PDA

View Full Version : Mindless PC MAC Rant!


i_wolf
Aug 29, 2002, 06:29 PM
first off i am not intending to start a flame war. These are only my opinions.... and put them in perspective .... the opinions of a newbie. Feel free to disagree and prove me wrong... educate if any of this rant is bull!
Any how onto the rant! I am a little bit annoyed that certain people in here when comparing PC's with Mac's (which they really shouldn't do as its kinda like comparing apples with oranges) [no pun intended!]. Anyway their argument usually goes something like .." well Pc's are crap like... they may be faster and cheaper than the mac but they are as unstable as s#1t... ask a pc to do photoshop and its crashes in 0 - 60... this is just typical of an x86... a mac is more stable and reliable etc..].
First and foremost..... stop bashing the X86 architecture. Whether we (mac lovers) like it or not .... PC's are faster. Period. An athlon... which is more RISC like than CISC www.arstechnica.com (http://www.arstechnica.com) in architecture tends to be equal if not faster than a Mac G4 at similar clock speeds. Now in recent tests (e.g. go to barefeats etc... and www.geek.com )they compare and show that the mac is slower in dual processor form than the latest P4 and AMD XP's running in single processor form. These tests are not stupid SPEC int or rubbish like that ... they are the real deal ... benchmarks of applications that we use in the real world on a daily basis like MAYA, Cubase etc.... here the mac HARDWARE is shown not to be as fast as what the x86 platform (and before anyone burns me to a cinder... these tests are in general running the same version of software and code on each platform. softwareX 4.5 x86 versus softwareX 4.5 mac). Now i know that it is like waving a red flag to a bull saying anyof this in a MAC forum. But i like reading here and i find the people in here very open minded and i felt the need to say that we should stop associating crashing, falling over apps etc.. with the x86 platform. X86 is fine... maybe great becase at the moment it is in the performance driving seat. BUT ...It is only a tool. Its the operator of the tool that counts. Windows. the most bloated piece of rubbish. By all means slag this off. I use macs and x86 every day and find that both are just as stable as the other... why.... well i use red hat linux on x86 and the incredible OS X on the mac. in the hypothetical scenario that windows were to run on mac (heaven forbid .... anyway would never happen :o ) you would find the mac falling on its arse. Again just to reiterate... all platforms (hardware wise are great) ... its the operator that makes the difference. Linux is fantastic on x86 and G4. But it does not have iTunes, Aqua or any of the other fantastic stuff you would only get with os X. thats why i would not recommend a PC to a newbie and only a MAC... because when i compare MAC's to PC's i see OS versus OS. and in all honesty the mac wins hands down... it has the number 1 and number2 OS (IMO) all wrapped up in a nice shiny case!
As one of my mates puts it.... Apple is like putting Michael Schumacher in a Ferrari (2000 season model!) it just works. Dell gives you the McClaren , technically the faster of the two but puts a drunk driver behind the wheel.
OK.... start shootin me!

Taft
Aug 29, 2002, 06:42 PM
I'm not sure there are many people here who would say that the top of the line Mac would outperform the top of the line PC. But that doesn't mean we don't think PCs are junk.

Why??

Stability. Unix. Seemless device integration. Intuitive OS. Great apps. The iApps. An active and supportive community. Machines that have beatuiful form and function. Some of the best shareware available. A company that doesn't try to control (and own) your life. Things just work.

I'm not a person who thinks Macs don't have problems. I'm a person who admits they aren't prefect, but prefers them because I can get more from a Mac than a PC and I see them getting better everyday.

If all I needed was the fastest computer out there (and how many people really need that?), I'd own a top end Pentium or Athalon built ot order system. There is more to getting work done than crunching numbers, and I can work better in the environment that macs provide.

Taft

vniow
Aug 29, 2002, 06:47 PM
What's there to flame you about? I think we'll all agree that PCs are faster for the time being, but as for x86 being a great arcitecture, here's where I sorta agree with you. It was for awhile, but it's dying. Like you said, the Athlon is slowly away from it and so is Intel to an extent. Windows XP may be the most bloated of all the versions Microsoft has released, but it's also the most stable. It's nowhere near the level of OSX, but at least it doesn't crash. With that said, I'm in the process of making my PC M$ free. I've got Mandrake 8.2 installed on a seperate partition and seeing if it'll do what I normally do on Windows. (if I can just get that frelling modem to work...) Anywayz, the lines between Mac and PC have been blurred in the past year or so, but that doesn't matter. OSX doesn't run on x86 and that's that. I still hate M$ and will never buy a product from them again. With all the frustration over their recent licensing strategy and their never ending security updates, I suspect that we're going to se a lot more switchers in the coming year, to Mac or Linux. :)

job
Aug 29, 2002, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Taft

If all I needed was the fastest computer out there (and how many people really need that?)


the pros. people employed at ilm, etc. ;)

and they usually have a budget large enough to procure any tower/computer they want.

jadam
Aug 29, 2002, 06:58 PM
f00, x86 is a PIECE OF **** dont even GO THERE!. I think you should look at the little key that says return on your keyboard...

Sun Baked
Aug 29, 2002, 06:58 PM
edvniow,

Stop teasing the newbie's writing style. :p

I'm having just as much trouble with your post as i_wolf's -- the lack of paragraphs and capitals.

