-2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by yosemitebabe

Not everyone wants the same thing from a computer.

Precisely, which is why the old PC v. Mac debates aren't really worth debating. Macs just can't do what I need, so there's no need to think about 'em.

fauxpas

07-26-2003, 06:48 PM

BTW, how much memory do these new macs come with? Or atleast the old ones?

Kinthalis

07-26-2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
[B]First off, Kinthalis, it's Mac, not MAC.

Thanx for the correction ;)

I don't know about that. I just now posted a tutorial (on another message board) explaining to a Windows user how to copy and paste. I would not underestimate the lack of computer savvy amongst PC users as well.

True enough. I'm not saying that ONLY computer savvy people should invest on PC's. What I AM saying is that I can see the appeal of Macs to people not so computer literate. I realize those not so savvy also purchase PC's, but that wasn't my point.

In fact, while I am in NO WAY that savvy, I'd guess that I know more about PCs than maybe 75% of the Windows users I know. All some people want to do is click on that little AOL button, dontchaknow...

I realize that. But they can do that for less money buying a PC, and most people want to save money dontchaknow...

I'm into computers quite a bit. Not enough to build my own system (so I don't care about that) and once again, I won't pretend to be that savvy, but still, I am quite enthusiastic.

Sweet. Wether Mac or PC, computer savvy people are few and far between.

I take my computer work seriously. I am mostly interested in graphic design and web design. Are these not "serious" endevours?

These are serious endevours, I agree. I use my PC for prgramming Java and back end web development. But I don't need a AMD 3000 533 MHZ FSB and a Geforce 4 FX 5900 to do that, or to design web pages ;)

As I said, unless your work specifically requires a high end machine I can see you getting and enjoying your Mac.

And yes, I have compared the performance of my Mac and my PC when it comes to graphics, etc., and I personally prefer my Mac. OS X is the bomb.

I'm sorry, but I'd wager my PC will put your Mac to shame any day of the week when it comes to graphics performance, I did mentione I'm a gamer, no? ;)

True, if you are into games, a PC is where it's at. But, not to try to put down gaming, because we all have our hobbies and I know that gaming is a damned fun hobby, but how is gaming anything "serious"? It's a frigging game. ;)

I never said gaming was serious. I said if you are a 'serious gamer' then PC is what you want to be looking at. NOT a Mac.

You know, some of us just don't give a shit about building our own computers. Just like some of us don't give a shit about building our own car. We just want it to run.

Are we getting a little miffed here, or am I reading too much into your choice of words?

I never said "All PC users like to build their own machines". But it IS nice to have that option if you like doing that and at the same time you like saving money.

I bought my current system for 1/2 of what it would have cost me had I payed retail just by building it myself. Saved me over a thousand dollars.

I realize this is not for everyone. But since there are so many hardware manufacturers, you can get new/replacement parts rather cheap for a PC. This is a plus IMHO.

I don't game, so I don't give a shit about gaming. A lot of us don't game.

I would suggest you give it a shot. IT's rather fun and there is something there for everyone, wether RPG, Action/Adventure, puzzle, whatever.

Not all computer users like to game, I know, and for them, I can also see the appeal for a Mac.

Bottom line: Why pay more? A PC (if bought from a reputable vendor or if built by a savvy user) will be just as reliable (Windows XP only, I give Mac's OS the props it deserves), as a Mac. Except it'll do more (more powerful), It provides more software options to choose from, and it is less expensive.

yosemite

07-26-2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Kinthalis
What I AM saying is that I can see the appeal of Macs to people not so computer literate.True, the appeal of Macs is for people that do not want to jump through hoops and "troubleshoot" endlessly (i.e., "less savvy") but that is a good thing. It's a good thing that there is a computer out there that will work for the likes of Yo Yo Ma and many other "less savvy" people who just want to get their work done, not necessarily be "savvy."
I realize that. But they can do that for less money buying a PC, and most people want to save money dontchaknow...I'm as poor as the next person, but I realize that you get what you pay for. Not having to troubleshoot as much and waste time tearing out my hair trying to get something to work as much is worth it to me, dontchaknow...
These are serious endevours, I agree. I use my PC for prgramming Java and back end web development. But I don't need a AMD 3000 533 MHZ FSB and a Geforce 4 FX 5900 to do that, or to design web pages ;)And you don't need OS X, either. But OS X is a much nicer "enviroment" to work in, and for some of us, the nicer "environment" makes all the difference.

We do the work, we decide what environment works best for us. And, believe it or not, some of us prefer an "environment" that may (I know this is stunning, but may) differ from your preference. One size does not fit all.
I'm sorry, but I'd wager my PC will put your Mac to shame any day of the week when it comes to graphics performance, I did mentione I'm a gamer, no? ;)Did I mention that I don't care about gaming? ;)

My G4 Mac is old (2001 model) so I am sure many a PC would beat it. But, with Photoshop (I use a lot of Photoshop) my Mac competed quite favorably to my PC. Even though the PC's CPU was much faster. The secret is the Altivec engine, a Mac-only plug in. Only works on G4s. Very dandy.

Besides, do you think that your current PC would "put to shame" the new tricked out G5s in Photoshop? Because Photoshop is where it's at for me. Don't care about gaming--if your PC beats a G5 in gaming, more power to it. But with Photoshop? You think it will put a G5 to shame? Seriously? Maybe the latest desktop PC will be "neck and neck" (at best) with the G5, but I see no evidence that it will put it "to shame."
I never said gaming was serious. I said if you are a 'serious gamer' then PC is what you want to be looking at. NOT a Mac. And did I disagree with you?

The reason I bring up the idea of "gaming" not being serious is that many Mac-bashers (not you specifically, but many) bring up gaming as if that is some sort of "proof" that you can get "real" work done on a PC as opposed to a Mac. But since gaming isn't "real work" anything, but just a wonderfully enjoyable hobby, it doesn't really follow.
Are we getting a little miffed here, or am I reading too much into your choice of words?I'm not miffed; I truly do not care. Just like I truly do not care about taking apart my car's engine and putting it together again. That's why God invented mechanics.
I never said "All PC users like to build their own machines". But it IS nice to have that option if you like doing that and at the same time you like saving money.To a certain extent, Mac users (not me, obviously, but some) build their own Macs. Or at least trick them out and upgrade them to the hilt. Macs use pretty standard parts. I have a friend who does this. He has a ball.
I bought my current system for 1/2 of what it would have cost me had I payed retail just by building it myself. Saved me over a thousand dollars.And you have a thousand-dollar-saving machine that will not run OS X, Final Cut Pro, iDVD, iMovie, and other apps (or OSes) that I prefer to be able to use. So what's your point? Your cheaper PC won't run the apps I want it to run. I want a computer that will run the apps I want it to run. See how that works? ;)
I realize this is not for everyone. But since there are so many hardware manufacturers, you can get new/replacement parts rather cheap for a PC. This is a plus IMHO.Macs use a lot of the same parts. True, you have to get the motherboard through Apple, but hard drives, RAM, optical drives--a lot of them are cross-platform.
I would suggest you give it a shot. IT's rather fun and there is something there for everyone, wether RPG, Action/Adventure, puzzle, whatever.How do I put this nicely? I DON'T CARE. I tried games a while ago. I truly do not care. I cannot imagine a more energy-sucking waste of time. The only game I really like is Snood. Snood is an exception (and Solitaire). Both these are available for OS X. So I'm all set.

Let me make a suggestion to you: have you ever tried sewing your own clothes? I love to sew my own clothes, and you can save a shitload of money making your own. And they fit you just right, are just the style you want, and often you can use Designer patters. Sewing your own clothes is supercool.

Do you think that just because I enjoy sewing my own clothes (and save a LOT of money doing so) that everyone else should want to do it too? Because, you know, it saves you so much money. And it's fun--truly it is! Well, I think it is, and that's all that counts, isn't it? So you are going to rush out and get a Butterick pattern and start sewin', aren't you? Huh? :D
Bottom line: Why pay more? Do you sew your own clothes? And if not, why do you waste your money buying storebought clothing! It's so expensive and a sewing is so fun!A PC (if bought from a reputable vendor or if built by a savvy user) will be just as reliable (Windows XP only, I give Mac's OS the props it deserves), as a Mac.I don't know about that. I like my XP machine fine (it's new, XP Pro, a very nice ASUS Deluxe motherboard, 1 GB RAM, etc. etc.) but XP is simply not as stable or as nice as OS X. I work with both these systems, side by side (literally--I have a KVM switch) daily. I see the difference. Except it'll do more (more powerful), It provides more software options to choose from, and it is less expensive. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between these two OSes. I see the differences every day. My PC is blazingly fast, and I do love it, for its strengths. But I cannot wait to get my mitts on a G5. And I have seen the previews of Panther, the new OS X. XP has nothin' on it.

yosemite

07-26-2003, 08:10 PM

I should also add, that the appeal for Mac is for the less "savvy" people, and also for the creative people--you know, like the people working on TV shows, movies, etc. etc. I notice a lot of OS X screenshots in TV shows and ads. (24, anyone?) That's because the people behind the scenes, the people doing this work, are all Mac people. And there's a reason for that.

beagledave

07-26-2003, 08:21 PM

Mac users get the hottest babes.

I'm just sayin' is all....

Gest

07-26-2003, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
I notice a lot of OS X screenshots in TV shows and ads. (24, anyone?) That's because the people behind the scenes, the people doing this work, are all Mac people. No, it's because Apple have a huge marketing budget, a large part of which is set aside for product placement. The graphic designers, CGI artists and web developers associated with a movie who use Macs don't have set design input, that's the set designer's job. Who probably doesn't use a Mac or have the same (well founded) bias you and I have.:D

modro

07-26-2003, 08:53 PM

SanibelMan

07-26-2003, 08:58 PM

I have a Honda Accord and I use a Mac. I'm not big on maintenance.

That said, one thing that disappoints me about OS X is that, while more powerful and flexible than 9 was, it introduces the ideas of unintelligible and hidden files that can wreak havoc with your computer if you move/delete them. And it's so hard to delete programs now - I miss just throwing out the application folder and the file from the preferences. I lost the CD for Norton AntiVirus, and since I installed a clean OS, it prompts me every startup to reinstall it because of missing files. I have no idea where to find them - searching for "Norton" and deleting everything doesn't help. I miss simplicity.

Kinthalis

07-26-2003, 09:09 PM

Yosemite Babe:

I don't know what your taking my opinion as an attack on the Mac.

I am NOT saying that everyone who chooses a PC has to build it from the ground up, or that they have to use it as I do.

I'm just laying down some good points on PC's. Is there no room for a differing opinion?

With a PC you get:

wider choice of hardware, wider choice of software (gaming or otherwise), and greater compatability with both.

You also get a powerhouse of a computer. Not that you'll notice the difference while working with a word processor, but other, more demanding applications will perform better.

And finally, it's cheaper. Way cheaper.

I also don't know where your hatred for PC's comes from. My girlfriend (definatley not computer savvy) uses my comp just fine, no complaints so far.

:)

P.S: I'mg uessing you're a girl by your SN. No wonder you hate gaming. I've yet to meet a girl who was into games. As for it being a waste of time: having fun is a great way to reduce stress and be happy. I do do other things beside playing games, as I'm sure most gamers do.

modro

07-26-2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by SanibelMan
I have a Honda Accord and I use a Mac. I'm not big on maintenance.

That said, one thing that disappoints me about OS X is that, while more powerful and flexible than 9 was, it introduces the ideas of unintelligible and hidden files that can wreak havoc with your computer if you move/delete them. And it's so hard to delete programs now - I miss just throwing out the application folder and the file from the preferences. I lost the CD for Norton AntiVirus, and since I installed a clean OS, it prompts me every startup to reinstall it because of missing files. I have no idea where to find them - searching for "Norton" and deleting everything doesn't help. I miss simplicity.

Have you gone into system preferences and looked in the login items panel?

yosemite

07-26-2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Gest
No, it's because Apple have a huge marketing budget, a large part of which is set aside for product placement. The graphic designers, CGI artists and web developers associated with a movie who use Macs don't have set design input, that's the set designer's job. Who probably doesn't use a Mac or have the same (well founded) bias you and I have.:D Probably you have a point to an extent, but do you believe that every screenshot and every Mac you see placed on TV more movies is bought and paid for? Because I don't believe that. I think that sometimes a TV or movie needs to show computers, and since some of their crew is already "Mac biased", and since the Macs are more attractive (and they are) than PCs, that's what they use.

I've also seen many, many all-Mac or 50/50 Mac/PC screenshots in computer books (specifically graphics how-to books like for Photoshop). In fact, I am embarassed to say how many Photoshop books I own, and I think I've only got one or two that has PC-only screenshots. All the others are all-Mac or a mix. Certainly no one paid to the author to put those screenshots in there, it was the author's preference. And many times the authors of Photoshop books (or the publishers, perhaps) are Mac users or "Mac-friendly."

Kinthalis

07-26-2003, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
[.

I've also seen many, many all-Mac or 50/50 Mac/PC screenshots in computer books (specifically graphics how-to books like for Photoshop). In fact, I am embarassed to say how many Photoshop books I own, and I think I've only got one or two that has PC-only screenshots. All the others are all-Mac or a mix. Certainly no one paid to the author to put those screenshots in there, it was the author's preference. And many times the authors of Photoshop books (or the publishers, perhaps) are Mac users or "Mac-friendly." [/B]

Didn't adobe start writing software for the mac? Later on they included PC support for their software. Could explain what your observation.

I swear by Photshop and Illustrator. Great products.

As for the ads, it's true. Apple owns the industry in this respect. This is because they have to compete with the PC.

PC sales are exponentially larger than Mac sales.

SanibelMan

07-26-2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by modro
Have you gone into system preferences and looked in the login items panel? Aha! Thank you. Still, why is there a "login items" control panel AND a "startup items" folder? I loved my Mac for the fact that the files I saw were all that was there - no confusing hidden files, no .dll screwups, no registry crap. OS X's implementation of UNIX seems to have thrown that out the window (so to speak).

yosemite

07-26-2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Kinthalis
Yosemite Babe:

I don't know what your taking my opinion as an attack on the Mac.Wait. Let's see here:from Kinthalis's first post on this thread:

Mac? Yuck!

With a MAC you pay MORE for LESS. Plain and simple.

