Intel to Launch New Mobile CPUs (Arrandale) in January?

[iMacmatician]

Please, do explain how this is anything other than an opinion:

That I will leave to mosx. That is, if his logic behind it isn't enough.

 

[polaris20]

That I will leave to mosx. That is, if his logic behind it isn't enough.

No, I'm asking you, since you're giving the other guy a hard time about disagreeing with an opinion.

Anecdotal evidence to support an opinion is certainly fine, but it's still an opinion, and shouldn't be presented as anything but. A person's happiness with something, and what they had to give up or what they feel they gained is pretty subjective.

It's a shame people here continue to not comprehend that.

 

[mosx]

There are millions of people that feel as though they've given up nothing, and have actually gained by going with a Mac, myself included. Sure, that's an opinion too. But it cannot be refuted. It's a preference, something a lot of people here have absolutely zero respect for.

As usual, you're ignoring other posts and focusing on one small point.

I gave examples to back up my statement. For example, again, let's say you want to watch a movie or play a game on your computer in your free time. You need Windows for that. OS X just isn't up to snuff for video playback, and Apple's OpenGL support is light years behind DirectX and the selection of games just isn't there for OS X.

Like I've said before, PCs can be work and play machines. If you want to play a game, play a movie, record HDTV from a source other than OTA, or if you want proper multi-display support without a mess of dongles, cables, and having to shut the lid at the right moment, etc, then you need Windows.

There are other reasons too. Theres a lot of software, particularly CAD software, that just isn't available in OS X. If your field is CAD then you NEED Windows, theres no way around it.

As I've said before, Windows can do everything OS X can. Everything. But OS X cannot do everything Windows can. And that ranges from certain types of work to being able to be a proper entertainment machine.

Edit: on the subject of work, how is that OS X is regarded as the "best" OS for video production when the OS isn't even capable of playing back that video it just produced?

That I will leave to mosx. That is, if his logic behind it isn't enough.

About your other posts, I gotta say, it's nice to see someone around here having common sense

 

[Eidorian]

Edit: on the subject of work, how is that OS X is regarded as the "best" OS for video production when the OS isn't even capable of playing back that video it just produced?

I've found this to be rather perplexing as well. Apple has been pushing h.264 on its products and video playback but something as mundane as GPU video decoding is barely pursued.

I've been waiting since 2005 and it's still not here outside of the narrow scope of the 9400M G, Quicktime 7/X, and only for h.264 in a handful of containers.

 

[MorphingDragon]

As usual, you're ignoring other posts and focusing on one small point.

I gave examples to back up my statement. For example, again, let's say you want to watch a movie or play a game on your computer in your free time. You need Windows for that. OS X just isn't up to snuff for video playback, and Apple's OpenGL support is light years behind DirectX and the selection of games just isn't there for OS X.

Like I've said before, PCs can be work and play machines. If you want to play a game, play a movie, record HDTV from a source other than OTA, or if you want proper multi-display support without a mess of dongles, cables, and having to shut the lid at the right moment, etc, then you need Windows.

There are other reasons too. Theres a lot of software, particularly CAD software, that just isn't available in OS X. If your field is CAD then you NEED Windows, theres no way around it.

As I've said before, Windows can do everything OS X can. Everything. But OS X cannot do everything Windows can. And that ranges from certain types of work to being able to be a proper entertainment machine.

Edit: on the subject of work, how is that OS X is regarded as the "best" OS for video production when the OS isn't even capable of playing back that video it just produced?



About your other posts, I gotta say, it's nice to see someone around here having common sense

I wonder if its because of the GPL license that people haven't taken up the Linux kernel seriously. Or that professional devs don't want to admit that hobbyists can do a better job than them.

I mean come on, at least Linux supports everything Darwin does Kernel side and MORE. I'm surprised Apple didn't adopt Linux or pure BSD. Why Mach of all things?

 

[polaris20]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

There are millions of people that feel as though they've given up nothing, and have actually gained by going with a Mac, myself included. Sure, that's an opinion too. But it cannot be refuted. It's a preference, something a lot of people here have absolutely zero respect for.

As usual, you're ignoring other posts and focusing on one small point.

I gave examples to back up my statement. For example, again, let's say you want to watch a movie or play a game on your computer in your free time. You need Windows for that. OS X just isn't up to snuff for video playback, and Apple's OpenGL support is light years behind DirectX and the selection of games just isn't there for OS X.

Like I've said before, PCs can be work and play machines. If you want to play a game, play a movie, record HDTV from a source other than OTA, or if you want proper multi-display support without a mess of dongles, cables, and having to shut the lid at the right moment, etc, then you need Windows.