But the color makes it even worse. :D

I plain just got lost in these two paragraph mazes.

And I'm sorry about your position's defense i_wolf, because I honestly don't know which is worse, the testing method at BareFeats or the accounting at Enron.

alex_ant
Aug 29, 2002, 07:37 PM
I mostly agree with you, i_wolf. Let me pick some nits, though.
Originally posted by i_wolf
I am a little bit annoyed that certain people in here when comparing PC's with Mac's (which they really shouldn't do as its kinda like comparing apples with oranges) [no pun intended!]. Anyway their argument usually goes something like .." well Pc's are crap like... they may be faster and cheaper than the mac but they are as unstable as s#1t... ask a pc to do photoshop and its crashes in 0 - 60... this is just typical of an x86... a mac is more stable and reliable etc..].
I agree - PCs running Windows are much more stable than they used to be. This argument might have held water in 1998, but it doesn't anymore. In general, I think Windows still does crash more, but that's taking into account all the bottom-dollar commodity piece of garbage hardware that it's running on. Quality PC hardware does exist, it's just that it doesn't usually show up at the top of the Pricewatch listings. A good PC is just as high in build quality as a Mac. They're all built in the same Taiwanese factories anyway.
First and foremost..... stop bashing the X86 architecture. Whether we (mac lovers) like it or not .... PC's are faster. Period. An athlon... which is more RISC like than CISC www.arstechnica.com (http://www.arstechnica.com) in architecture tends to be equal if not faster than a Mac G4 at similar clock speeds. Now in recent tests (e.g. go to barefeats etc... and www.geek.com )they compare and show that the mac is slower in dual processor form than the latest P4 and AMD XP's running in single processor form. These tests are not stupid SPEC int or rubbish like that ... they are the real deal ... benchmarks of applications that we use in the real world on a daily basis like MAYA, Cubase etc.... here the mac HARDWARE is shown not to be as fast as what the x86 platform (and before anyone burns me to a cinder... these tests are in general running the same version of software and code on each platform. softwareX 4.5 x86 versus softwareX 4.5 mac).
Hear hear, although I take issue with calling SPEC benchmarks rubbish... I think concise is a better word. :)
X86 is fine... maybe great becase at the moment it is in the performance driving seat. BUT ...It is only a tool. Its the operator of the tool that counts. Windows. the most bloated piece of rubbish. By all means slag this off.
I think OS X is a better OS than Windows, but Windows is much less rubbish than it used to be, and OS X is certainly more bloated than any OS in the history of the world, including Windows XP. I'd like somebody to explain why my OS X.1.5 is currently using 252MB of memory running only the Finder, Chimera, a single Terminal window, and a single Stickes. That's just inexcusable. OS X can't achieve on dual 1GHz processors what BeOS managed to achieve on a single 300MHz processor in terms of raw performance. Windows is bloated too, but not even in the same league as OS X.

Alex

8thDegreeSavage
Aug 29, 2002, 07:45 PM
Alex_ant your a total tool whom everyone hates.....please shut up.

alex_ant
Aug 29, 2002, 07:53 PM
So you don't agree?

DavPeanut
Aug 29, 2002, 07:53 PM
PC's aren't bad, but macs are easyier and more fun to use

losfp
Aug 29, 2002, 08:29 PM
well this is MHO.

I think that if you haven't used something for a reasonable time, then you are hardly qualified to assess its benefits and weaknesses. I reckon that when it comes down to it, it's all about what you feel comfortable with. The differences in perceived quality are (IMHO) so close that the BIGGEST difference you are likely to encounter is in the user. ie: most issues arise from the infamous PEBCAK Error.

I have been running Windows XP on my 2 machines (1.2ghz Athlon desktop and 366Mhz Pentium II notebook) for a few months now, with very few problems. It's the easiest version of windows I've encountered to configure - you plug things in and they generally work. I have 3-5 XP and Win2k machines in the house all connected up with a broadband router and wireless access point and it all works just fine. In fact, my laptop had some 27 days of uptime before I had to restart it after installing some software. Granted, I know what I'm doing - but that's my point!

Given a decent enough level of technical competence, I don't see any reason why you couldn't use OS X or Win XP with equal ease.

Hell, I'm a long-time PC user who's considering getting a mac for the best of both worlds (whenever the new powerbooks arrive! :D)

To recap - Hardware and software irrelevant. If you want to blame someone, blame people.