I wouldn't say macs are for retarded people, but certianly for the less computer savvy. And you so graciously concede that Macs are probably not for "retarded" people.

Oh no, no negativaty, no "attacks" there... :rolleyes:
I am NOT saying that everyone who chooses a PC has to build it from the ground up, or that they have to use it as I do.No, you're not. But you are saying that being able to build it from the ground up is one if its perks. And since some of us don't give a shit about that particular perk, that means that particular perk might as well not exist for us, doesn't it?
I'm just laying down some good points on PC's. Is there no room for a differing opinion?Of course there is. But you go beyond "differing opinion"--you are insulting. But I do acknowledge that you dodged a bullet by not quite comparing Mac users to "retarded people." :D
With a PC you get:

wider choice of hardware, wider choice of software (gaming or otherwise), and greater compatability with both.And you don't get to use OS X, Final Cut Pro, or any of the other apps I mentioned, but you refuse to acknowledge.
You also get a powerhouse of a computer.And you think the G5 won't be a "pwerhouse" computer? Not that you'll notice the difference while working with a word processor, but other, more demanding applications will perform better.And you think the G5 won't perform very well? Especially when running Photoshop?
And finally, it's cheaper. Way cheaper.A cheaper computer that does not run the apps I want it to run is not that much of a bargain.
I also don't know where your hatred for PC's comes from.I'd like you to copy and paste examples of my "hatred": Oh wait, could it be this quote?yosemitebabe wrote:
However, I am forced to use a PC for an online class I am taking, and XP is really OK. Not as good as OS X, but, OK.Yep, that's just oozing hatred.

Or what about this?yosemitebabe wrote:

True, there are some things that will only run on a PC (and I do like my PC)Yep, simmering with hatred.

Oh wait, what about this one?My PC is blazingly fast, and I do love it, for its strengths.
While I obviously am not 100% enamoured with my PC, I cannot fathom where you got the idea that I hate them. I really like my lovely PC. I paid good money for it. I had the shop add all sorts of nifty parts. I really like it, for what it is. But it can't run OS X, and I much prefer OS X. (Though, I concede, XP is the first Windows OS that is fairly decent.)
My girlfriend (definatley not computer savvy) uses my comp just fine, no complaints so far.Oh, I get around on my PC relatively well. But it's a PC, and I know what it's like to do some of the same tasks on a Mac. And I see this difference every day, as I mentioned before.

Tell me--do you use a PC and Mac, side-by-side, daily? If not, do you think there is a remote chance that maybe someone who does use them side-by-side daily might have a few insights that you do not? ;)
P.S: I'mg uessing you're a girl by your SN. No wonder you hate gaming. I've yet to meet a girl who was into games. As for it being a waste of time: having fun is a great way to reduce stress and be happy. I do do other things beside playing games, as I'm sure most gamers do. I am absolutely not trashing gamers or gaming. Just because I think it is a mind-sucking waste of time does not mean that everyone will agree with me. Just like not everyone will want to start sewing their clothes, even though I think it's pretty nifty.

All I'm saying is that if gaming is of no importance to someone, then why tout a computer's ability to game as some sort of major perk? That's the same as touting how fabulously Macs run Photoshop to someone who will never, ever run Photoshop. It will mean diddley to them.

Kinthalis

07-26-2003, 09:56 PM

Yosemite babe:

Wow, Yeah I suppose I did say some things that wouldn't sound very amicable on the first post. I certainly did not mean them in a serious way however.

It's hard to write something in such a way as for the reader to know I'm not being serious.

But common "Mac, Yuck!"? You thought I was being serious?

Also, I keep hearing about how Mac's OS is "nicer". What exactly does that mean? How is it superior to windows xp?

I really want to know, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm not fmailiar with the latest version of the OS.

As for applications, you do realize that there are OTHER applications for windows that do the same on PC, right? Save for iTunes, I beleive (it's some sort of pay to hear music program no?).

Kinthalis

07-26-2003, 09:59 PM

Actually I think iTunes or something similar is coming to PC.

And this is what I mean wiht piece of mind. The PC market is so much larger that the Mac's, that appliactions are very unlikely to remain on the Mac platform alone. They will almost certainly support windows soon enough, or (most likely) start out for PC's, and migrate later to Macs (sometimes).

modro

07-26-2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by SanibelMan
Aha! Thank you. Still, why is there a "login items" control panel AND a "startup items" folder? I loved my Mac for the fact that the files I saw were all that was there - no confusing hidden files, no .dll screwups, no registry crap. OS X's implementation of UNIX seems to have thrown that out the window (so to speak).

As for the startup items and login items both being in there, I have no idea. One of them needs to go away. Certainly far better than the Windows lets-hide-startup-apps-in-the-registry mess by far though, but still entirely unnessecary.

As for X creating problems, so far I've yet to have any. I move my apps around, drop them in the trash (then trash the preferences) and nothing breaks. Actually, I've been quite impressed. I expected far worse when I found out X would be UNIX based, but I've found I can use it the same way I used to use 9 without any hassle. The only area where the file system gets more confusing, is in the fact that there are a few areas where stuff can hide. Preferences, for instance, while almost always in the Library folder in the users home folder, will sometimes end up in the system library folder.

There is still no registry, and while there is a lot of UNIX stuff hidden underneath, it is just that, hidden. The only way to get to it is through the terminal anyways, and there really is no need whatsoever to do so.

In my case, once I got used to the highly polished interface, increased stability, and the overall thoughtfulness of the whole package, I found myself unable to use OS 9 again. 9 was a nice OS, but after no longer having to deal with memory allocation, relatively frequent reboots, and 9's poor multitasking, I just can't go back. I've been spoiled.

One of the nice things with X, is you can just put the computer to sleep instead of shutting it down, and upon wakeup the computer is instantly useable, no wait like with 9. I never shut down my computers anymore, because the OS is so rock stable that I don't have to, and sleep works so well.

RickJay

07-26-2003, 10:24 PM

Sigh.

Buy a tool that does what you need it to do. You wouldn't buy a table saw for hammering nails and you wouldn't buy a hammer for cutting wood.

If you want to make your own DVDs and edit film, buy a Mac.
If you want to play awesome video games, buy a PC. (And by the way, my wife loves PC games.)
If you want an ultra-stable computer, buy a Mac.
If you want a computer with a large software library, buy a PC.
If you want to do graphic design, buy a Mac.
If you want to do business consulting work for a lot of clients, buy a PC.

This ain't a holy war. Or it shouldn't be.

karomon

07-26-2003, 10:35 PM

Technically, I am comfortable using either one. I have never owned a mac, just because most of the software I use is not available for that system right now.

But whoever says that macs run smoother and don't have as many problems as PCs gets a complimentary tour of my boss's imac moments before I finally bash the thing to pieces with my own head.

Kinthalis

07-26-2003, 10:41 PM

Rick Jay:

Platform selection is not as black and white as you portray them.

I can and do make and edit DVD's on my PC. Although I do back end programming, I do get involved with the graphics design aspect of web design, and I use a PC for that too.

There is no one thing that a Mac can do, that a PC cannot do.

Lute Skywatcher

07-26-2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by RickJay
Sigh.

Buy a tool that does what you need it to do. You wouldn't buy a table saw for hammering nails and you wouldn't buy a hammer for cutting wood.

If you want to make your own DVDs and edit film, buy a Mac.
If you want to play awesome video games, buy a PC. (And by the way, my wife loves PC games.)
If you want an ultra-stable computer, buy a Mac.
If you want a computer with a large software library, buy a PC.
If you want to do graphic design, buy a Mac.
If you want to do business consulting work for a lot of clients, buy a PC.

This ain't a holy war. Or it shouldn't be. You forgot one:

If you want a computer that can be easily upgraded by yourself, buy a PC. My P3 is essentially just an old 386 that I added onto over the years. Sort of like that old joke about George Washington's hatchet: it's had three new heads and five new handles but it's his hatchet.

yosemite

07-26-2003, 10:55 PM

There is no one thing that a Mac can do, that a PC cannot do.Sigh.

How many times do I have to repeat this? It cannot run OS X, and it cannot run Final Cut Pro, among other apps. It cannot do the same thing as well. Unless you think you can make a PC run OS X--I welcome you to try! ;)

Do you see a PC mentioned anywhere on Final Cut Pro's (http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/) system requirements? No? There's a reason for that. Apple owns FCP, and it has no intention of making a Windows version. I think the only iApp that it is going to port over to the PC is iTunes, since that ties in with the Apple Music Store.

Don't think that just because there is some other DVD burning software, or video editing software, that it's "the same" as the Apple apps. It's not. Just like other image editing software is not the "same" as Photoshop. There's only one Photoshop, and a lot of people pay a lot of money to use it, and not something cheaper. Same with Final Cut Pro--except in FCP's case, it only runs on Macs.

MS and other Windows software companies have tried to make similar apps but so far, according to the reports I've heard, they haven't come close.

wakimika

07-26-2003, 11:11 PM

Mac owners: shhhhhh. Chill.

The Mac experience is about elegance and style and power. I, for one, am perfectly happy that we are a small market. If we were the dominant platform, we would have to embrace Microsoft. Now that Apple has made a better browser than IE, there is no need to have any Microsoft products on your Mac.

It is just not for everyone. The Ferrari is not for everyone. Ford makes cars for the masses. ;)

Most people don't understand why simplicity and functionality are keys to happy computing. OS X would be lost on them. That is how it should be.

Most people won't see why the Cube, the Titanium Powerbook or the G5 case are works of art.

Right now, the average PC user is scratching their head, wondering how an "operation" can be "illegal." Shhhhhhh. Chill. And enjoy.

yosemite

07-26-2003, 11:22 PM

wakimika: you are right! :D

And RickJay, I see your point too. I definitely think that there are things the PC can do better (the course I am taking uses Windows-only software, so I have a PC) but obviously I think Macs do a lot of things better too.

I tire of people arguing with me and telling me that my choice is probably not "retarded" (but close). Or that I can't do "real work" on my Mac (I hear that a lot too).

But I don't care to try to persuade every PC user to switch to a Mac, or to be convinced that my preference to Macs should be their preference too. If they are happy with PC-only, that's fine. Just stop trying to insult me and telling me that I don't have a "real" computer.

sturmhauke

07-27-2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
So you are going to rush out and get a Butterick pattern and start sewin', aren't you? Huh? :D
Oh yeah?! Well, I made my own Renn Faire costume, and I can build a PC, so there! :p

I like PCs because they are incrementally upgradeable. But then, I just like tinkering with things in general. I don't have anything against Macs or Mac users, I just like to take a more hands on approach to my gam- uh, serious graphical and mathematical applications.

Ringo

07-27-2003, 12:41 AM

Macs work for some people, Win PCs work for others - not much more to be said.

The marketplace seems to indicate that PCs work for more people.

Gest

07-27-2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Ringo
The marketplace seems to indicate that PCs work for more people. No, the present stuation is a result of the failure of the market. Hence Microsoft was found guilty of abusing their monopoly position. As for those who like to tinker, they should take into account what they like to tinker with. If you're interested in the harware side of things then PCs are the way to go. Software; well you've either got OSX with it's open source basis or Linux or a BSD flavour if you want a non-PowerPC architecture. Even here, OSX has the edge with Objective C.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Kinthalis
Mac? Yuck!

Which pretty much sums up the intellectual heft of the remainder of the post.

I used to use Windows. I am still something of a Windows expert... the guy all my friends turn to when they need their Windows machines fixed.

But I will never own a Windows machine again. I prefer my Mac, which doesn't give me the sort of headaches I used to get with my Windows machines, which looks better both outside and on the screen.

Plus, no Windows box will run Final Cut Pro, software I would live and die for.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Kinthalis
With a PC you get:

wider choice of hardware, wider choice of software (gaming or otherwise), and greater compatability with both.

I have far too much of a life to care about computer games. And all the Windows software in the world doesn't matter when the apps I want (Office, InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat) run as good if not better on a Mac as on Windows, or (Final Cut, iMovie, iDVD, Safari, Watson) run only on Macs at all.

You also get a powerhouse of a computer.

In what was is the Power Macintosh G5 that will be delivered to my doorstep in a few weeks not a "powerhouse of a computer"?

spectrum

07-27-2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by SanibelMan
Aha! Thank you. Still, why is there a "login items" control panel AND a "startup items" folder?

I have never seen a "Startup Items" folder on my OS X Mac... where would that be?

yosemite

07-27-2003, 01:50 AM

Oh spectrum! You are getting a G5??? Oh, how I envy you!!! Which model is it? Huh? Huh? How much hard drive, RAM, etc.? Are you having anything added? Spill it! I love to live vicariously through other people's computer purchases!

I was going to do some serious upgrading on my G4, but I think now I will have to just leave it as-is for probably another year, and hopefully by that time I'll afford a really spiffy G5 with tons of RAM and hard drive. (I have a serious hard drive problem--I'm a terrible HD hog. I can easily make 300-500MB Photoshop files, and a lot of them--I have a feeling you are probably not unfamiliar with this phenomenon!)

spectrum wrote:

I have far too much of a life to care about computer games.You are my new hero! ;) Wicked, but definitely my new hero!

spectrum

07-27-2003, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Kinthalis
Also, I keep hearing about how Mac's OS is "nicer". What exactly does that mean? How is it superior to windows xp?

The file system is far more logically laid out. Virtually all files that an end user will have to deal with are named so as to be easily discerned.

Any well written program outside of some system utilities (like Norton) can be uninstalled by throwing the icon for the program away - no uninstallers, no DLL hell, none of that nonsense.

Many native Mac OS X programs are only one icon... not a folder full of dozens of icons.

Unlike Windows, the Mac supports finely-tuned color management, making it the only ideal platform for print graphics work. The Mac also flows text in the print standard way -- Windows documents have to be reflowed in most professional printing environments, because Microsoft has never done type flowing properly.

Little details like having dialogue buttons be verbs like "Save/Don't Save" instead of "Yes/No" makes the purpose of a dialogue clear even without having to read the text in the dialogue to determine exactly what you're being asked to do.

Or the fact that the Close, Minimize and Zoom buttons are organized in that order, which is more logical than on Windows, where Close and Maximize are right next to each other, even though they serve exact opposite functions. So if you try to hit a button but miss by one spot, on Mac you're going to get a response that's at least close to what you sought initially.

Little details like that add up... fast.