There are other reasons too. Theres a lot of software, particularly CAD software, that just isn't available in OS X. If your field is CAD then you NEED Windows, theres no way around it.

As I've said before, Windows can do everything OS X can. Everything. But OS X cannot do everything Windows can. And that ranges from certain types of work to being able to be a proper entertainment machine.

Edit: on the subject of work, how is that OS X is regarded as the "best" OS for video production when the OS isn't even capable of playing back that video it just produced?

That I will leave to mosx. That is, if his logic behind it isn't enough.

About your other posts, I gotta say, it's nice to see someone around here having common sense

I never said all software runs on OS X, and therefore it's a replacement for Windows. If I thought that, I wouldn't be running Windows 7 and Linux at work.
Video editor? Again, "best" is a subjective term. We use FCP to generate 1080i videos constantly, and this suits our purpose. Since people using the systems find it more user-friendly than the Avid stuff it replaced, that's a win for us. Nothing was given up, but rather gained.
Furthermore, everyone knows Macs are not and never have been a gaming box. This isn't news. But if you're not a gamer, you're not losing anything. If you play BD on a regular player and a large HDTV as I do, you're giving up nothing.

There is no single OS that is perfect for everyone. Just because a particular OS is as capable as another doesn't mean the person making the buying decision prefers it for their individual needs.
I'm just trying to figure out how opinions and preferences can be wrong here, and completely disrespected here. I find that interesting.

 

[diamond.g]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)



I never said all software runs on OS X, and therefore it's a replacement for Windows. If I thought that, I wouldn't be running Windows 7 and Linux at work.
Video editor? Again, "best" is a subjective term. We use FCP to generate 1080i videos constantly, and this suits out purpose. Since people using the systems find it more user-friendly than the Avid stuff it replaced, that's a win for us. Nothing was given up, but rather gained.
Furthermore, everyone knows Macs are not and never have been a gaming box. This isn't news. But if you're not a gamer, you're not losing anything. If you play BD on a regular player and a large HDTV as I do, you're giving up nothing.

There is no single OS that is perfect for everyone. Just because a particular OS is as capable as another doesn't mean the person making the buying decision prefers it for their individual needs.
I'm just trying to figure out how opinions and preferences can be wrong here, and completely disrespected here. I find that interesting.

Bolding mine...

I agree, at times this place puts out the vibe that if Apple didn't give you the opinion or preference then it is wrong. Sometimes it is made obvious when Apple releases something that folks swore up and down wasn't needed then it becomes the best thing ever (see Core i7 and iMac).

 

[polaris20]

I wonder if its because of the GPL license that people haven't taken up the Linux kernel seriously. Or that professional devs don't want to admit that hobbyists can do a better job than them.

I mean come on, at least Linux supports everything Darwin does Kernel side and MORE. I'm surprised Apple didn't adopt Linux or pure BSD. Why Mach of all things?

I wouldn't say professional devs don't take it seriously, it's just that the number of apps developed for it professionally are much smaller. For example, we run Linux for engineering apps and the accompanying compute servers, something that beats Windows in raw performance. We also have web developers using $1000 IDE's on Linux, as well as VMWare Workstation to test it on every OS.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)



I never said all software runs on OS X, and therefore it's a replacement for Windows. If I thought that, I wouldn't be running Windows 7 and Linux at work.
Video editor? Again, "best" is a subjective term. We use FCP to generate 1080i videos constantly, and this suits our purpose. Since people using the systems find it more user-friendly than the Avid stuff it replaced, that's a win for us. Nothing was given up, but rather gained.
Furthermore, everyone knows Macs are not and never have been a gaming box. This isn't news. But if you're not a gamer, you're not losing anything. If you play BD on a regular player and a large HDTV as I do, you're giving up nothing.

There is no single OS that is perfect for everyone. Just because a particular OS is as capable as another doesn't mean the person making the buying decision prefers it for their individual needs.
I'm just trying to figure out how opinions and preferences can be wrong here, and completely disrespected here. I find that interesting.

But what you have just done with your post is what he said you have to do to be happy with a Mac, give up stuff or find workarounds. I think what he is saying could be summarised as "You have to compromise more with Macs in order to be happy with them." and presented numerous cases where that was true. Are you going to argue that Macs aren't more restrictive than PCs?

 

[polaris20]

But what you have just done with your post is what he said you have to do to be happy with a Mac, give up stuff or find workarounds. I think what he is saying could be summarised as "You have to compromise more with Macs in order to be happy with them." and presented numerous cases where that was true. Are you going to argue that Macs aren't more restrictive than PCs?