i_wolf
Aug 29, 2002, 08:31 PM
Anyway apologies for my punctuation and grammer. English wasn't my forté in school!
Any the how... to the gentleman who claimed that i was talking rubbish about the architecture higher up the thread (forgot your name)... X86 of today is radically different to x86 of yesteryear.
DDR 2. Even look at the Athlon MP set up.. i mean its great... you have dual 266 buses going to to processors. Look at the technology that these machines are using. I agree with alex_ant. Mac's are much more fun than M$ Windows.
They are also a nicer experience to take out of a box.
However. Don't knock dell's machines. Its the OS on them that is crap. I hate working within the windows environment. I love working within OS X and equally satisfied using Linux. While i will admit that you could probably use OS X and never really have to use the shell (something that would scare the **** out of a new linux user)... i like using shell. Furthermore the I think that the new GUI systems that are due to be release for linux are incredible. Head over to www.kde.org and check out the latest 3.1 beta shots... beter still download the source, and install. It looks far superior to Win XP and dare i say it probably is catching up on AQUA for bells and whistles and user interface.
Finally. The real point that i was trying to make in my mindless rant / speach was that ultimately the hardware is irrelivant. It's the OS that matters. And i was just a little pissed off with people degrading the experience and usability and stabilty of X86 machines like dell because they were using Windows. The very same machines under Linux would probably run sweet. :) But untill such time that a hardware Manufacturer like Dell sells a mainstream family multimedia PC with a USER FRIENDLY version of Linux then apple has nothing to worry about. And mac fans should stop running down the x86 hardware.
Oh and i know i said finally further up but .... to that guy that was complaining about the amount of resources that OS X 1.1 as taking of his 256 Megs of ram. It is possible to run the whole Linux OS (well the kernel mainly) from a floppy! haven't tried it but i know that it can be done! Jaguar will certainly improve your situation with system resources though. Its fantastic.
Regards all. Keep the opinions rolling.

jelloshotsrule
Aug 29, 2002, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by 8thDegreeSavage
Alex_ant your a total tool whom everyone hates.....please shut up.

i don't hate alex. i just disagree with how straight forward he is sometimes... ha


it's cool if you don't use caps and proper spelling and grammar even (well... kinda) but at least break it up in paragraphs. that's really tough to read


the mac has advantages (os, software, plug and play) and the pc does (speed, 95% people use it)...

depends what you want to do. depends how much you care about which aspects of computing.

Sun Baked
Aug 29, 2002, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by i_wolf
The real point that i was trying to make in my mindless rant / speach was that ultimately the hardware is irrelivant.

It's the OS that matters.

And i was just a little pissed off with people degrading the experience and usability and stabilty of X86 machines like dell because they were using Windows.

The very same machines under Linux would probably run sweet. :)

Point of FACT - If Microsoft ditched the x86 and in favor of Itanium, the x86 platform would be dead.

Linux may not be enough the keep it alive much beyond the critical mass of user transitions during the next OS upgrade cycle.

So it's perfectly legitimate to call an x86 machine like Dell crap, if you're talking Windows - the majority of the market.

Just like Linux, BeOS, Windows PPC can't be used to defend Apple hardware.

It is the OS (most used OS that is) that matters when you talk about PCs and Macs.

---

So ... Mr. Don't knock dell's machines. Its the OS on them that is crap.

What's next?

solvs
Aug 29, 2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by 8thDegreeSavage
Alex_ant your a total tool whom everyone hates.....please shut up.

Well, that was nice.

If you're going to flame, please use something a little more clever. Sounding like you're in junior high school doesn't win you a lot of points around here. Even if you used the word "whom" (whether it was used correctly or not). At least Alex made some good points, and a valid argument (whether we agree with him or not).

Anyway, the reason we compare Apples to WinTels is that they are both computers. They both do very similar (often the same) thing. Most of the same parts. Similar software. Even Apple has acknowledged that WinTels are their competition in their "Switch" ads. They are comparative because they're competitive. It's been Macs vs. PCs for awhile now.

I'd been using Win98 for awhile myself. I'm using Win2000 now. My parents have WinXP, and personally, I hate it. My stepfather loves it, but he doesn't know a lot about computers. My friend's Mom, who never used a computer in her life, got an iMac and was very happy with it. She was doing all sorts of things on the first day. I had problems with Mac OS 8, but 9 was okay, and I love 10. Can't wait to get a new Mac with 10.2. Win98 gave me problems once a day, and Win2000 Pro isn't perfect either. No OS is. I don't really like Linux, too many hassles.

See I do a lot of multimedia. Audio/Video/Graphics type stuff. Web Design and PC upgrade/repairs on the side. Sure it's faster on a finely tuned WinTel, but it's so much easier on a Mac. If you're just gonna play games, buy a PS2 or (shudder) xBox.

Although fast, x86 processors aren't that great. They sacrifice a lot to achieve such high speeds. Yes, even AMD. They're hot, suck up way too much power, and they constantly fail or have problems. I know, G4s are hot and fail too, but not that bad. For those counting - P4s have a 100 or 133 FSB (it's Quad pumped), AMDs also have a 100 or 133 FSB (DDR, rising and falling). New G4s have a 167 FSB with DDR-RAM support. For all those b*tching, if DDR are can speed up a Celeron, and DDR400 can speed up a 266 Athlon, it can feed a G4. How many of you were the same people who b*tched because Apple didn't use DDR-RAM?

Though it would be nice if it used it better, instead of the bastardized version they use now.

See, M$ and Apple are both businesses. They both sell computers. They both do stupid, selfish things. But Macs are so much cooler and stable for what you can do. How many viruses do you find on Apples? And M$ is just plain evil. Evil!!! You're always gonna have people bad mouthing the other side, sometimes based on personal experiances. Sometimes, unfortunetly, for no reasons with no valid arguements (see above for examples).

Besides, how many times have you heard someone say "Macs suck", but they don't know why.

Besides, it's real world experiance, and performance, that matters. For that, Macs generally win. Sometimes. Linux is cool, too. But it's not always worth the trouble. My sister's friend told me so (please note sarcasm ;)).