Keyboard shortcuts are often more logical (Cmd-Q to quit a program... whereas Windows uses Alt-F4, a shortcut unlike any other shortcut, which is bizarre and bad design).

So on and so forth.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by Kinthalis
I do get involved with the graphics design aspect of web design, and I use a PC for that too.

Graphic design for the Web is great, but where the Mac shines is print graphic design, which requires color matching and text flowing that Windows can't match.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
Oh spectrum! You are getting a G5??? Oh, how I envy you!!! Which model is it? Huh? Huh? How much hard drive, RAM, etc.? Are you having anything added? Spill it! I love to live vicariously through other people's computer purchases!

Hmm...

1.8 GHz G5, 900 MHz FSB, 3 PCI-X slots
512 MB PC3200 RAM
160 GB Serial ATA HDD
nVidia GeForce FX 5200 graphics card
AirPort Extreme
Bluetooth thingy
SuperDrive
17" Studio Display LCD

I think I'm going to name it Jupiter. :-)

Really Not All That Bright

07-27-2003, 02:06 AM

So AMD chips (well, the Athlon at least) run faster than Intel chips of the same relative speed... do Apple's processors do the same thing? (not that 1.8 GHz isn't more than you'll ever need for anything except playing Need for Speed 61), but given the "most powerful computer in the universe, ever" hyperbole that Apple is rolling out for the G5 I expected a bigger number...

yosemite

07-27-2003, 02:07 AM

spectrum: Oh my! ::drool drool:: That is a nice setup you're going to have there. And the Studio Display--wow, I do envy you! I have some simple NEC LCD monitors (not nearly as nice as the Studio Display but good enough for now) and I think LCD is where it's at. It's LCD for me from now on....

Jupiter, eh? That sounds quite appropriate. Me, I always name my computers "Ambrose" (or some variation thereof). Long story.

Drastic

07-27-2003, 02:38 AM

yosemitebabe wrote:

spectrum wrote:
I have far too much of a life to care about computer games.

You are my new hero! :) Wicked, but definitely my new hero!

I suggest that taking loyalists of one camp to task for needlessly insulting tone and then getting ha-ha-dreamy-moony-eyed over needlessly insulting tone of loyalists of the other camp is a little...counterproductive.

The gaming market lag on the Mac side is actually showing signs of beginning to narrow. Still a large gap there, but even a few years ago almost no PC titles were ported over for Mac release; these days, increasing numbers of titles are. I'd be happy to see that trend continue--games being a product so locked-in to a single platform probably hasn't done their development any favors due to lack of platform-competition.

I would say I have far too much of a life to get into digital image and film manipulation as a hobby, but primarily it's a lack of disposable income. If I had enough cashflow, I'd be running both a gaming PC and a Mac at home.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 02:41 AM

Dutchboy: yes, the IBM processors Apple uses, specifically the PowerPC 970 in the case of the G5, run much faster per clock cycle than a comparable Intel-based computer. The only thing Intel has going for it is its amazing ability to ramp up the clock speeds.

The specific computer Apple is touting as "the fastest personal computer in the world" is a Dual 2.0 GHz processor system... it has two processors, each running at 2.0 GHz, as the designation implies. Macs are quite adept at making use of multiple processors. It's an inherent benefit of the non-G3 PowerPC design.

yoseomitebabe: I try to "theme" the names of my computers. My new theme is going to be Roman gods (with disks named after Greek gods). I think I'll rename my iPod Mercury and my iBook Mars to match. ;-)

yosemite

07-27-2003, 03:09 AM

spectrum wrote:

I suggest that taking loyalists of one camp to task for needlessly insulting tone and then getting ha-ha-dreamy-moony-eyed over needlessly insulting tone of loyalists of the other camp is a little...counterproductive.I was mainly bullshitting (and I did call you wicked! ;)) but I do have to say that I tire of being told that PCs are great at games, as if that will mean something to me. It doesn't mean anything to me. It is not a perk, it isn't a selling point, it isn't anything. "Selling" the fact that PCs are more for games works well for people who care about games, but why do some people keep bleating the "games" mantra to me, after I've repeatedly told them that I do not, nor never will, care about games?

Drastic

07-27-2003, 03:21 AM

While I suspect the OP is a case of "let's you and them fight!" (I can barely believe anyone, in this day and age, can honestly expect a Mac/PC topic to be anything but), I think people "bleat" the "games" "mantra" because it is a differential factor between the two platforms.

My cynical side (again!) also suspects they also do so because they know it inspires equally kneejerk snideness and Mac-loyalist high-fiving about having more/better "lives" than people who weigh the gaming thing more as a choice factor. And presumably (giving the OP the benefit of the doubt), those people--those seeking differential factors to weigh as a platform choice--is what the thread was supposed to be about. In other words--it's not about you.

yosemite

07-27-2003, 03:25 AM

I think people "bleat" the "games" "mantra" because it is a differential factor between the two platforms.Yes. It is. And it's a factor that means absolutely nothing to me, so why do some people keep repeating it as if it's going to mean something to me? If I were to "bleat" about Photoshop to someone who never, ever, ever wanted to use Photoshop, I'd be equally as annoying and equally as off-base.

And then there's the whole thing about stupid newbies (not anyone's words on this thread, but the word "retarded" was mentioned) which is also irritating.

Drastic

07-27-2003, 04:24 AM

Were this an email conversation 'twixt you and bleaters, you'd be on-base.

As it's a message board thread--an inherently public floor--with roughly 6.5 times more views than posts at current, I think you're at least off in the foul zone, if not in the actual parking lot outside the stadium. So to speak.

But mileages clearly vary; the world will keep on spinning. Carry on.

Mockingbird

07-27-2003, 05:23 AM

I prefer the chalkboard and the abacus. A very easy operating system and blue screens or bomb icons are a rarity.

yosemite

07-27-2003, 05:24 AM

Drastic, I do see what you're saying, but this discussion is not just about the differences between the two platforms, and why we all have our own preferences. And a lot of us are doing that--just discussing our personal preferences. We are talking about why we like what we like, and that's cool.

But it has gone beyond that. To quote poor Kinthalis (who honestly, seems like a good-natured fellow, I want to make that really clear), but this is what he wrote previously: (bolding mine) If you're not much into computers (you only use them for work or typing up school reports), I would STILL recommend a PC (you'd save money that way), but I can see the appeal of a MAC.OK, he does concede that he sees the appeal of the Mac. And I see the appeal of a PC (I own one that I am pretty fond of, as it happens). But it's the "recommend" word that gets me. And his comments about "You get more with a PC and here's why." He's talking to me (he uses the word "you", which means me and probably everyone else). And he's talking about games, even though I keep on repeating that I don't care and that a lot of other people don't care. He's even (bless his heart) suggested that I might start getting into gaming. I mean, it's sweet on one level, honestly, but it is a waste of time since I have to keep repeating that I don't give a rat's ass about games.

But, true, some others might want to know about the gaming thing, and he's already made his point about games and I've already conceded that he's right about games. PCs are really great with games. So why do we need to cover the ground that we both agree upon? PCs are great with games. We are all in agreement then, right?

So why do I keep on seeing the "bleating" about games as if it is going to make some sort of difference to those who do not care about games? :confused: I don't get it.

Cajun Man

07-27-2003, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by SanibelMan

Aha! Thank you. Still, why is there a "login items" control panel AND a "startup items" folder?Originally posted by spectrum

I have never seen a "Startup Items" folder on my OS X Mac... where would that be?
It's in the OS 9 (Classic) system folder.

Kinthalis

07-27-2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by spectrum
The file system is far more logically laid out. Virtually all files that an end user will have to deal with are named so as to be easily discerned.

I'm not sure I understand. Windows uses logical file names as well. a .txt file is a text file, a .doc file is a document file, a .exe file is an executable program... can you be more specific?

Any well written program outside of some system utilities (like Norton) can be uninstalled by throwing the icon for the program away - no uninstallers, no DLL hell, none of that nonsense.
[QUOTE]

I don't know, when I want to uninstall a program I go to my desktop shortcut to "Add/Remove programs" and I uninstall it from there. Nothing is left of the program. I do admit that it's nice to just throw away the icon and uninstall the program, but sometimes I want to get rid of the shortcut but NOT uninstall my program. Anyway, it would save me aprox 2.5 seconds as opposed to windows xp. Not a big deal IMHO.

[QUOTE]
Many native Mac OS X programs are only one icon... not a folder full of dozens of icons.

Most programs ARE one icon ont he desktop or on the start menu. The folders containing program resources ARE available to the end user, but that mis a good thing IMHO. IT is not necessary to touch those files, but you can, if you want to for any reason.

Are you saying Mac OS HIDES these files from the end user? That sucks IMHO!

Unlike Windows, the Mac supports finely-tuned color management, making it the only ideal platform for print graphics work. The Mac also flows text in the print standard way -- Windows documents have to be reflowed in most professional printing environments, because Microsoft has never done type flowing properly.

There are many good graphic printing programs for windows. In fact a friend of mine owns a printing buisness where he prints building layout for the city as well as other buisness advertisments. He uses PC's in his buisness.

Little details like having dialogue buttons be verbs like "Save/Don't Save" instead of "Yes/No" makes the purpose of a dialogue clear even without having to read the text in the dialogue to determine exactly what you're being asked to do.

Alright, I suppose saving you the time to read "Do you want to save this file?" Might be a bonus to some...

Or the fact that the Close, Minimize and Zoom buttons are organized in that order, which is more logical than on Windows, where Close and Maximize are right next to each other, even though they serve exact opposite functions. So if you try to hit a button but miss by one spot, on Mac you're going to get a response that's at least close to what you sought initially.

Wow, this is just nosnense. I can probably count the times I hit the wrong button in my hand. There are also shortcut keys that'll do the same btw. Oh, and your setup I can also missclick and somehting I didn't want to do.

Little details like that add up... fast.

Keyboard shortcuts are often more logical (Cmd-Q to quit a program... whereas Windows uses Alt-F4, a shortcut unlike any other shortcut, which is bizarre and bad design).

So on and so forth.

Actually you can usually quit a program by hitting Alt + f (for file) then c. Alt-f4 might not be all that logical but once you know it, you know it. Works for anything.

Kinthalis

07-27-2003, 09:31 AM

Darn bolding.

Anyway Yosemitebabe:

I'm sorry about bringing up the ever so bothersome gaming aspect of PC's to the table. Although I do recall you mentining some applications *I* Don't care about (like iTunes).

But does that make your point any less valid? No. I realize there are probably some very good apps available ONLY to Mac users. I can see the validity of this point.

YUet you fail to see the validity of MY point. Evben if YOU PERSONALLY do not like games, can you not see that to those of us who do, the PC cna be a boon?

Btw, I do like that so far our debate has remained civil for the most part ;) I've sene these type of threads be thrown to the pit in the past rather quickly.

SanibelMan

07-27-2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Cajun Man

It's in the OS 9 (Classic) system folder. [/QUOTE] Also: System/Library/StartupItems in OS X.

SanibelMan

07-27-2003, 03:03 PM

That's odd. I just hit the "quote" button. My naive trust that the board will ensure correct formatting has been shattered.

tesa

07-27-2003, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Kinthalis

I'm sorry, but I'd wager my PC will put your Mac to shame any day of the week when it comes to graphics performance, I did mentione I'm a gamer, no? ;)

Then you might want to look into buying a G5, since it's the fastest personal computer on the market, it will no doubt beat your current PCs video card into the ground.
And if PCs have such great graphics capabilities, why is it that Macs are the standard computer used in the graphics and publishing industries? It's easy to see why, when even the graphic icons on the desktop of a Mac beat the hell out of the ones on a PC.

Bottom line: Why pay more? A PC (if bought from a reputable vendor or if built by a savvy user) will be just as reliable (Windows XP only, I give Mac's OS the props it deserves), as a Mac. Except it'll do more (more powerful), It provides more software options to choose from, and it is less expensive.

That's like asking, "Why pay more for a Rolls Royce when you can pay less and have a Yugo?"

Why pay more? Because when it comes to computers, you really do get what you pay for. With a Mac, you get an integrated machine that is far more stable and reliable than the pieced-together-by-a-billion-cut-rate-vendors PC.

Also, I've never failed to find any type of software I've wanted for my Mac.

(And most importantly, I don't have to resize my window each time I open another one. I find that extremely annoying. They couldn't even copy the Mac windows properly.) ;P

I've used computers since 1988, and I lost count of the times that the many PC owners I've known have had crashes when simply upgrading system hardware -- not to mention that the machines usually have a fatal crash sometime between 6 months to 4 years of being bought. I know more than one person who still owns their first Mac, bought back in the 80s. I don't know anyone who's had a PC last more than 3-4 years.

Tesa

yosemite

07-27-2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Kinthalis

Anyway Yosemitebabe:

I'm sorry about bringing up the ever so bothersome gaming aspect of PC's to the table. Although I do recall you mentining some applications *I* Don't care about (like iTunes).But I wasn't saying that you should care about iTunes. I was talking about me. Me me me me me. :D

I was not suggesting that you try out iTunes (but you did suggest I try games) I did not say that "With a Mac, you get this and this..." But you used that phrase in regards to PCs.

I just talked about what I preferred. And I said, "One size does not fit all." I have iTunes, you have games. I have a Mac, you have a PC. See how nicely that works? ;)
YUet you fail to see the validity of MY point. Evben if YOU PERSONALLY do not like games, can you not see that to those of us who do, the PC cna be a boon?Do you seriously want me to waste my time going through this thread, copying and pasting all the times I conceded that yeah, YEAH, PCs are the thing for games? Do you want me to do that in order to prove to you that there is NO ARGUMENT here that PCs are "it" for games? How many times do I have to agree with you in order for you to stop bringing it up to me, especially after I've said that I personally don't give a damn about games?
Btw, I do like that so far our debate has remained civil for the most part ;) I've sene these type of threads be thrown to the pit in the past rather quickly. Yes, I agree. Truly, I think you are a very good-natured fellow, and I must say I really appreciate that. (Even if I get a little snippy with you sometimes!) ;)

Kinthalis

07-27-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by tesa
[B]Then you might want to look into buying a G5, since it's the fastest personal computer on the market, it will no doubt beat your current PCs video card into the ground.

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. Look for some benchmarks in computer review sites (ones that have NOT been tweaked by Apple), and you will see that PC's come out ahead.