You're not understanding me. Did you read my post?

But if you're not a gamer, you're not losing anything. If you play BD on a regular player and a large HDTV as I do, you're giving up nothing.

Again, with emphasis: whether or not you're giving something up or gaining something by switching to an alternative OS is strictly dependent upon your individual needs.

Right tool for the right job. I don't attempt to deploy OS X for my AutoCAD guys. I don't attempt to deploy Windows for my engineering guys. I use OS X because I work with both environments.

Am I going to argue Macs aren't more restrictive than Windows PCs? Absolutely. For certain people.

For me (network admin) and the people that do video editing, as well as the sales dept., we are not restricted in any way, shape or form.

Are you getting the point? It's not black and white. It never has been, despite the best efforts of a number of people here to paint it as such.

The fact that I can't play L4D 2 at 90fps on my MacBook Pro is completely irrelevant to me. The fact that I can't play Blu Ray on my MacBook Pro is completely irrelevant to me. Is it irrelevant to everyone? No. Obviously. So buy another computer and be happy.

EDIT

Also let me add, that I currently use:

VMWare Fusion
MS Office
RDP/NX/VNC
Firefox
remote support client
Cisco VoIP and Skype
Handbrake

When I was on Windows, I used:

VMWare Workstation
MS Office
RDP/NX/VNC
Firefox
remote support client
Cisco VoIP and Skype
Handbrake

What did I give up? What did I sacrifice? Could I still use Windows for my job? Absolutely (with the exception that OS X plays nicer with Linux servers). Why do I use OS X on my main machine? I prefer it.

Granted, these are my needs, and my needs alone. But it illustrates how subjective it is.

 

[Chappers]

As usual, you're ignoring other posts and focusing on one small point.

I don't think that my preferences/needs are a small point. You continue endlessly with the theme that I need to play video and games.

Can play DVD - that's all I need and very rarely.
Can play games - wife likes hidden object games - occasionally.

Hopefully this is OK and you won't be rude again - although I'm not holding my breath.

 

[polaris20]

I don't think that my preferences/needs are a small point. You continue endlessly with the theme that I need to play video and games.

Can play DVD - that's all I need and very rarely.
Can play games - wife likes hidden object games - occasionally.

Hopefully this is OK and you won't be rude again.

The point I'm trying to make is, if the statement is "Many people will have to make sacrifices or find workarounds in order to use OS X as their primary OS" then that's fine. That's obvious, no? I mean, clearly it doesn't run AutoCAD. Clearly it doesn't run many games. There are of course many other apps outside of the realm of OS X. It is what it is. The same problem exists on a much greater scale for Linux users.

You do not need a Windows PC to use Office. You don't need Windows to watch movies (except for Blu Ray, obviously). You don't need Windows for virtualization. You don't need Windows for audio, video, and photo work.

If the needs of the user are already satisfied with what is currently available on OS X (and clearly that's the case, as shown by Apple's increased Mac sales), and they prefer the UI of OS X, then what's the problem?

If you want to use a Windows machine, that's fine too. Have fun.

Why must there be endless discussion on the matter? Why is one man's opinion of OS X not being as good as Windows (or any other OS) worth more than another man's opinion?

That's really what I've been getting at for like oh, the last year. I don't give a flying crap what anyone else uses; I'm not an evangelist. I use computers. That's it.

But respecting other people's opinions and preferences is what should happen here, and it doesn't.

 

[CQd44]

The point I'm trying to make is, if the statement is "Many people will have to make sacrifices or find workarounds in order to use OS X as their primary OS" then that's fine. That's obvious, no? I mean, clearly it doesn't run AutoCAD. Clearly it doesn't run many games. There are of course many other apps outside of the realm of OS X. It is what it is. The same problem exists on a much greater scale for Linux users.

You do not need a Windows PC to use Office. You don't need Windows to watch movies (except for Blu Ray, obviously). You don't need Windows for virtualization. You don't need Windows for audio, video, and photo work.

If the needs of the user are already satisfied with what is currently available on OS X (and clearly that's the case, as shown by Apple's increased Mac sales), and they prefer the UI of OS X, then what's the problem?

If you want to use a Windows machine, that's fine too. Have fun.

Why must there be endless discussion on the matter? Why is one man's opinion of OS X not being as good as Windows (or any other OS) worth more than another man's opinion?

That's really what I've been getting at for like oh, the last year. I don't give a flying crap what anyone else uses; I'm not an evangelist. I use computers. That's it.