King Cobra
Aug 29, 2002, 10:27 PM
>(8thDegreeSavage) Alex_ant your a total tool whom everyone hates.....please shut up.

Christina, I think your bashing talent belongs in the music network, not on the forums. :rolleyes:

I would have to agree on this one. IF Dell had developed better software, most likely the PC world would be capable of taking over Apple.

But the Windoze OS is already infested with several bugs and constant updates. Windoze heXPee fixed that somewhat, but it is still far from perfect. And this is what is holding back the PC world from taking over everything.

The Apple OS is even closer to perfect. But since you will never find a perfect OS, you might as well choose the OS closest to perfect and farthest from inoperable.

The thing keeping Apple from taking over the PC world is the so-called "MHz myth" and the lack of faster memory. If Apple could solve these issues the PC world would eventually be no more.

For REAL competition in the world of computers, I would like to see what happens IF Apple/IBM merge and get better processors out the door, along with more DDR-RAM, while Dell/PCs try to perfect their OS and come as close as OS X.

i_wolf
Aug 29, 2002, 10:55 PM
you make some interesting points sunbaked.
Just like Linux, BeOS, Windows PPC can't be used to defend Apple hardware.
It is the OS (most used OS that is) that matters when you talk about PCs and Macs.

I would disagree. Most used is not necessarily a good term to use. Most film makers prefer to use Unix /Linx as the OS when applying special effects (special effects rendered on x86 that is).
Also one cannot just dismiss linux and say that Windows determines the be and end all of x86. In 2000 linux.org was advertising that over 1 million people had downloaded Linux. That number is rising. The majority of the world Servers are running Apache which is run on Linux / Unix. There are a lot of companies (small mainly like ours) that use X86 Linux boxes as servers. In our case a Dell P3 running Red Hat 7.2 that has been up and running and never crashed once on us. This is a standard run of the mill Dell Dimension that was retrofitted with a 3Com nic and 120 gig maxtor formatted to run Linux. At the time we couldn't afford a server proper! It most certainly is not crap and has met our needs perfectly. Had we been running Win 2000 server it probably would have!

You definately have a good point though for a new computer buyer. The new buyer thinks "I need a windows dell". Agreed. And i will admit that Linux has been seen as somewhat elitist in the past and non userfriendly. But because of its open source nature, it is improving steadily. One only has to look at new GUI's that are in development at the moment to make the transition to Linux desktop easier. The KDE project yet again.... check out the 3.1beta. The same user that gets pissed off with windows will more than likely seek an alternative and possibly stumble across linux. Hopefully even like it.

Finally 1 million plus users of linux desktop presently cannot be wrong on x86. My opinion here represents merely one. And it is as valid to me as your opinion is to you. May i redirect you to

Paper on Users of Linux (http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html)
Where a gentleman there has done a very indepth study.

So ... Mr. Don't knock dell's machines. Its the OS on them that is crap.

I am well aware that my English is not very good. English for me is only a second /third language with French. Irish being my primary. But even still i don't really appreciate the mocking tone that you are taking with me sunbaked. This is a discussion forum. My opinion is equally valid to me as yours is to you. If you do not like my opinion that is ok. But please refer to me in a respectful manner regardless, as i have done you the courtesy.
Regards,
I_wolf.

Taft
Aug 29, 2002, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

I think OS X is a better OS than Windows, but Windows is much less rubbish than it used to be, and OS X is certainly more bloated than any OS in the history of the world, including Windows XP. I'd like somebody to explain why my OS X.1.5 is currently using 252MB of memory running only the Finder, Chimera, a single Terminal window, and a single Stickes. That's just inexcusable. OS X can't achieve on dual 1GHz processors what BeOS managed to achieve on a single 300MHz processor in terms of raw performance. Windows is bloated too, but not even in the same league as OS X.

Alex

Bah!

BeOS acheived much lower latency and faster user response, but speed is a very subjective word. Be was designed so that any action would receive an immediate response and with low latency as a priority. Put Be and OS X running the same CPU intensive task on the same hardware and it'd be about a draw.

And what you call bloat, I call feature rich. And thats not just spin.

OS X (read NeXT) was designed very differently from most OS's out there. Sure Unix is on the bottom, but almost everything that apps interact with is a NeXT invention. And these APIs and laguages were designed to be very dynamic and highly extensible.

Everything was designed with the idea of being dynamic. Method and feature reflection is everywhere and many things are runtime bound. Its this behavior that allows Services without a severe construct added on. Instead of being added on, its inherent to the way the OS, its APIs, and esp. its languages are designed (this is why only Java and Obj-C can be used to hit the APIs--Carbon is just a proxy between old and new).

This comes at the cost of bigger binaries and libraries and more things in memory. Thankfully, todays hardware allows this design to work without severe performance hits. But this is why OS X apparently likes RAM so much. The OS is able to stretch its legs and have to do less paging for what we would consider mundane tasks (switching programs, windows, etc.)

I avoid the word bloat because of its negative connotation. OS X's situation is anything BUT negative. And as hardware improves and becomes less relavent, OS X's situation will only improve.

We'll be seeing a similar situation as .Net slowly rolls out. Its got the same "issues" with dynamitism as Java's platform, Obj-C's platform(OS X). But .Net is being introduced later than the existing dynamic platforms and has the benifit of a faster mean of hardware available.