ALso, PC's are coming into the 64 bit and AGP 16x standard soon. Apple may have beaten PC's to the 64bit platform by a little bit, but sadly the bench marks tell a different tale on the performance side.

And if PCs have such great graphics capabilities, why is it that Macs are the standard computer used in the graphics and publishing industries? It's easy to see why, when even the graphic icons on the desktop of a Mac beat the hell out of the ones on a PC.

Seriously, the Icons?

Anyway, I don't think they are the standard. I think they ARE widely used in the graphics industry, but they are NOT the 'standard'.

Anyway I'm talking about 3d Graphic capability. When it comes to 2D Pc's can do everything a Mac can.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Cajun Man

It's in the OS 9 (Classic) system folder. [/QUOTE]

Then that's not really an issue with OS X, now is it?

modro

07-27-2003, 04:48 PM

Kinthalis, about the file system..

Applications are a single bundled file called a package (makes sense, huh?). A well designed application will show up in the Applications folder (there is the logical naming) as a single icon. That single file is the application. There is no other files. To uninstall the application, you drag it out of the applications folder, and into the trash. No messy uninstall. Nothing is hidden, it is just laid out in such a fashion as to make more sense.

The Harddrive is listed as Macintosh HD, and it is placed on the desktop.

The harddrive is laid out simply. Opening the Harddrive presents you with a total of 4 folders in a OS X install. Applications are in the Applications folder. OS stuff is in the System folder. User data is contained in the.. Users folder. Users of the computer each get a folder in the Users folder that is named after their username. Inside this folder, users can store all of their files. The directories contained within are named stuff like "Pictures" "Movies" "Music", etc. Preferences and other things of the like are contained in the Library folder.

That's it.

Compare to windows.

Programs can be in C:\Program Files folder, or just in the C:\ drive (which itself resides in "My Computer." System stuff can be either in the Windows folder, or strewn across the C:\ drive. Inadvertantly deleting some file named config.sys or autoexec.bat can render the computer unbootable, and the names don't actually really denote what they do. Files in the Harddrive are strewn about without any real regard to order, and going into Program Files, and deleting an application can easily break your system. Uninstalls can be messy, and result in residual files leftover in various folders, icons leftover, and such. In OS X, the application was uninstalled by you dragging that single icon into the trash, no leftovers.

Without a registry, you don't have to worry about the leftover registry keys that slow the computer down. In OS X, the application preferences are stored in the Library folder (where prefs and such go) and then inside the Preferences folder.

Simple.

Windows presents you with a veneer of simplicity with the start menu. You see icons in there, and on the desktop. Underhood though, lies a mess of files and folders that simply doesn't exist on a mac. In Windows, simplicity is a veneer, in a Mac, it permeates the system.

Max Torque

07-27-2003, 04:52 PM

Regarding the "more games" argument, I found this comic strip (http://www.kevinandkell.com/2002/kk1205.html) to be eerily accurate.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Kinthalis
Seriously, the Icons?

That's just another attention-to-detail thing.

Anyway, I don't think they are the standard. I think they ARE widely used in the graphics industry, but they are NOT the 'standard'.

Yes, they are. Unlike you, I actually work in the pre-press printing and graphic design industry. The industry standard is Mac OS. The majority of the industry works on Mac OS. I have contacts at probably three or four dozen newspapers and graphic design houses across the country. I could count on one hand the ones that don't use Macs.

All of the technology seminars at graphic design and print pre-press conferences expect that you use and proceed from the perspecitive of the Mac OS.

All the big name print houses expect your documents to have been produced on a Mac, unless you specifically tell them otherwise. And God help you if you make your stuff on a Windows computer and don't let them know: your colors will be wrong and your text will be mis-flowed if the print house doesn't catch the Windows situation (which they almost always do). All the competent smaller ones that I've dealt with are the same.

Ancillary pre-press modules like QuarkXPress, Adobe InDesign or Photoshop plug ins are often released for Mac OS first, since that's the core market.

Take a look at QuarkXPress: their 5.0 release from last year was not yet updated for Mac OS X (due to Quark's problematic code base). In the 18 months between 5.0 and the new 6.0 release for Mac OS X, their sales tanked. Why? Because 5.0 didn't support emerging Mac technologies, and their target market -- pre-press professionals and graphic designers -- is dominated by Macs.

There is no way that you can support the notion that the pre-print graphic design and pre-press design industries are not Macintosh-centric markets.

When it comes to 2D Pc's can do everything a Mac can.

Now without ColorSync, they can't. Not for print, anyway. And in the graphic design market, pre-press print design is where all the money is.

You can muddle by with Windows for graphic design on a website, since those are low-res images where color matching is an untenable proposition. You can muddle by with Windows for graphic design for, say, your company newsletter. Things become problematic, however, when you move into the world of CMYK pre-press design where color matching and proper font metrics become the key to quality output. Windows simply doesn't cut it.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Kinthalis
YUet you fail to see the validity of MY point. Evben if YOU PERSONALLY do not like games, can you not see that to those of us who do, the PC cna be a boon?

If I were a gamer, and not a professional pre-press graphic designer or amateur film editor, then I would care about Windows and have a PC. But for what yosemitebabe and I do, a PC simply doesn't make any sense.

Kinthalis

07-27-2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by modro
[b]Kinthalis, about the file system..

Applications are a single bundled file called a package (makes sense, huh?). A well designed application will show up in the Applications folder (there is the logical naming) as a single icon. That single file is the application. There is no other files.

This is what I don't get. I'm a programmer. Unless the concepts are drastically different for programming apple applications resource files will be REQUIRED for any complex application. Taking a look a photoshop you have a lot of files other than the photoshop.exe. This is a part of programming. The only reason I can think of why this is not so in a Mac is becaue these files are being hidden from the end user. Which is not a good thing IMHO.

Your typical windows user using photoshop however does NOT have to deal with any of those files.

Programs can be in C:\Program Files folder, or just in the C:\ drive (which itself resides in "My Computer." System stuff can be either in the Windows folder, or strewn across the C:\ drive.

Most pplications install to the program folders directory by default. Although you can opt to change the directory to anything you want (and I have found that ability to be quite useful for a number of reasons).

Inadvertantly deleting some file named config.sys or autoexec.bat can render the computer unbootable, and the names don't actually really denote what they do.

System files are hidden by default. You CAN make them visible easily, but if you don't know what config.sys or autoexec.bat are then you probably wouldn't do this.

Files in the Harddrive are strewn about without any real regard to order, and going into Program Files, and deleting an application can easily break your system.

This is not the way to delete applications. And if you don't know what somehting does, why should you delete it? You go into "add/remove programs" and you select your application and delte it. Takes roughly 5 seconds.

And files are NOT "strewn about" the hardrive. They go where they are needed. Applicaitons go in "ProgramFiles", files you create go into "My Documents" (unless you want to save them elsewhere), system files go in "WINDOWS" directory. What is so ilogical about this??

Uninstalls can be messy, and result in residual files leftover in various folders, icons leftover, and such. In OS X, the application was uninstalled by you dragging that single icon into the trash, no leftovers.

Maybe in windows 95, but windows XP is quite clean about this. I usually only get a saved documents or saved games folder remnant when deleting an application, but I also usually get aprompt on wether I wan tto leave those folders behind or not.

Without a registry, you don't have to worry about the leftover registry keys that slow the computer down. In OS X, the application preferences are stored in the Library folder (where prefs and such go) and then inside the Preferences folder.

Registry keys are deleted with an pplicaiton removal. If there ARE some registries left over due to poor programming on the software developer ends of thigns, it's not hard to find to use Easy Cleaner or some other application to tidy things up. This onw't be aproblem with your standard user. I do run into this problem since I'm installing and re-installing shareware/beta programs all the time. Your average user need not worry.

Simple.

Indeed, you certianly make it appear as so.

But as I have illustrated, your ascertions on the user firendliness of Mac OS is based on your outdated, or ignorant info regarding windows XP.

modro

07-27-2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Kinthalis
I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. Look for some benchmarks in computer review sites (ones that have NOT been tweaked by Apple), and you will see that PC's come out ahead.

In order to make things more fair in the benchmarks, Apple used GCC (an open source compiler, not one sourced from either Intel, IBM, or Apple) on both systems. Instead of using an Intel compiler on the PC, which would have resulted in higher scores on the PC, Apple used GCC. By the same token, Apple used GCC on the G5, not a platform specific from themselves, or IBM (the company producing the G5)

It should also be noted, that as the default compiler in Linux, GCC has had far more time to be optimized for Intel processors than for PPC processors like used in Apple computers.

While the test results for the PC come in slower than factory specs given by Dell, understand that Dell was using heavily optimized Intel compilers to benchmark the computer, not GCC used by Apple. By not using an Intel compiler on the PC, or, for that matter, an Apple/IBM compiler on the G5, both computers were in a way handicapped. The benchmarks were also performed by a third party, not by Apple. By taking the compilers out of the equation, the benchmarks were actually far closer to an actual hardware test.

A lot of people are complaining because as benchmarked, the Dell came out slower than the Dell specs. This should really come as no surprise, as Dell used the best compilers specifically tweaked to run their best on the computer in order to make it look as fast as humanly possible.

Apple took that advantage away by having both computers benchmarked using third party compilers, and having the benchmarks themselves done by a third party. Even the details of the benchmarks were made available to the public, which is something that companies rarely do. Says something about their faith in the benchmarks, doesn't it?

Ars Technica has a lot of really detailed information on the G5 processors, and yes, it is that fast. They are fairly platform neutral there, and as such it is a pretty good source of information that isn't slanted towards PC hardware, or Mac's. Using info about the benchmarks from PC sites will result in (surprise) a PC slant.

The Intel processors could have gone faster, but by giving the G5 the advantage of a better compiler, it would have gone faster too.

And don't let the MHZ fool you. Intel designs their processors to run at high clock rates because Intel found that people will buy computers with faster MHZ ratings, thinking them faster. It is no indication of actual work done though. Using Mhz as a benchmark is just like using the max RPM of an engine as a way of defining its performance.

A 9000 RPM motor will look better than a 6700 RPM motor, but that is only when you ignore the horsepower ratings behind them. Intel has people looking at processors based upon their "RPM" rating, not their actual "Horsepower" rating. AMD runs into this problem too, by having processors that are faster than an equivalent Intel, at lower clock rates.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Kinthalis
I'm not sure I understand. Windows uses logical file names as well. a .txt file is a text file, a .doc file is a document file, a .exe file is an executable program... can you be more specific?

Sure. On Windows, IE is called iexplore.exe in the file system. On the Mac? Internet Explorer. On Windows, there's winword.exe. On the Mac, there's Microsoft Word. Outside of the /System folder, you can go into most any folder on your Mac and tell what the file do simply by reading the names of the icons.

Most programs ARE one icon ont he desktop or on the start menu.

That's an alias. I'm talking about the actual program. On the Mac, you generally deal with the actual program, not an alias (aside from when using the Dock).

The folders containing program resources ARE available to the end user, but that mis a good thing IMHO.

But can you just drag that folder to the Recycle Bin to safely delete the program? You can on a Mac. That's good system design, that's logical programming.

Are you saying Mac OS HIDES these files from the end user? That sucks IMHO!

No. There is only one file. And to delete a program, you simply delete it.

There are many good graphic printing programs for windows. In fact a friend of mine owns a printing buisness where he prints building layout for the city as well as other buisness advertisments. He uses PC's in his buisness.

What programs does he print from? Architectural design apps?

What color matching system does he employ? What brand of CMYK press units? What brand of PostScript RIP?

Alright, I suppose saving you the time to read "Do you want to save this file?" Might be a bonus to some...

It's attention to detail. And it's consistent. Sometimes on Windows, you get the message "Do you want to save this file?" Sometimes you get "Close without saving changes?" WHether you canswer Yes or No can change from program to program.

That can never happen on a properly-designed Mac OS dialogue box.

Wow, this is just nosnense. I can probably count the times I hit the wrong button in my hand.

It was an EXAMPLE of Apple attention to detail. Not a description of a major usability faux pas for Windows.

Oh, and your setup I can also missclick and somehting I didn't want to do.

Sure, but if you miss-click, what happens will less likely be the opposite of what you wanted to happen. If you click at "Close" but hit the yellow button instead, you minimize the window to the Dock. It's off the screen at least, which is closer to what you wanted than on Windows, where if you mis-click you size the damn thing up to fill the whole screen, which is just a stupid "feature" anyway. There's no justification for most programs to take up your whole screen.

Actually you can usually quit a program by hitting Alt + f (for file) then c.

That's more steps. Slower. And sometimes it's x and not c. Not consistent.

Alt-f4 might not be all that logical but once you know it, you know it. Works for anything. [/B]

So does Command-Q, which is actually logical. What the hell is the logical behind Alt-F4?

spectrum

07-27-2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by modro
The Harddrive is listed as Macintosh HD, and it is placed on the desktop.

Well, not necessarily. I hate desktop icons, so I turned that off in the Finder. ;)

That's actually how I work every day: I figure out what I need to work on and pull the icons to my Desktop. They drive me nuts, and I have to finish all my work so my Desktop can be clean again.

And yes, it is a statement on Windows' complexity that it has to show its users an abstract, secondary file system -- the Start Menu, in order to make sense of its chaotic applications filing system.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Kinthalis
This is what I don't get. I'm a programmer. Unless the concepts are drastically different for programming apple applications resource files will be REQUIRED for any complex application. Taking a look a photoshop you have a lot of files other than the photoshop.exe.

Yes, Photoshop is similar on the Mac... an Adobe Photoshop Folder containing Adobe Photoshop and its support files. However, to delete Photoshop, all a Mac user has to do is delete that folder. No need for any uninstall bullcrap.

The only reason I can think of why this is not so in a Mac is becaue these files are being hidden from the end user.

In Packaged programs, mostly ones created in Objective-C, all of the files and whatnot are bundled together into one large file as the last step. This one file then sits in the /Applications folder, and be deleted to remove it from the system.

System files are hidden by default. You CAN make them visible easily, but if you don't know what config.sys or autoexec.bat are then you probably wouldn't do this.

Actually, by default, Windows hides the files in the entire C:\ directory and C:\Program Files\, which is pretty damn condescending. I can understand hiding the files in C:\Windows, but again, its a statement of bad design that Microsoft doesn't feel safe letting people rummage around in the Program Files folder.

This is not the way to delete applications.