Taft

i_wolf
Aug 29, 2002, 11:13 PM
solvs i am not butt kissing but great post. The only thing is that Athlon has been using a pure DDR bus all the way through now for two years. And we are still waiting on apple to deliver a "pure" DDR. It doesn't bother me much because remember that the Athlon originally only gained 10 % performance gain when it switched from 133 SDR bus to 266 DDR. Now recent improvements in memory controllers have improved this situation greatly and now the Athlon with say a KT266 A onwards can get a 33 -40 % improvment if not more if you read over at www.arstechnica.com To be honest i am not sure if the heat and power are as problematic now as they were originally. I have built 20 Athlon machines over the last two years all based off KT133 ti KT333 mobos and none have ever failed. The heat and power requirements have also been lowered especially if you look at AMD's latest Thoroughbred core B at .13 micron. THe 2600+ generates less heat and need less power than the original Thunderbird core at 1.4 GHz. That is an improvement. And that show good technology if you ask me. A good non biased article is done over at arstechnica which compares (not speed really but) advantages and disadvantages of different architectures G4 versus Athlon versus Pentium 4. Arstechnica IMO seamed in their conclusion to consider the Athlon the most technically advanced of the three processors.
But anyhow im getting off point here . Again i enjoyed your post. Very interesting. Regards.

Sun Baked
Aug 29, 2002, 11:28 PM
The might of MicroSoft on the x86 platform keeps it viable for OSs like Linux.

Heck even the silly little share Apple has on the PPC platform keeps the PPC viable as a computer platform for other OSs.

What would happen if Apple ditched the PPC?

Surely I doubt Linux or Amiga (yes they're still around) would be enough to keep the PPC alive for long as a development platform for these other OSs.

If MicroSoft decided to kill Windows x86 products, it really is doubtfull that Linux would be able to leverage their backoffice stength into a big enough push to keep the x86 alive for 10 more years as a desktop computer.

Linux would most likely be ported to the next processor instead of trying to be the known for saving the x86.

Anyways I thought Linux was supposed to be hardware independent, so saying the x86 is great because of Linux isn't saying much.

mox358
Aug 29, 2002, 11:47 PM
Well somebody had to right? It wouldn't be a debate if we didn't :D

I am by no means an expert on CPU design, but I like to think I know enough to hold my own.

It's my understanding that the P4 (and to a certain extent) the Athlon are not very well designed chips. The P4 is a very very very badly designed chip - the Athlon as I understand it is quite a bit better, but as you see it suffers from a a similiar problem as the G4 - low clock speeds. AMD is dedicated to the Athlon however, and it has scaled very well, where Moto has two guys in a closet office designing G4 updates.

The P4 has an ungodly number of pipeline stages, and terrible branch prediction. It discards a very high amount of it's work resulting in it being very inefficent. The upside is that it scales to such high clock speeds (due to the long pipelines) that it can make up for all its mistakes very quickly.

The Athlon has fewer pipeline stages (but more than the G4, trying to keep pace w/Intel.) To scale they keep adding more and more, and shrinking the manufacturing process.

Basically if IBM has a 2ghz+ G5 be very very happy. Intel's next gen chip can barely scale to 1ghz now, imagine if Apple had a 1Ghz lead in the next gen chip race. Intel's next gen chip is supposed to be more like PowerPC in that it is RISC based instead of CISC like the Athlon and P4.

As another posted pointed out, the x86 architecture is quickly approaching a brick wall. Partially due to the fact they're not doing anything new, just making what they have faster. When they competely dedicate themselves to scaling and not worry about other enhancements to the core (like better SIMD, faster buses, SOI copper interconnects etc...) they're shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. If Apple can hang on for the long run, and IBM has a decent PPC behidn closed doors, they may come out way on top.

I'm just trying to point out the "other side of the fence" - as a PC user/repair guy for more than a few years I've learned to not be so gung ho about "wow... it's 2.8Ghz...".

Apple has some advantages right now... XP is a piece of crap (IMHO... I can't stand to use it). I know XP is faster at browsing etc... and it doesn't bother me. I find that I can do work on my Mac, and get more work done than all my PC buddies combined. They're always upgrading this card or fixing / replacing something. There is "quality" hardware for PCs, but they don't sell because people want the cheapest PC they can get. Only people who truly know what they are doing get the "quality parts" and we can all agree there are not enough people who know what they're doing in ANY field.

We don't have "Product Activation", "Hotmail advertisements", the horrid "Luna" interface "Windows Media Player XP". We also don't need a patch to be allowed to uninstall programs we don't like. Right now we're lucky.

I'm a "switcher"and I'm glad I did. I feel both platforms have ceratin advantages, but Apple seems to have a lot in it's favor right now. If not, why would I be here, at "MACrumors"?

Sun Baked
Aug 29, 2002, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by i_wolf
But even still i don't really appreciate the mocking tone that you are taking with me sunbaked. This is a discussion forum. My opinion is equally valid to me as yours is to you. If you do not like my opinion that is ok. But please refer to me in a respectful manner regardless, as i have done you the courtesy.

At least I didn't call you names. :p

Or use any of the other methods reserved for handing newbies their heads, for starting with such a potentially flamable subject.