Why shouldn't clicking on something and then just deleting it be the proper way to delete applications? It works fine on a Mac.

Oh yeah, and on a Mac, most programs install the same way, too: just drag them from the CD to /Applications. Even programs that require an installer on Windows, like Microsoft Office, are drag-and-drop installable on a Mac. That's how things should work.

Registry keys are deleted with an pplicaiton removal.

As someone who commonly troubleshoots Windows systems, I must say that this is hardly a universal truth.

But as I have illustrated, your ascertions on the user firendliness of Mac OS is based on your outdated, or ignorant info regarding windows XP. [/B]

Ah, insults. Lovely.

The fact is that on a Mac, you can drag and drop install and uninstall almost all applications, don't need a pseudo-filesystem like the Start Menu to sensibly navigate your program files and have programs which are named sensibly with plain English names.

On Windows, you virtually always have to use Installer and Uninstaller utilities, are by default blocked from even looking into C:\Program Files, and once you do you're confronted with nonsense names like iexplore.exe and other not-plain-English monikers.

Which is more simple?

spectrum

07-27-2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by modro
[B]While the test results for the PC come in slower than factory specs given by Dell, understand that Dell was using heavily optimized Intel compilers to benchmark the computer, not GCC used by Apple.

There's no question that the G5 is blazingly fast, and runs at par with the top of the line Windows machines. However, the fact is that for your average desktop user, the top Windows machine will run a bit faster. Why? Because most Windows apps use the super-optimized Intel compiler, and most Apple apps use either CodeWarrior (carbon) or Apple's new GCC (cocoa) compiler.

The Apple tests shows that the raw power of the G5 outpaces the Pentium IV, but for real world usability, Windows computers will continue to have a slight edge, though nowhere near the advantage they had prior to the G5.

The G5 puts Apple back in the game. Given the Mac's better abiility to leverege dual processor set ups with little to no overhead, it's conceivable that Apple will scale its systems to demonstrably faster than Windows systems using the Intel compiler. However, that's not the case at right this moment.

Of course, when the PPC 980 ships next year, and Apple can start rolling out 4 or 8 processor boxes if it wants, Intel will be hard pressed to keep up, no matter how tweaked their compiler is. Also, real world performance on the G5 will improve as Apple continues to tweak the GCC.

modro

07-27-2003, 05:39 PM

Kinthalis

No offense, but gain some experience with a Mac system before trying to argue against one.

I was a PC user up until early 2001. i've used DOS, Windows 3.1, 95/98/Me, and I have tooled around with XP.

The fact is, that you are completely ignorant to the architecture. You say all applications will need extra files. Windows applications need extra files. An application on a Mac is bundled as one file. You can drag that single application to the trash, and not break the system. Application uninstalls are just one example of that.

To uninstall a windows app:

Open My Computer
Open Control Panel
Open Add/Remove Programs
Select program you wish to remove from the list
Click Add/Remove
Go through uninstall process

It seems simple to you, but that is because you know how to do it. Look at those steps, does it really make sense?

To uninstall on a Mac.

Open Hard Drive (It's on the desktop)
Open Applications
Drag Application to trash
Empty Trash.

Makes sense doesn't it? If an application is contained on the harddrive, and you don't want it anymore, shouldn't it stand to reason that you just take the app you don't want and pitch it? The system is designed around the user, and keeps in mind that users will delete stuff they are unfamiliar with, and if they can't decipher the file name, won't know what it does. By keeping all system files in a System Folder, there isn't a way to accidentally render your system unbootable.

Other little touches.

Application Menus always show up in the same place, and are named logically. "Application Name" File Edit View etc...

To quit an application, you click on the application name menu, and select quit, not file. One doesn't quit a file, so why would you put quit there? You quit an application. Application preferences fall into that application menu too.

Use a Mac before bashing one. I've used PC's, and decided to no longer because I value a computer that works as designed, and is laid out to make sense. This is not because I don't understand how they work either, I just want to browse the web, not fix the computer every 15 minutes.

I've built PC's, and still get calls to fix family/friend's PC's when they break. I've ran Linux on PC's, and am quite familiar with the in's and out's of compiling applications from source, configuring X servers, and compiling/installing kernels.

Doesn't mean that I want to have to do that just to hop onto the SDMB though.

modro

07-27-2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by spectrum
There's no question that the G5 is blazingly fast, and runs at par with the top of the line Windows machines. However, the fact is that for your average desktop user, the top Windows machine will run a bit faster. Why? Because most Windows apps use the super-optimized Intel compiler, and most Apple apps use either CodeWarrior (carbon) or Apple's new GCC (cocoa) compiler.

Right, and you are correct.

I am interested in how well those performance gains will pan out as Apple gets progressively better compilers, and uses them on the OS, and applications. I am actually rather surprised that Apple doesn't have as much time invested in compilers as Intel, when Apple could benefit more from them (with the previous performance gap, for instance)

spectrum

07-27-2003, 05:50 PM

modro,

That's partly because, until OS X, Apple didn't make development tools. Most people used Symantec's compiler, or CodeWarrior. Now that Apple gives away development tools FREE with every computer and copy of the OS they ship, Apple's getting into the business of optimizing a compiler. The current GCC compiler isn't great. The one that comes with xCode will be much better.

The Mac has more muscle under the hood now, though the Intel compiler makes up for this and a bit more with it's amazingly optimization. Whether Intel can offset the punch packed by a quad-processor Mac will be an interesting question, and one hopefully resolved sometime next summer, when the second wave of G5 machines ships. :-)

Max Torque

07-27-2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by spectrum
No. There is only one file. And to delete a program, you simply delete it.
Well, sort of. At least, it behaves like one file. But you can get a look at the inner workings by right-clicking (control-clicking) on an application icon and selecting "Show Package Contents" from the contextual menu. The application will then open like a folder, allowing you into the application's guts.

The result of this, it seems, should be satisfactory to all; people who don't need access to the inner workings of a program don't have support files strewn all over their hard drives, and people who DO want that access can get it with a mouse click.

Rysto

07-27-2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by modro
In order to make things more fair in the benchmarks, Apple used GCC (an open source compiler, not one sourced from either Intel, IBM, or Apple) on both systems. Instead of using an Intel compiler on the PC, which would have resulted in higher scores on the PC, Apple used GCC. By the same token, Apple used GCC on the G5, not a platform specific from themselves, or IBM (the company producing the G5)

It should also be noted, that as the default compiler in Linux, GCC has had far more time to be optimized for Intel processors than for PPC processors like used in Apple computers.

While the test results for the PC come in slower than factory specs given by Dell, understand that Dell was using heavily optimized Intel compilers to benchmark the computer, not GCC used by Apple. By not using an Intel compiler on the PC, or, for that matter, an Apple/IBM compiler on the G5, both computers were in a way handicapped. The benchmarks were also performed by a third party, not by Apple. By taking the compilers out of the equation, the benchmarks were actually far closer to an actual hardware test.

A lot of people are complaining because as benchmarked, the Dell came out slower than the Dell specs. This should really come as no surprise, as Dell used the best compilers specifically tweaked to run their best on the computer in order to make it look as fast as humanly possible.

Apple took that advantage away by having both computers benchmarked using third party compilers, and having the benchmarks themselves done by a third party. Even the details of the benchmarks were made available to the public, which is something that companies rarely do. Says something about their faith in the benchmarks, doesn't it?

Ars Technica has a lot of really detailed information on the G5 processors, and yes, it is that fast. They are fairly platform neutral there, and as such it is a pretty good source of information that isn't slanted towards PC hardware, or Mac's. Using info about the benchmarks from PC sites will result in (surprise) a PC slant.

The Intel processors could have gone faster, but by giving the G5 the advantage of a better compiler, it would have gone faster too.

And don't let the MHZ fool you. Intel designs their processors to run at high clock rates because Intel found that people will buy computers with faster MHZ ratings, thinking them faster. It is no indication of actual work done though. Using Mhz as a benchmark is just like using the max RPM of an engine as a way of defining its performance.

A 9000 RPM motor will look better than a 6700 RPM motor, but that is only when you ignore the horsepower ratings behind them. Intel has people looking at processors based upon their "RPM" rating, not their actual "Horsepower" rating. AMD runs into this problem too, by having processors that are faster than an equivalent Intel, at lower clock rates.

Apple cheated to get those higher benchmarks. (http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/)

rjung

07-27-2003, 07:45 PM

There is nothing a Mac can do that a Windows PC can't do.
There is nothing a Windows PC can do that a Mac can't do.

There are minor exceptions to these rules, but for the most part, they're true. What truly separates a Mac from a Windows PC is how easily and smoothly you can get things done -- and that criteria will vary according to what your tasks are.

(When it comes to spending my own money, though, it's nothin' but Macs. My time is too precious to waste it on Windows... ;) )

rjung

07-27-2003, 07:49 PM

Meanwhile, in the category of fighting ignorance...

Originally posted by Rysto
Apple cheated to get those higher benchmarks. (http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/)
No they didn't. (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/2154256&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=181)

spectrum

07-27-2003, 07:53 PM

Of course, on several of the SPEC tests listed therein don't use Apple's second processor, so they're no more valid assessments of the Mac's performance than the Veritest tests were valid assessments of the PC's performance.

Similar to the After Effects "test" some months back that showed that the fastest Dell (a 3.0 GHz P4, IIRC) was nearly twice as fast as the fastest Mac at that time (a dual 1.4 GHz G4). The problem is that After Effects ignores the second processor on the Mac, unless you hack it a bit to wake it up the fact that it's on a dual processor machine. When that was done on other sites, the PC was still faster, but not by all that much.

The fact is that these things are damn near impossible to test. Apple's tests aren't up to par because they disabled hyperthreading (though I've heard Windows XP Home, since it's crippleware that won't respect dual processor set ups also doesn't acknowledge hyperthreading, is that true?) and used a less-than-stellar compiler for their tests. The basic Spec tests listed here are invalid because they disable Apple's second processor. And real world tests are hard to trust, because of snafus like the After Effects test mentioned above.

It all depends on what you want to do. If you want to play games or do basic business tasks, etc, a PC is where to go. If you're a graphic designer, in the print industry or you need Final Cut Pro, a Mac is for you. If you are a basic home user who uses the Internet, Quicken and occasionally a word processor, either platform will serve you just fine.

modro

07-27-2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by rjung
Meanwhile, in the category of fighting ignorance...

No they didn't. (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/2154256&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=181)

Thanks, I had just hunted down that same article and was about to scroll down and add it when I caught site of your reply citing the same exact one.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by rjung
There is nothing a Mac can do that a Windows PC can't do.

Apple's Final Cut Pro. ;-)

There is nothing a Windows PC can do that a Mac can't do.

Microsoft Access. ;-)

I know, I know, you said minor exceptions. Of course, for the people who rely on one of these apps or the other, they're not so minor.

Kinthalis

07-27-2003, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by modro
Thanks, I had just hunted down that same article and was about to scroll down and add it when I caught site of your reply citing the same exact one.

Hmm scrolling down and reading some of the comments on the article linked to, it seems even mac users, and most of the readers of that site either disagree with the article, or still question Apple's results.

I like what someone said there however (and I quote):

Quote by: Xerithane

"Use the best tool for the job."

This means 3 things:

Use a tool that is made for the task.

Use a tool that you are comfortable with.

The other tools don't suck.

And I agree. Macs don't suck. They are not something I would recommend, or somehting I would use either for my work as a programmer and webdesigner, or as a platform for gaming. But they ARE good machines.

The right tool for the job is always going to be a subjective thing when ti comes to computer platforms I guess.

Had fun debating though ;)

modro

07-27-2003, 09:39 PM

Of course, debating is fun :)

Oh, I grabbed a screenshot of the file structure of my harddrive (just the root folder and applications folder) so you could see what was meant by logical naming.

http://homepage.mac.com/komodro/screen.jpg

There is no personal info or anything on there, just a basic desktop screen grab. I have a shortcut to the HD in the Dock, and that allows you to navigate it like a start menu. Understand that unlike the start menu, this is actually showing you how the harddrive is laid out.

One can hardly claim Windows is nearly as logical. I didn't go in and "clean up" either, this is basically the way it looks out of the box. I have different apps added and removed, but I've done nothing else to the file structure. Even OS 9 is not as simple.

If things like that are examples of a "computer for idiots" color me confused :)

Kinthalis

07-27-2003, 09:45 PM

Modro:

Gotta admit, the Mac OS shell certainly looks cooler than the windows XP :D

Gozu Tashoya

07-27-2003, 09:51 PM

I'm surprised the thread's has gone this long without turning into a total wreck. Kudos all around.

And it looks like I'll be able to ask some questions about the Mac for a change without having them get lost in a firestorm.

1) So this Final Cut Pro, it's awesome (though expensive, from what I hear), but is it "it's easy to use, though people who've been doing video editing for a while may find it limiting," or is it truly industrial "drive Avid out of business" strength?

Or, put another way, is Adobe making the new version of Premiere PC-only because FCP ate up too much market share, or is FCP a truly superior product?

2) This "one program, one file" thing sounds like a dream come true. Does it prevent the "system bloat" that PCs (and, IIRC, older Macs) experience, where installing too many programs, even if you uninstall some of them, slows your computer to a crawl and/or results in program conflicts, more or less requiring a format & reinstall to restore peak performance? (Granted, with Win2K and XP this isn't nearly as bad as it was in the Win98 days, but still.)

3) How much interchangability is there between Mac and PC hardware? Can I buy a G5 with just a mobo and a couple processors then slap in some run-of-the-mill DDR RAM, DVD+-R/RW (what are the specs on SuperDrive, anyway; would there be compatibility issues?), SATA hard drive, and GeForceFX 5900 video card? Assuming I had all those components laying around, how much would I have shaved off the price of the G5?

Bonus "random curiousity" question: What capabilities are "on board" and what would require PCI cards? I'd guess Firewire & USB 2 and gigabit(?) ethernet would be all on board?

4) Does each program still require a certain "allocated" amount of memory (that it presumably does not exceed)? Because other than the price, this is the deal breaker for me.

I like the way Windows apps take up as much of the free system resources as they need to do their job, and generally leaving other apps enough RAM, cycles, etc. needed to do their respective jobs. Having to juggle this manually sounds like it'd be a chore.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by KKBattousai
1) So this Final Cut Pro, it's awesome (though expensive, from what I hear), but is it "it's easy to use, though people who've been doing video editing for a while may find it limiting," or is it truly industrial "drive Avid out of business" strength?