It would have been fun and entertaining... Even if it earned the ire of the moderators.

Actually it's quite amazing that you didn't get a sound thrashing.

Wouldn't have been me, I'm playing nice today. ;)

Or at least trying to.

---

Heck I even disabled my signature in order not to offend those that deserve it.

Inhale420
Aug 30, 2002, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by solvs



See I do a lot of multimedia. Audio/Video/Graphics type stuff. Web Design and PC upgrade/repairs on the side. Sure it's faster on a finely tuned WinTel, but it's so much easier on a Mac. If you're just gonna play games, buy a PS2 or (shudder) xBox.



if you do you a 'lot' of web design you're probably a hand-coder. can you explain how it's 'so much easier' to edit say, two dozen web pages using bbedit's floating windows (or the mac version of dreamweaver) vs. homesite tabbed windows... (or the pc version of dreamweaver). if you're a pure visual designer or a video editor, i can understand using a mac. why fix what isn't broken? but unless you're doing newbie stuff, macs (the available apps) are horrible at web design. i hate having to use two platforms when my preferred one is a mac.



But the Windoze OS is already infested with several bugs and constant updates. Windoze heXPee fixed that somewhat, but it is still far from perfect. And this is what is holding back the PC world from taking over everything.

The Apple OS is even closer to perfect. But since you will never find a perfect OS, you might as well choose the OS closest to perfect and farthest from inoperable.


king cobra - you're not even worth replying to, lol.

3777
Aug 30, 2002, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
edvniow,

Stop teasing the newbie's writing style. :p

I'm having just as much trouble with your post as i_wolf's -- the lack of paragraphs and capitals.

But the color makes it even worse. :D

I plain just got lost in these two paragraph mazes.


Gee...... aren't you a snot nosed punk ....... how quaint.......:p


P.S. Don't worry about writing style Wolf, you make some interesting points. I personally think there's a place in this world for both. The PC is definitely the system to have for gaming, while the Mac simply has the best Operating system on the market.

Taft
Aug 30, 2002, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by Inhale420


if you do you a 'lot' of web design you're probably a hand-coder. can you explain how it's 'so much easier' to edit say, two dozen web pages using bbedit's floating windows (or the mac version of dreamweaver) vs. homesite tabbed windows... (or the pc version of dreamweaver). if you're a pure visual designer or a video editor, i can understand using a mac. why fix what isn't broken? but unless you're doing newbie stuff, macs (the available apps) are horrible at web design. i hate having to use two platforms when my preferred one is a mac.



Could you get a little more condescending??? No, really, give it a shot.

I've done a 'lot' of web design for critical trading systems, and none of it was done using a visual designer. Unfortunately, none of it was done using a Mac either. I was stuck in a windows world, and I've got to tell you, I would have much preferred a Mac.

What it comes down to in the end is which platform you prefer to get work done in. Anymore, thats all that matters. Any program you can use on Windows, I can get for my Mac in one form or another. And when working with a lot of files (and I mean a 'lot') a tabbed view isn't much of a help. You need a solid directory structure or a project based editing tool.

Think of all the programs available for doing this task on a Mac...

BBEdit, Emacs, Dreamweaver, great Meta-html packages like WebObjects, Codewarrior and Servlets, even code editors that edit HTML well like JBuilder. And don't forget the abundance of command line tools that can batch edit and search files: Grep, awk, or even vi (probably the most powerful editor out there--if you can figure it out). And there are tons of third party apps that can enhance your Mac for a development environment. Everything from virtual desktops to drawers for easy file access.

And guess what?? You can get most of these on Windows, too. In the end its going to come down to which gives you the better user experience and which you can get around in better. OS X has propelled us into the land of geekiness and hardcore developing while still keeping us rooted in a beautifully designed interface. Thats a powerful combination.

My point is that anything you can do on a PC, I can do on my Mac. And I'd argue that I can do it better.

Taft

tjwett
Aug 30, 2002, 04:07 AM
yo OS X is bloated. if you disagree for the sake of being a zealot then so be it but come on. "get mac OSX software"? right in the apple menu? that's bloat. straight up. so is the annoying quicktime popup. 32 bit scalable vector graphics for icons is bloat. making them bounce and throb is even more bloat. i'm not saying it doesn't look good but it's useless and totally unnecessary. not to mention how much CPU it eats up. i'll take a plain gray folder that snaps open over that beachball anyday. but there is bloat everywhere. personally, i would find OSX alot more useful if it didn't come with all the eye candy and iCrap but that's the way it is. to make OS X work better just turn off all the preferences like Dock magnification, bouncing, kill the shadows, text smoothing etc. it's the only way it's useable for me.

Choppaface
Aug 30, 2002, 04:11 AM
I know that some win users say that "OSX isn't a true multi-user operating system because you can't run programs in the background when you log out"...er..well something like that....i just logged out and back in again, and it appears that setiathome continued running.... did they change something in jag to do this?

Sun Baked
Aug 30, 2002, 04:25 AM
3777,

Ever tried a book, wonderful things books.

Books can provide hours of entertainment, an education, or be used to beat an unruly brat silly.

But name calling, c'mon that's so childish. :rolleyes:

Where's the wit and style in that?

Any four year old can do that, and I'd sure hate to see you lose to a four year old.

---

P.S. The above is just long winded version of, Yawn...

Sun Baked
Aug 30, 2002, 05:54 AM
from http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=3110905035

Why do people continue to even CONSIDER Linux as a BUSINESS desktop replacement?

I am employed by a largish organisation here in the antipodes, with some 20,000 staff. We have complex LAN/WAN environment, predominantly Windows based PCs but also unix boxes, as well as corporate mainframe etc.

We're 'upgrading' from Windows 95/Windows NT workstation (95%/5% ratio of thos) to Windows XP Professional for those 20,000 workstations. I'm part of that project.

As part of that upgrade, we're identifying workstations that have non-standard hardware attached or inserted or otherwise associated with the standard PC.

So we sent out a 'please tell us' note to the business lines within the company, asking for very specific information about electronic devices connected to workstations. This was VERY clearly spelt out.

We got back stuff like Electronic Whiteboards, talking calculators, TTY (teletype) terminals for deaf people, laser pointers, adding machines, virtually anything with electronics in it.

NONE of those things was -actually- connected to a workstation (or could ever be connected to workstations.)

Now this was a simple part of a complex ongoing exercise, and it demonstrates two things which are salient to the topic:

1) No matter how precise and clear you are, people will misread what you've said (careful here, there will be a quiz later)

2) In general, managers are stupid.

Now there are a bazillion reasons why a precise and clear request for information could come back with incorrect results, but that isn't really the point.

THE POINT: How the hell can you expect these submoron cretinous twits to cope with something as brainsmashingly 'difficult' as Linux on the desktop -- new programs, new ways of doing things, new everything.

There is just NO WAY that a large general office population could POSSIBLY cope without a correspondingly huge (and I mean massive, intense, totally disruptive) blanket education process.

So when I see people bandying about 'savings' and TCO figures for 'free software' solutions, I just think about the general thickheaded bozo component of the workforce, and say 'chyeah, right, like Joe Luser in Woop Woop is going to understand about how to use NFS to link to a server, or use a shell, or find out even basic information about their machine."

That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of existing complex systems which are totally dependant upon a Windows GUI, like our call centre technologies (from NEC) which are tightly bound into the day to day business of the entire organisation.

Linux advocates are very vocal, very adamant that their O/S of choice represents a REAL business choice. ********. No technology is sufficiently magical to bridge the gap between corporate want and corporate population's ABILITY TO COPE.

Excession.

sparkleytone
Aug 30, 2002, 09:38 AM
i don't hate alex_ant. i really had yet to see anyone who did until 8DegreeIdiot came along.

As far as OS X being full of bloat, the examples given were incredibly weak.

Bloat is generally something that slows a program down in order to advertise or adding UI just for the sake of having more UI.

The "Get Mac OS X Software..." is a semi valid point. I dont use it but its there. I dont think many people do use it. Therefore its semi-bloat. I have never experienced it getting in my way or slowing down my system.

The Quicktime example is just nonexistent really. That isn't bloat, its sales. Quicktime is essentially shareware, and its got a right to give a few annoying adverts every once in a while. I don't experience it at all...why?? Because I bought QT6.

I'm not saying it isnt bloated, im just asking you to give better examples.

alex_ant
Aug 30, 2002, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Taft
BeOS acheived much lower latency and faster user response, but speed is a very subjective word. Be was designed so that any action would receive an immediate response and with low latency as a priority. Put Be and OS X running the same CPU intensive task on the same hardware and it'd be about a draw.
Yeah, I agree with that. If BeOS and OS X running on the same hardware were running the same task that didn't rely on the underlying speed of the OS, it'd be about a draw - but in that case we wouldn't be comparing OS speed, we'd be comparing application speed.
And what you call bloat, I call feature rich. And thats not just spin.

OS X (read NeXT) was designed very differently from most OS's out there. Sure Unix is on the bottom, but almost everything that apps interact with is a NeXT invention. And these APIs and laguages were designed to be very dynamic and highly extensible.

Everything was designed with the idea of being dynamic. Method and feature reflection is everywhere and many things are runtime bound. Its this behavior that allows Services without a severe construct added on. Instead of being added on, its inherent to the way the OS, its APIs, and esp. its languages are designed (this is why only Java and Obj-C can be used to hit the APIs--Carbon is just a proxy between old and new).

This comes at the cost of bigger binaries and libraries and more things in memory. Thankfully, todays hardware allows this design to work without severe performance hits. But this is why OS X apparently likes RAM so much. The OS is able to stretch its legs and have to do less paging for what we would consider mundane tasks (switching programs, windows, etc.)
I used the word bloat because OpenStep somehow managed to do basically all this (minus Carbon) and do it very well in 16MB of RAM on processors many times slower than todays G4s. I don't know what has happened that has caused this NeXT-derived OS to need nearly 20 times that much RAM for acceptable performance.

I don't want to sound like an OS X hater, because I'm exactly the opposite... it's my favorite OS. The best desktop OS I've ever used. I'm just saying it could benefit from better performance, because in that category, it currently comes in around last place in the OS wars.

Alex

8thDegreeSavage
Aug 30, 2002, 10:50 AM
WOW!!....we have some tight asses with no senses of humor in the house!



Give it up for the tightwads ladies and gentleman!