Drive Avid out of business. Well, not entirely -- Avid can still do more, but Final Cut Pro is right there on its tail, and is the only realistic alternative to an Avid deck. It is not for beginners, nor is it particularly easy to use. It's not hard, mind you. But not easy.

Or, put another way, is Adobe making the new version of Premiere PC-only because FCP ate up too much market share, or is FCP a truly superior product?

When Final Cut Pro came out, Adobe got relegated to the mid-level "Pro-sumer" market on the Mac, which is far less lucrative than its former position as "only alternative to Avid" pro market. Then when Final Cut Express came out, Adobe couldn't compete there, either.

Final Cut Pro is more powerful and a better product. Final Cut Express is $200 or more less than Premiere. Adobe got squeezed out.

2) This "one program, one file" thing sounds like a dream come true. Does it prevent the "system bloat" that PCs (and, IIRC, older Macs) experience, where installing too many programs, even if you uninstall some of them, slows your computer to a crawl and/or results in program conflicts, more or less requiring a format & reinstall to restore peak performance?

This sort of thing doesn't happen because Mac apps don't go around sharing a ton of DLLs. Installing an application on your Mac should have no deleterious effect on the performance of the rest of your system.

3) How much interchangability is there between Mac and PC hardware?

Depends on what you're talking about.

Can I buy a G5 with just a mobo and a couple processors then slap in some run-of-the-mill DDR RAM, DVD+-R/RW (what are the specs on SuperDrive, anyway; would there be compatibility issues?), SATA hard drive, and GeForceFX 5900 video card? Assuming I had all those components laying around, how much would I have shaved off the price of the G5?

Not much. Apple doesn't sell barebones system. You're going to get a hard drive, RAM, optical drive, graphics card, etc. You're not the only one who would be interested in an Apple iBox or the like.

Bonus "random curiousity" question: What capabilities are "on board" and what would require PCI cards? I'd guess Firewire & USB 2 and gigabit(?) ethernet would be all on board?

All Macs ship with onboard sound, ethernet, modem, FireWire and USB 1.1. Many ship with onboard nVidia video chips, onboard FireWire 800. The new PowerMacs ship with onboard USB 2.

4) Does each program still require a certain "allocated" amount of memory (that it presumably does not exceed)? Because other than the price, this is the deal breaker for me.

No, in OS X, memory is allocated dynamically.

modro

07-27-2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by KKBattousai
I'm surprised the thread's has gone this long without turning into a total wreck. Kudos all around.

And it looks like I'll be able to ask some questions about the Mac for a change without having them get lost in a firestorm.

1) So this Final Cut Pro, it's awesome (though expensive, from what I hear), but is it "it's easy to use, though people who've been doing video editing for a while may find it limiting," or is it truly industrial "drive Avid out of business" strength?

Or, put another way, is Adobe making the new version of Premiere PC-only because FCP ate up too much market share, or is FCP a truly superior product?

2) This "one program, one file" thing sounds like a dream come true. Does it prevent the "system bloat" that PCs (and, IIRC, older Macs) experience, where installing too many programs, even if you uninstall some of them, slows your computer to a crawl and/or results in program conflicts, more or less requiring a format & reinstall to restore peak performance? (Granted, with Win2K and XP this isn't nearly as bad as it was in the Win98 days, but still.)

3) How much interchangability is there between Mac and PC hardware? Can I buy a G5 with just a mobo and a couple processors then slap in some run-of-the-mill DDR RAM, DVD+-R/RW (what are the specs on SuperDrive, anyway; would there be compatibility issues?), SATA hard drive, and GeForceFX 5900 video card? Assuming I had all those components laying around, how much would I have shaved off the price of the G5?

Bonus "random curiousity" question: What capabilities are "on board" and what would require PCI cards? I'd guess Firewire & USB 2 and gigabit(?) ethernet would be all on board?

4) Does each program still require a certain "allocated" amount of memory (that it presumably does not exceed)? Because other than the price, this is the deal breaker for me.

I like the way Windows apps take up as much of the free system resources as they need to do their job, and generally leaving other apps enough RAM, cycles, etc. needed to do their respective jobs. Having to juggle this manually sounds like it'd be a chore.

1) Not having Final Cut Pro, I can't claim to know how well it works, but if iMovie (Apple's free, included movie editor) is any indication, it should be quite easy to use. Apple also makes a program called Final Cut Express, which is basically a pared down version of Final Cut Pro, for ~300 bucks. iMovie, which ships with new Macs, and is available as a free download, supports most DV video cameras, and lets you add sound effects, some basic visual effects, transitions, titles, and other things with the utmost in simplicity.

2) Bloat isn't too much of an issue. There is no registry to get overly huge or corrupted, and I personally have had no issues with reduced performance as time goes on under X.

3) While the OS is proprietary, the hardware isn't. The motherboards are apple specific, but the hardware isn't. A G5 will have the same PCI, AGP, and Memory ports as a PC will. The G5 uses ddr memory.

*bonus* Ports consist of industry standard USB, Ethernet (gigabit on pro systems) modem, Firewire (400 on consumer, 400 and 800 on most pro), and optical audio (on the G5). The only real oddball port you will run into on, say, a g5, is an ADC port. Apple condensed the video, power, and USB cords for their LCD monitors into one port. I am almost certain they include a standard DVI port on the g5 and other pro systems.

4) Memory allocation? What's that? :)
OS X is an all-new architecture that has nothing in common with the MacOS of old except for some superficial similarities, and the name. OS X is based upon BSD Unix, bringing the kinds of stability formerly reserved for servers, and some very good multitasking and virtual memory. The OS handles memory allocation without user assistance, and with the stability of the UNIX underpinnings, if an application crashes, it will not take down the system. It works flawlessly, and the only parts of it the user notices are how the machine curiously fails to crash. I generally average 30-40 days of uptime on my iBook (time before restarts or shutdowns) and it is usually something like a system software update that forces me to restart. I've had, total, 2 kernel panics in the 2 years I've been using OS X. A kernel panic being the rough equivalent of a blue screen.

You can literally leave the computer running for months at a time, and never have to worry about it slowing down or getting goofy. The underpinnings are industrial strength, yet the user interface is newbie friendly without being a compromise. On top of that, it is exceedingly pretty to look at. That screenshot I posted was an OS X 10.2 Jaguar install, the background was even the default Apple one.

It really is a fantastic OS.

spectrum

07-27-2003, 10:29 PM

kinthalis do you have an AOL IM or Yahoo messenger name? I'm the part of another message board that you might be interested in.

Also, anyone else who finds this topic interesting might like this site:

http://www.xvsxp.com/

It's an attempt to evaluate the GUIs -- and just the GUIs -- of the two environments.

wolf_meister

07-27-2003, 10:42 PM

ummm... yeahh...
Wow what an incredible response to this thread.
In your OP you said "PC owners prove me wrong". How about a PC owner proving you right?
I do not own a Mac but my next computer will definitely be one. I went through Win 3.1, Win 95, Win 98, and Win 2000 and I think they got progressively WORSE. Their complexity increases and the ability to figure them out decreases.
I had a bitch of a time just to get 2 Win 2000 computers connected to a router. I was naive enough to think that I would have my own home network, swapping files, sharing printers, etc. It was rough enough just to get both of them hooked up to a modem.
The Win 2000 alleged "help" screen shows 20 topics per window. Making a rough guess, you would have to press the Page Down key 1,000 times if you wanted to look at ALL the topics listed there !!! Don't you think they could have made the damned sytem a little more user-friendly?
So, I say the heck with PC's and bring on the Mac !!!

spectrum

07-27-2003, 10:54 PM

Wolf,

While it's not that confusing, you should know that the Help program in Jaguar ummm... what's the word... ah yes, sucks more than anything that has ever sucked before. It's not just slow, it's glacial.

Word is that Panther, which has integrated the Safari WebKit, is much better in this area. Hard to imagine it getting worse.

modro

07-27-2003, 11:04 PM

One other little feature that is nice for use in places like, say, the SDMB

http://homepage.mac.com/komodro/screen2.jpg

System-wide spell check. Any application can have spell check if the programmer wants to, just by enabling it. Stuff like that is what a lot of mac users mean by thoughtful touches. I'm quite impressed that this thread has yet to become a complete hate fest.

AHunter3

07-27-2003, 11:23 PM

I'm a Mac user, have always been a Mac user, and I don't foresee any possibility of me switching. I will however salute the PC, which has come a long long way.

I would not want to spend my day using XP, but I could get work done and it wouldn't be that bad. Unlike the bad old days when your choice was between System 6 and MS-DOS.

The main areas where owning a Mac instead of a PC still really really rocks are:

a) Absence of the "application window", so you can arrange document windows from different applications on-screen to your convenience. I've actually heard some Windows users cite this very difference as an example of Windows superiority, so YMMV, but damned if I can understand what's inherently great about a multitasking OS in which you can only conveniently view one application at a time?!??

b) Absence of spyware and viruses, for all practical purposes. Yes, it's a side-effect of low market share for the most part, but man alive I'm glad I don't have to deal with that stuff!

c) Boot from damn near anything without drivers and without having to change settings and jumpers and stuff. If your main OS gets hosed, boot from something else, simply by popping it in and/or waiting for the hardware to look around and find it when it tries to boot. CD, Zip drive, second internal hard drive or partition, external hard drive, whatever. Boot from your iPod. Boot from an Orb. Boot from a memory stick. Boot from a hard drive attached to a different computer. PCs are more versatile than they used to be about booting from somewhere other than C, but judging from the posts I read it's still a headache especially for the inexperienced newbie.

Chief Crunch

07-27-2003, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by modro
One other little feature that is nice for use in places like, say, the SDMB

http://homepage.mac.com/komodro/screen2.jpg

System-wide spell check. Any application can have spell check if the programmer wants to, just by enabling it. Stuff like that is what a lot of mac users mean by thoughtful touches. I'm quite impressed that this thread has yet to become a complete hate fest.

KDE, which I use in Linux as my GUI has this as well. Pretty useful. KDE is filled with little pleasant surprises. I've also noticed that Apple's Safari browser uses Konqueror's (http://www.konqueror.org/) rendering engine. :cool:

modro

07-27-2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Chief Crunch
KDE, which I use in Linux as my GUI has this as well. Pretty useful. KDE is filled with little pleasant surprises. I've also noticed that Apple's Safari browser uses Konqueror's (http://www.konqueror.org/) rendering engine. :cool:

Yep and KHTML is a surprisingly nice rendering engine. There are a lot of really interesting things going on in Linux, and the OS itself is amazing. I just wish that it was a bit more polished and consistent. One certainly can't complain, and the Open Source community as a whole deserves some serious accolades.

Hopefully someday Linux will manage to be a real competitive solution for the desktop. I am considering building another PC out of some older components as a really inexpensive Linux box to just stuff in my closet and work as a server for my home network. It'd be nice to just load the thing with storage space, and use it as a file/music server.

spectrum

07-28-2003, 12:11 AM

The problem with Linux is that there's no governing authority to impose a UI and consistent functionality. So long as each Linux program tackles UI aspects like keyboard bindings and the like on its own, Linux will suck for the desktop.

rjung

07-28-2003, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by modro
1) Not having Final Cut Pro, I can't claim to know how well it works, but if iMovie (Apple's free, included movie editor) is any indication, it should be quite easy to use.
Final Cut Express/Final Cut Pro is not as easy to use as iMovie, but that's not surprising -- FCP is truly an industrial-strength program for folks who do video work for six-figure projects. It is, from what I've heard, definitely spanking Avid's ass in the market, due to its flexibility and affordability.

Meanwhile, iMovie and iDVD kick major ass on the consumer side of the fence. iMovie, in particular, is a system-seller app in my book -- it is worth buying a Mac just to run iMovie.

iMovie, which ships with new Macs, and is available as a free download, supports most DV video cameras, and lets you add sound effects, some basic visual effects, transitions, titles, and other things with the utmost in simplicity.
What makes iMovie really cool are the third-party plugins you can buy for additional effects, titles, and what-have-you. I'm tempted to pick up the "laser blast" plug-in and do my home version of Star Wars. ;)

2) Bloat isn't too much of an issue. There is no registry to get overly huge or corrupted, and I personally have had no issues with reduced performance as time goes on under X.
About the only thing that I've seen affect performance in MacOS X is insufficient RAM. Anything under 256MB is tight, and I'd recommend 512MB or more if possible.

The only real oddball port you will run into on, say, a g5, is an ADC port. Apple condensed the video, power, and USB cords for their LCD monitors into one port.
I believe the ADC port is actually an industry standard; it's just not widely used.

I've had, total, 2 kernel panics in the 2 years I've been using OS X.
I have yet to get a kernel panic on my MacOS X setup, and I've been running for over a year now. If it wasn't for the software upgrades, I would easily have 200+ day uptimes.

As long as we're turning this into a MacOS X love-fest, ;) I'll point out that it's a perfect platform for software development, especially for internet stuff. Apple gives you a free set of developers' tools, complete with their Project Builder/Interface Builder IDE, as well as C, C++, Java, Perl, Apache, PHP, and a truckload of documentation. You get all the benefits of running a UNIX workstation or Linux box, along with the benefit of running "mainstream" apps like Microsoft Office or iTunes.

Chief Crunch

07-28-2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by spectrum
The problem with Linux is that there's no governing authority to impose a UI and consistent functionality. So long as each Linux program tackles UI aspects like keyboard bindings and the like on its own, Linux will suck for the desktop.

Governing authority? I don't quite understand. In the KDE Control Center I can customize keyboard shortcuts/settings and the changes are system wide. The default choices are pretty much standard. ctrl+X cuts, ctrl+V pastes. I beg to differ that Linux "sucks for the desktop". I've been using it for quite some time, I enjoying using it and am satisfied with it. I know people who aren't even proficient with computers who use Linux and are happy with it.

ForbiddenFruitsalad

07-28-2003, 07:03 AM

I am a PC user. OS X looks good enough that I'd like having a Mac to play with, but I have invested way too much time in learning the x86 platform to "switch" now.

Originally posted by spectrum
Graphic design for the Web is great, but where the Mac shines is print graphic design, which requires color matching and text flowing that Windows can't match.
The built-in color management features since Windows 2000 (ICM 2) can certainly do what you need for print graphic design. You do need to use decent PC hardware (ie none of that brand name or budget crap) and software, but that's true for the Mac as well. As a managing editor for a print magazine I worked with people on both platforms and while my Mac experience was mostly second-hand I never saw any technical reasons to support the notion that Mac is significantly better for graphics work. We had more problems with material from PC users, but those were always due to ignorance rather than technical limitations.

Why? Because most Windows apps use the super-optimized Intel compiler
I'm pretty sure that most Windows applications are compiled with Microsoft's compiler.

fmhoyt

07-28-2003, 07:17 AM

I have only ever used Macs (except for things like PCs in libraries, etc), so I lack critical perspective on PCs. However, I think OS X is the greatest thing since sliced bread - with two crucial caveats, which are that it's slower that OS 9, and that it uses more power (which is an issue if when I'm using my laptop on battery).

What I like about it is that it is UNIX, plain and simple. I learned (some) UNIX (Linux, actually) at a job I had, and there were several things about it that I liked. With UNIX, you are in total control of everything, and if you know how (a big "if"), you can save a lot of time and effort by using the UNIX command line. I also like to tinker and mess around with how things work, which is easy to do in UNIX (sometimes too easy, in fact...). None of this was possible in OS 9 (at least as far as I know).

The drawback was that I found (and still do find) UNIX intimidating from a problem-solving perspective: there is so much know-how involved, and the documentation is so decentralized that solving a simple problem can involve a tremendous amount of research (scratching through manuals, googling and reading message boards, etc).

But with OS X, I can have my cake and eat it. I can boot up in Aqua (Apples proprietary shell), and use all the programs which have been designed specifically for OS X, and start of Classic, and use my older Mac software. I can boot up to a UNIX console command line, and start of the X11 server and run one of the UNIX open-source shells, such as Gnome or KDE, and use the mountains of free software which accompanies those. Or, I can boot up in OS 9 and pretend that OS X never happened. And if I wanted to tip $300, I could buy VirtualPC and run Windows on my Mac as well.

In OS X, I can do any and all of the UNIX tricks that I want, or I just treat it like an old-fashioned Mac. I find that I do both: I do a lot of file management from the command line (copying, removing, renaming large amounts of files), but because I'm lazy, I still use the Finder search utility instead of _find_ on the command line. And if I have problems, I can either try to pretend that I'm a UNIX hacker and try to fix it myself, or I can just rely on the Apple documentation or utilities.

I also find OS X to be very reliable. It does crash from time to time (some issues with my 3rd-party CD-R/W drive and power management), but I crash programs a lot, and it's nice not to have to restart the whole computer. I also like how the file system is organized. I keep all the files and applications that I wouldn't want to lose in my ~ ("home") directory, which is all I need to back up. The rest of the system is more or less disposable.

Also, while I mentioned above that I find OS X to be slower than OS 9, I did find that I can improve its speed by changing some preferences (turning off font-smoothing and the annoying little Finder animations, for example), and using some free- or share-ware applications which optimize different aspects of the system such as application launching. So speed is negotiable, at least to some extent.

And as far as software availability goes, there are HUGE amounts of free or inexpensive software for UNIX which are being recompiled for OS X every day. One of my favorite time-wasting strategies is to browse for free OS X software, and it's stunning how much there is out there. I don't the proportion of UNIX software in the world compared to Windows software, but Mac users now have access to it, in addition to the traditional Mac-only catalog.

Some Mac users have complained that OS X doesn't let them see certain files: actually, it does, if you know how to ask it. O'Reilly has come nice books for learning UNIX: I recommend in particular "Learning UNIX for Mac OS X" and "UNIX Power Tools." I also have several Linux books which I refer to, since Linux and Darwin/BSD (the flavor of UNIX in OS X) seems to be very similar in most respects, so an introductory UNIX book might also be helpful.

I have seem some mention that Apple might port OS X to the PC platform. That would really be having your cake and eating: get a really well-designed, stable, and largely open-source operating system on hardware that you can assemble yourself to your specifications.

One other thought: I would recommend Neal Stephenson's "In the Beginning was the Command Line..." to anyone who likes to debate the Mac vs PC question. He is a former Mac user who know uses Linux, but who has some good things about PCs. He complaint about Apple is that they have done an excellent job of marketing themselves as the computer of groovy, creative, individualist types, when in fact they're total control freaks. Stephenson argues that when all is said and done, the command line is still the most powerful interface to a computer (barring gaming, of course), and that the classic Mac OS went overboard in rejecting it.

kputt

07-28-2003, 08:29 AM

That new G5 is the fastest computer in the world.

Lute Skywatcher

07-28-2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by kputt
That new G5 is the fastest computer in the world. And will be made obsolete by the end of the day - if it hasn't been already. ;)

kputt

07-28-2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Olsen
And will be made obsolete by the end of the day - if it hasn't been already. ;)

Yeah, by the G6. HEHHEHEHEHEHEHE.

Macs use RISC (Reduced Instruction set computer (I believe. I think it stood for something earlier on, but was changed)) architecture,which means that the computer can process the instructions at much faster rates than those with CISC(Complex Instruction Set Computers) arichitecuture(PC's), but there are many more instructions in RISC, but that doesn't matter because a RISC architecture can process instructions at much higher rates than CISC architectures.

And now, that Macs OS runs on UNIX, it should be even faster and more efficient.(SP?)

spectrum

07-28-2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by ForbiddenFruitsalad
The built-in color management features since Windows 2000 (ICM 2) can certainly do what you need for print graphic design.

I've worked for printers in too many capacities to completely agree with that. You can do it, but your output still won't be as seamless or predictable as it will from a ColorSynced Macintosh.

ICM 2.0 is worlds better than previous Windows color matching functions, but its not yet in ColorSync's league. ColorSync remains the industry standard because it can guarantee far more accurate color than even ICM2, and from a far wider range of devices.

You do need to use decent PC hardware (ie none of that brand name or budget crap) and software, but that's true for the Mac as well.

While you need decent printers to get the output right, you can use ColorSync just fine on any Macintosh (with the normal LCD caveats applying to Apple's new iMac).

I'm pretty sure that most Windows applications are compiled with Microsoft's compiler. [/B]

Well, then the Intel machine advantage might not be as much as I thought, speedwise.

spectrum

07-28-2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Chief Crunch
Governing authority? I don't quite understand.

Interface czars. The kind of people Microsoft and Apple have who declare "menus will always work like THIS," "icons will always work like THAT," all programs will include X or Y, etc. Try to do that, and the Linux hacker bitch that you're contrary to the spirit "open source."

Philosophical nonsense like that can get bent. I want every program on my OS to work like every other program on my OS. Linux, with its dual, competing UIs, is a user nightmare. It doesn't prove nearly the consistency or predictability of Windows or Mac OS.

Program widgets differ from app to app, whether a program is MDI or a pale version at a Mac-style interface varies from app to app.

To say nothing of user-hostile things like the way OpenOffice.org 1.0 requires you to set the spacing between paragraphs by centimeter or inch or whatever measurement you have chosen for your rulers, and not by the more logical points that Word allows. Gotchas like that abound in open source software, where there's no czar that forces the hackers to write usable code.

They generally write code and write programs for people who like to fiddle with technology, who like to customize, who think like programmers. Such an interface is worse that worthless to me, it is hostile.

spectrum

07-28-2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by kputt
Macs use RISC (Reduced Instruction set computer (I believe. I think it stood for something earlier on, but was changed)) architecture,which means that the computer can process the instructions at much faster rates than those with CISC(Complex Instruction Set Computers) arichitecuture(PC's), but there are many more instructions in RISC, but that doesn't matter because a RISC architecture can process instructions at much higher rates than CISC architectures.

RISC has fewer instructions, but can spin through them faster, theoretically doing more at any MHz rating than a comparable CISC system. This has been born out by the early Power Mac vs. Pentium PC experience.

However, the core of a Pentium IV processor is actually a RISC unit, making this a moot point.

kputt

07-28-2003, 09:44 AM

I forgot about the Pentium IV having a RISC processor in it anymore. RISC, I was wondering if I had that backwards with it having more instructions.

AHunter3

07-28-2003, 10:37 AM

a) RISC has fewer instructions in and of itself; as a result of that, applications compiled to run on a RISC platform will accomplish tasks using more total instructions (because each task will be broken down into several small instructions rather than a few longer instructions).

b) The Pentium IV has a RISC core but it still has to deal with the instructions in the actual code, which are still the moldy old ISA instruction set with their variable-length CISCness. To compensate, the P4 devotes a huge amount of attention to decoding and out-of-order guesswork. That Intel has pulled this off for as long as it has is a real testimonial to the folks at Intel, not a commendation to the legacy instruction architecture itself. Ars Technica goes into excruciating detail about what the P4 has to do before the RISC core gets to play with any code fragments.

There's so much money to be made in furnishing PCs with fast processors, and the Athlon was putting Intel's feet to the flame (and vice versa) so competition + bucks to be made resulted in some serious R & D efforts. The results are actually astonishing. It's like watching the Vikings figure out a viable way of sending wooden rocket ships to the moon, and then doing it so well that their turnaround time has been beating the steel-and-titanium competition for years.

The engineers continue to say that the long-range money is on the steel-and-titanium though. Regardless of whether that takes the form of PowerPC chips or Itanium chips or other non-IA-legacy-codenative chips or all of the above, the general consensus seems to be that the future execution of legacy Intel Architecture instruction set code will be through emulation. The fact that they were saying that as long ago as 1995 (= the astonishing wooden ships thingie) notwithstanding.

AHunter3

07-28-2003, 10:52 AM

Not sure that first part was clear, let me try again. RISC, the instruction set, has fewer instructions. CISC has more of them, and therefore for any given task there may be a CISC instruction for performing that specific task whereas you'd accomplish it in RISC by organizing your smaller pool of available RISC instructions into a sequence that does the same thing. So your application, when compiled to run on a RISC processor, will accomplish tasks using more total instructions, although many of those instructions will be the same instruction appearing over and over again in different sequences.

It's like the difference between writing things in a pictographic alphabet like Chinese or a phonetic alphabet such as English or Latin. I compose my posts using only 26 characters plus some punctuation marks. Someone participating in a Chinese-language message board composes posts using symbols where each symbol is an entire syllable, and uses fewer total characters as a result, but has to have a keyboard capable of providing input of any of thousands of different possible characters. My keyboard (and typing skills) only have to cope with a tiny set, so I probably type a lot faster.

Or... suppose you set out to code the human genome and you set up a library of codes, each of which coded for a different chemical process. When you got done setting up your library and writing out the genome, you'd have something a lot shorter than DNA in terms of the total number of code segments, but your library of necessary-available codes to work with would be huge. And awkward. Compare that to the system in which you just use guanine, cysosine, adenine, and tyrosine, but use them in different sequences and then use those sequences in different sequences and so forth. That's RISC.

modro

07-28-2003, 11:55 AM

The other major problems that come into play when you are dealing with excessive clockrates is heat and power consumption. As you wind up the clockrate to get more performance out of an architecture like the Pentium, heat and power usage increase exponentially. The other problem with this, is the Law of Diminishing Returns. As the clockrate winds higher and higher, the gains in processor speeds become less and less.

As for power consumption, a pentium 4 running at 2.8 ghz will be using 68.4 watts of power. The G5 running at 1.8 ghz by contrast, will only be using 42 watts. This is why Apple can get away with smaller case designs, and with using smaller, quieter fans in their computers. Whereas a pentium 4 powered Gateway may sound like a wind tunnel, an Apple iMac can get away with being nearly silent. In the case of my older 400 Mhz G3 powered iMac, it doesn't even have a fan. The processor used in the computer has low enough power consumption to allow the case to be cooled by convection, without a fan. Not even a small one on the processor itself.

In the new Pentium M processors for notebooks, Intel actually reworked the architecture to allow them to lower the clockrate, and it actually outperforms the older Pentium 4 laptop processors at a lower clockrate.

That is one of the advantages of running a processor that makes more efficient use of power. In laptops for instance, you can get a Dell Inspiron 500m notebook that, using an Intel Centrino chipset, and at weight of 5 lbs, gets battery life of up to 4 hours. An Apple iBook, using a low power consumption G3, will get 5 hours for a 12 inch model (5 lbs), or with the 14 inch model, get a 6 hour battery life while the laptop weighs in at 5.9 lbs.

Chief Crunch

07-28-2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by spectrum

They generally write code and write programs for people who like to fiddle with technology, who like to customize, who think like programmers. Such an interface is worse that worthless to me, it is hostile.

Having choice is hostile? Customizing is a bad thing? How long have you even used Linux? What distro was it? There are versions like Lycoris and Lindows that are geared for someone who isn't as advanced or proficient with computers. I kind of get the feeling that before you even sit down and use a computer that's not made by Apple your mind is already made up. You seem to obsess over the most trivial things that an average user wouldn't even notice. You give one breathtakingly picayune detail that you dislike in OpenOffice, then quickly make generalizations about all open source software without citing any further examples. Apple even offers X11 to users of OS X. I'll certainly concede that the Gimp is nowhere near the level of Adobe Photoshop. Of course, the Gimp is free and Photoshop costs six-hundred bucks. Considering the average user is just going to crop or resize pictures and maybe do some minor retouching, Gimp is a suitable choice and accomplishes these pretty easily. I've never coded a day in my life and I love Linux. As I mentioned earlier, I know people who know little about computers and use it.

spectrum

07-28-2003, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Chief Crunch
Having choice is hostile?

No, having an inconsistent interface is hostile.

Customizing is a bad thing?

When the point of customization is to overcome the inconsistency of the interface, yes.

How long have you even used Linux? What distro was it?

Generally off and on for several months at a time, using various releases, most recently Red Hat 8.0 and Suse 8.0.

There are versions like Lycoris and Lindows that are geared for someone who isn't as advanced or proficient with computers.

Thanks for the backhanded insult. I am an extremely advanced and experienced and proficient user of computers.

I kind of get the feeling that before you even sit down and use a computer that's not made by Apple your mind is already made up.

Funny, then, that for years I only bought Dells.

You seem to obsess over the most trivial things that an average user wouldn't even notice.

Only because they have no eye for detail.

You give one breathtakingly picayune detail that you dislike in OpenOffice, then quickly make generalizations about all open source software without citing any further examples.