For the record, this is an internet bulletin board, I am entitled to give my opinion on the poster, and the post all i want as long as its not overboard, which my comment wasnt. Please refrain from getting your collective panties in a bunch over me thinking alex is obnoxious ...which i feel he is.


Do yourselves a favor(those who felt the need to help fight alex_ant's "dastardly wrongdoing flaming troll" battles) and get a sense of humor and get over it.....its the internet you nerds.



and no..im not trying to piss you off...im just trying to wake you up to this fraud.




And while you at it please give me the proper spelling of "Whom" I dont know it off hand.


Thanks dudes.

alex_ant
Aug 30, 2002, 11:46 AM
8thDegreeSavage, why not PM me, and we'll work out whatever issues you have in private. I work very hard at being obnoxious, and I'm glad somebody finally picked up on it. :D

King Cobra
Aug 30, 2002, 11:55 AM
I think a lot of us picked up on it, alex. That's why you stay clam when working your way to 1000 posts. :p

8thDegreeSavage, in case you haven't picked up on it yet, this is supposed to be a discussion on Macs v. PCs, not a flamepiss contest.

>(solvs) If you're just gonna play games, buy a PS2 or (shudder) xBox.

The heXBox isn't too bad when it comes to games, but, right now, the advantage to gameplay lies in the PC. Once Apple can hype up more capable processors from IBM and get better DDR-RAM going through the PowerMacs you will slowly see that start to change.

i_wolf
Aug 30, 2002, 01:17 PM
here here king cobra.

solvs
Aug 31, 2002, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Inhale420

if you do you a 'lot' of web design you're probably a hand-coder. can you explain how it's 'so much easier' to edit say, two dozen web pages using bbedit's floating windows (or the mac version of dreamweaver) vs. homesite tabbed windows... (or the pc version of dreamweaver). if you're a pure visual designer or a video editor, i can understand using a mac. why fix what isn't broken? but unless you're doing newbie stuff, macs (the available apps) are horrible at web design. i hate having to use two platforms when my preferred one is a mac.


No offense, but if you had read my post, you would have seen that I said I do web stuff on the side. As in, little stuff. Yes, I do use Windows to do so, but mostly because I edited the web page at my last job part time. All I had was a PC. And it sucked. When I did a site for a friend recently, I put it together pretty quickly, and all I had to use was a PC. Right now, actually, I'm not doing much of anything. That's why I'm posting here so much now.

For the record, I'm moving (soon I hope), and due to a loss of funding from a project I was working on, was unable to buy a new G4 Tower as I had planned. Instead I sold or gave away most of my (many) computers. I have one now that will be given to a friend, and another one I'm building for myself out of spare parts. Both PCs. I do have an old Mac SE/30, but it doesn't work. When I get settled, I'm getting an eMac or iBook to play with 'til I can get a new Tower.

Sure I can do some stuff on a PC, and most of the time a lot faster for a lot cheaper. But who'd want to. As someone once said, "you can't use iMovie and FCP on a PC". I'm always gonna have both, but the Mac is so much better for so many things. The OS, whether it's bloated or not, is so much nicer. Someone else said, "OS X isn't perfect, but it looks that way next to Windows". I'm more used to OS 8 and 9, but when I saw OS X in action while playing with an iMac, I knew I had to have it.

Can't believe my Mom and my Sister still like 9. They don't like change and won't upgrade. It's funny cuz my Grandfather has been using X since the beta.

i_wolf: thanks for the compliment.

King Cobra (I don't know you well enough yet to call you Kingy): I probably shouldn't even have said anything about gaming. I haven't really played video games since I had an original Nintendo in Junior High (yes, I realize that dates me. For the record, I just turned 25). I have an N64 (I won it from Dr. Pepper) and a PS2 I use as a DVD player (I traded a PC I built for it), but I don't really play a lot of games. They might be going up on eBay soon.

You can only play Pokemon Stadium so many times.

I hate the xBox because it comes from M$. I have my (valid) reasons to hate M$ (as well as a few nosensical ones). I hear it's a great system, but it's from M$, which makes it evil IMO. I just hate when PC weenies say they won't get a Mac because it can't play games. There are so many things wrong with that, don't get me started. Some of us actually work on our computer (as well as surf for Porn, illegally download media, b*tch on forums about computers and the entertainment industry).

Are PCs really that great for gaming? No, really. I'm asking.

bousozoku
Aug 31, 2002, 12:56 AM
i_wolf:

Good points!

I think that AMD builds fine processors and I would be happy to have one running Linux, Mac OS X, or BeOS...well maybe if BeOS were really still alive.

If Apple were to build machines based on AMD processors, I'd be right there in line because Apple is extremely careful about putting packages together. I don't know of any other maker of small machines that does such a job. It is consistent with what makers of medium and large machines supporting hundreds or thousands or users do.

DOS was unstable, Windows on DOS (Win3.x, Win95, Win98, WinMe) is worse. WinNT was good, Win2000 isn't so good. Ask me about my last week and a half fighting with it. :(

I would imagine that Linux or FreeBSD or QNX is very stable and usable. I would be as happy running those on AMD hardware as on PPC hardware, if I had such a need.

Until something better than Macintosh comes along, more than just speed, I'll stay with what I have. :)