You want others? I can go back and dig up others. The OO.o one jumped to mind because it still frustrates me when I use that program on my Mac.

Apple even offers X11 to users of OS X.

That is neither here nor there. X11 is not a standard UI for average users. It's there only to facilitate the porting of high end Unix apps for corporate and institutional customers.

Of course, the Gimp is free and Photoshop costs six-hundred bucks. Considering the average user is just going to crop or resize pictures and maybe do some minor retouching, Gimp is a suitable choice and accomplishes these pretty easily.

No, Photoshop Elements is the suitable choice, and only costs $99. The Gimp is nice, but its no Photoshop for pros, and isn't as suited for non-pros as Photoshop Elements.

Chief Crunch

07-29-2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by spectrum
No, having an inconsistent interface is hostile.

Yeah, it's really a pain in the ass when I have to physically rotate my monitor upside down because Kmail only displays everything that way. Gnome is even worse, as mischievous little gnomes periodically dash out from all corners of the desktop, randomly switching files and icons in a horrid usurping of our eternal quest for consistency and uniformity. The hostility is even more unbearable. Last night Tux got drunk again and started calling me a stupid motherfucker, like my father used to. As his hatefilled procession of evil continued, he whizzed all over my Pan newsgroup headers, before proceeding in a mad dash to desktop three, where he used Gaim under my screen name to tell my ex-girlfriend I have syphilis and how she should "really get that checked out." Linux, a chaotic void of hostility and surreal inconsistency.

Thanks for the backhanded insult. I am an extremely advanced and experienced and proficient user of computers.

Yeah, you're so advanced you want your OS to hold your hand through even the most simplistic task, make all your decisions for you and patronize you. But, of course, you're "Mr. fix it" who sweeps in with your magical "boot disk" whenever one of your friends' Wintels won't start and saves the day. Am I right? :D I wouldn't consider it an insult as much as a lighthearted observation deduced from your responses in this thread. In all fairness and seriousness; however, I am willing to concede that you do probably spend more time in front of a computer than I do.

Funny, then, that for years I only bought Dells.

And for years I only used Windows. Before that, in college I predominately used Macs. By your logic, this makes me completely objective and non-biased, right?

Only because they have no eye for detail.

If by "eye for detail" you mean "borderline obsessive compulsive disorder" then we're good to go. That seriously isn't a joke or an insult. In particular, I'm referring to the XP vs. X link you posted. I can say with a high level of confidence when a person finds his or herself sitting in front of two operating systems, dragging windows, clicking on icons and running system tools in an effort to compare them, there's a pretty good chance that various areas of this person's life are somewhat compromised.

You want others? I can go back and dig up others. The OO.o one jumped to mind because it still frustrates me when I use that program on my Mac.

If you really wish, but I was under the impression we'd shoot the shit about actual issues as opposed to "this blasted widget is two centimeters too far to the right!" By the end of the day, it won't even really matter. You're happy with your Mac and I'll continue to embrace Linux and KDE. I'm fond of Macs and even though I can't really justify buying one, it's good to know there's an option outside of Intel/AMD if I ever desire to walk down that road.

Zenham

07-29-2003, 11:47 AM

To avoid waxing long here about a subject I've written about in the recent past...

Why I haven't Switched. (http://www.markh.com)

Cheers...

Zenham

07-29-2003, 11:49 AM

Apologies, forgot to proofread and directed folks to my homepage. Here's a direct link (http://www.markh.com/switch.html) instead.

AHunter3

07-29-2003, 12:23 PM

I like KDE OK. I know Mac users who have even installed it and run KDE in the XFree86 or X11 environments and pretty much ignore Aqua. If I had PC hardware I'd put more time into learning my way around it. I have to agree that there are still areas of user-hostility (I still haven't convinced my VPC copy of Red Hat to display to 1024 x 768), but then I find even bigger pockets of user-hostility within Microsoft Word.

On my Mac under X, I prefer WindowMaker to KDE and I use the XFree86 environment as an ancillary environment while still using Aqua environment applications.

Zenham

07-29-2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by spectrum
That is neither here nor there. X11 is not a standard UI for average users. It's there only to facilitate the porting of high end Unix apps for corporate and institutional customers.[QUOTE]

Actually, X11 isn't a UI at all. It's a display and input device framework, on top of which many (more than 20) window managers (think: "desktops") have been built over the past 15 years or so. Some of these window managers use interface layers like GNOME or KDE to simplify the progamming, and give some uniform look and feel to the system.

There are exceptionally simple and good interfaces, if you like simple and good. There are amazingly tweakable ones, as well. If you say you dislike GNOME or KDE because of the myriad of... well, options, then you're really disliking the window manager you're using under GNOME or KDE. From your commentary, I'd guess you played with Sawfish, which is known for being infinitely configurable, to the chagrin of many new to (and familiar with, yes) it's ways.

For those seeking zen-like purity, I'd recommend Black Box. For those seeking a windows-like environ, I'd sugest KDE. For those wanting to get under the hood, I'd suggest Sawfish. For those wanting something out of a sci-fi flick, I'd siggest Enlightenment.

[QUOTE][/B]No, Photoshop Elements is the suitable choice, and only costs $99. The Gimp is nice, but its no Photoshop for pros, and isn't as suited for non-pros as Photoshop Elements. [/B]

Agreed. GIMP, however, is infinitely more extensible by mortal hyoomans than Photoshop (Elements, or Full), due to its multiple language scripting interfaces, making it a fun and useful toy for those who revel in image manipulation. Someone needing only to crop, rotate, and remove red-eye from a photo should need neither; most camera-dump applications include those basics.

Also, it's free. Free is a very strong selling point for those to whom $99 is still a lot of money. There are indeed ways to make GIMP simpler to use, and the 2.x versions have a vastly improved interface, in my opnion (which might possibly count, because I've spent years developing software under multiple platforms, and one of my specialties happens to be Human-Computer Interaction and usability design).

Beyond this, there's the whole Windows app versus Mac App world. The same app on the two platforms will be identical, but there are about five common image editing applications for the PC, versus one for OSX.

Linux isn't for everyone. Neither is OSX. Neither is Windows. And to get really rude about it, they're not religions, and they need no defenders. They're commercial products (linux included to some degree, there, too) intended to make money. Pick the one best suited to your task, and go with it.

As for me, I don't care for OSX. I find that for every nicety it has, I'm getting limited in some other way, sometimes painfully.

Case in point,I was working on my dad's G4 tower (running OSX Jaguar) trying to work around the fact that the last (as in 'final')version of the OSX driver for a 2-year-old HP printer only supports USB connections, even though it's common practice to throw the printer in question behind a network print spooler (also made by HP). The Windows and HP-supplied Unix drivers handle this fine, but the OSX one doesn't. Not Apple's fault, don't want you to think I blame them for the problem; HP doesnt support OSX on discontinued models. This is most likely because it forces you to buy another printer.

Now, knowing what I do about OSX, BSD, and the Unix world, and knowing that OSX uses CUPS as its printing backend, I know that I should be able to drop the printer's PPD file into the drivers folder, add a line in the config file which basically says "the printer named foo uses the driver bar and is located at the network address baz", and restart the service, and all should be good and happy. It worked with CUPS under Linux and FreeBSD both, in the exact same manner, btw).

Unfortuntely, because Apple's interface to printer management doesn't understand everything that its backend can handle, the tool barfs violently and kills the daemon, and twice, the whole OS.

So, here I have the power and stability of Unix, and the inability to access it without royally pissing off the UI to the point that the machine kernel-panics.

All in all, computers are tools to me. I purchase a machine based on the task at hand. Sometimes that task isn't going to be performance related, such as pre-press work. I'd never be caught dead turning down a Mac for pre-press. Video and audio editing, the difference isn't what it once was; Windows tools are better in many cases in my experience for audio editing, because of the myriad of options and plug-ins that exist there, but not for similar Mac suites. As for video editing, the only things I've worked with have been consumer-grade apps like Premeire, which is identical on both platforms, as far as I've seen.

Most of the time though, Intel hardware wins, simply for the bang-for-the-buck comparison between the machines, as well as the flexibility (PCs are upgradable down to the motherboard, whereas Macs are expandable, but not upgradeable to the bare chassis; most PC users won't ever swap motherboards out though). From this, comes the extension that

Macs now hold 3% of the market share, down from a one-time high of about 8%; this from Google Answers (http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=214083). Apparently, the budget crisis has significant impact on the PC market; the premium price on an Apple was what Wired mistakenly viewed as an education factor (remember that poll, about how those educated in Ivy League schools were more likely to own a Mac than the general populace? Of course, the same thing can be said about Gucci handbags, Jaguars, or stock portfolios).

So... back to the "computers are tools" drift...

Once we allow ourselves to look at computers as tools, and not as an extension of our being, it becomes apparent that not every tool fits every job. Having mre than one machine makes this distinction easier; I personally own six computers, none of which are currently Macs. Two are servers, running Linux (one a fileserver with an 8-drive RAID (740GB total) running Gentoo which will soon be Debian, one a dhcp, web-app, and database server with Redhat). One is a firewall machine, also running Linux. One is a Sparcstation 4 running FreeBSD, formerly SunOS 4.1.3. One is a desktop workstation, running WindowsXP and Gentoo Linux, depending on what I'm working on (dual booting).

I like WindowsXP for a couple of things, like the simple file management, networking, and software (entertainment and productivity, both). I like Linux for the ability to get under the hood, and for developing server or database-driven applications. I don't use Macs not because I hate Apple, but because for what I use a computer for, Macs aren't the logical choice for me. If I did other things with computers, they might well be.

I'm certainly happy for those who like Macs and use them, because overall, they like what they use. I don't have to use it, so it's not up to me to say what's better for them.

If you ask me what's better, I'll tell you "whatever you find most pleasing to use", because the metrics of HCI are not going to change the mind of someone who finds a particular facet of an application or interface appealing. Aesthetics tend to override functionality a lot of the time with computers, because most people (all platforms) like "cool-looking" over "simple", as they extend their personality onto their computer (just look at desktop wallpaper, the screensaver, custom icons and sounds, and the like).

In my current gig (which has sysadmin facets), I have users who are still using a version of Eudora from five years ago, because it's what they know, and it does what they need. Kudos to them. They've left marketing behind, and stuck with what they need a machine for.

As for the OP, figure out what you want to do, HONESTLY, and that will tell you what you want to buy. Here's a possible checklist of add'em up values for you, if you really need a place to begin, I try to be objective here, but of course some might think I'm being biased. I'm assuming Windows XP as the OS here for the PC machine, because if you're asking others what to buy, you probably aren't considering Linux anyway (and yes, this is a good thing... even though I use and enjoy Linux, I firmly believe it's not for everyone yet).

So, let's play "Who Has The Edge?":

Price: Apple=1, PC=3
Price/Performance as a Ratio: Apple=0, PC=3
Hardware Appearance: Apple=3, PC=1
Hardware Durability: PC=2, Apple=1
Hardware Function: PC=2, Apple=2
Desktop OS Look-and-feel: Apple=3, PC=1
Desktop OS Functionality: Apple=1, PC=3
Desktop OS Unity: Apple=3, PC=2
Productivity Software: Apple=2, PC=2
Video Editing: Apple=2, PC=2
User Community Support: Apple=2, PC=2
Image Editing Software: Apple=2, PC=3 (number of apps is the only difference)
Entertainment Software: Apple=1, PC=3
Free Software: Apple=1, PC=3
General Quality of Free Software: Apple=3, PC=2
"Helper" Applications: Apple=1,PC=3
Unity of Interface in apps: Apple=3, PC=2
Simple and to the point versions of apps: Apple=3, PC=2
Expandability, Normal: Apple=2, PC=2
Expandability, Extreme: Apple=1, PC=3
Third-Party Support and Expansion: Apple=1, PC=2
Is it Time-Proof: Apple=2, PC=3
Can I Use It For Other Things After I Buy A New Machine: Apple=1, PC=3
Latest Features: Apple=2, PC=2

So, add up the numbers for the itmes which are important to you, and you will have numbers that are, all in all, totally useless. The point of this all is, figure out, really, what you want to do with a computer. Then, shop around for those features as if you already owned a PC or an Apple, and figure out which one suits your needs and wallet.

Cheers....

keithnmick

07-29-2003, 04:06 PM

Great, another Mac vs Win debate.

I am sitting at my desk as we speak, with a G4 tower and a newer dual Xeon win 2k box before me. I like them both, but I prefer the Wintel box.

I can live with either interface - the tiny details that one has are offset by the tiny details the other shows. If you look at them long enough you can perceive anything as an advantage.

I do like the way you can drag a file onto a specific application icon in the Mac and that application will open the file. You can't do that on a PC, you must right click and select "open with..." which wouldn't be so bad if it actually distinguished between versions of the same software (for example Photoshop 6.0 and 7.0 ) - it just lists "Photoshop" twice and you have to guess.

I like the way in windows you can just click once to hide all windows and go to your desktop. When I'm working on a project I tend to save all of the current files on the desktop because it's quicker, and the ability to jump right there is great.

Like I said, IMHO both OS's work just fine. Win 2k is extremely stable, as is OSX. Win NT sucked, but then OS9 sucked royally.

My issue is with the software, once again. I am a creative professional - I'm an industrial designer. While the Mac is beautifully designed, you can't design a mac on a mac. You can design a mac on a PC though (or a Unix machine - I believe Apple uses Unix boxes).

The software I use on pretty much a daily basis includes Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark (or InDesign), Word, Powerpoint, Project, Rhino 3D and Solidworks. Sometimes I use Alias Wavefront and ProEngineer.

The last 4 programs I listed are just not available for the Mac, and they run like garbage on Virtual PC.

I get a bit pissed off when I hear people talk about the Mac as being the "creative professionals" platform of choice. I sculpt in 3D, developing things for mass production. Pretty creative, but not really easy to do on a mac.

I've also done a decent bit of video editing and Avid is still the industry standard in film and TV work. Final Cut Pro is a nice program though.

Video special effects are generated either on Unix boxes or Intel machines. Lord of the Rings - Intel I'm afraid.

Photoshop in my experience is exactly the same on either platform, except for the fact that on the Windows version you can tile all the open windows within the app, on the Mac you've never been able to do this - I don't know why.

I like em both - Macs sure have nicer industrial design (although Sony makes a nice case) but you can indeed do more on a PC.