But respecting other people's opinions and preferences is what should happen here, and it doesn't.

+1

It's up to what the user needs. For me, going to OS X and Macs in general would be a loss as I game a lot with friends and depend on the windows version of windows live messenger to play games with my girlfriend.

If I didn't do those things, then OS X would work wonderfully for me :]

 

[Chappers]

The point I'm trying to make is, if the statement is "Many people will have to make sacrifices or find workarounds in order to use OS X as their primary OS" then that's fine.

But respecting other people's opinions and preferences is what should happen here, and it doesn't.

I agree - except that if you are not using it something (but know it exists) and will not be using it then its no sacrifice.

For example - I bought into video - then DVD but I'm not buying into BR so I'm not sacrificing anything. I'm not ever going to use any CAD software - no sacrifice. I have a 3 year old - I don't need games - never did - never will - no sacrifice (unless you count my wife searching for missing objects for approx 1 hour every two months)

So I'm not actually sacrificing anything.

 

[polaris20]

I agree - except that if you are not using it something (but know it exists) and will not be using it then its no sacrifice.

For example - I bought into video - then DVD but I'm not buying into BR so I'm not sacrificing anything. I'm not ever going to use any CAD software - no sacrifice. I have a 3 year old - I don't need games - never did - never will - no sacrifice (unless you count my wife searching for missing objects for approx 1 hour every two months)

So I'm not actually sacrificing anything.

Well yeah, that's what I mean. If you don't need it, there is no sacrifice, there is no workaround required, there is no "giving up".

Another thing is that while you can do much if not all functions on Windows as you can on OS X, there also comes the factor of preference.

For example, on a personal basis I've done audio recording on computers for over 10 years now. I've gone through several DAW applications in that time; Cakewalk Pro Audio, Cubase, Sonar, Tracktion, Reaper, Acid, etc. But I just so happen to feel more at home with Logic. To use Logic, I need a Mac. The choice has somewhat been made for me if I want to continue using it.

Sure, I can get the job done in Windows, but I want to record music, not fight with the computer. For me, using the other apps isn't as productive. It's personal preference, yes. But it goes against the grain of blanket statements presented here that so much must be given up to use OS X.

 

[mosx]

Furthermore, everyone knows Macs are not and never have been a gaming box. This isn't news. But if you're not a gamer, you're not losing anything. If you play BD on a regular player and a large HDTV as I do, you're giving up nothing.

As I've said before, there are more PC gamers and people who watch movies on their PC than there are Mac users in total. So while YOU in particular might not "give up" anything, there are tens of millions more out there who would. And this is 2009. Theres no reason for it other than Apple being able to keep hardware specs low and profits high.

Again, with emphasis: whether or not you're giving something up or gaining something by switching to an alternative OS is strictly dependent upon your individual needs.

That doesn't change the fact that you still have to jump through certain hoops to get certain things to work they way they should in 2009, such as multi-display support.

I don't think that my preferences/needs are a small point. You continue endlessly with the theme that I need to play video and games.

Like I said before, there are more PC gamers than there are Mac users in total. No matter how much Apple likes to ignore the gaming market and suggest it either doesn't exist or its not important, it is a larger and more profitable market than Apple. Just look at the iPod touch and iPhone. No matter how much Apple wants the iPhone to be something serious, people look at it as a portable gaming system. So, again, the PC gaming market segment is larger than Apple's entire market segment, iPod excluded (which is now a gaming market itself).

Can play DVD - that's all I need and very rarely.

And OS X is terrible at playing DVDs. DVD Player likes to crash with certain DVDs (such as the Lord of the Rings Extended Edition original release), it can't decode DTS audio, the Dolby Digital decoder tosses out the LFE channel in EVERY instance other than bitstreaming over SPDIF, and the image quality is nothing short of terrible. Windows Vista and 7's built-in decoder supports full bitstream decoding for video. Or you can use FFDShow with Media Player Classic (both freeware) to decode DTS plus upscale the image like you wouldn't believe. Or you can use paid software that uses CUDA to upscale the image, plus DTS decoding AND blu-ray playback.

You do not need a Windows PC to use Office

However, if you're worried about compatibility, then you should take the safe road and use Windows for Office. Plus its easier on IT departments to stick with one version of Windows and one version of Office rather than having a fragmented business where different people use different versions of Office and different OSes.

You don't need Windows to watch movies (except for Blu Ray, obviously).

If you care about quality at all, then you do need Windows to watch movies. If you want to watch any sort of high definition video, you need Windows.

You don't need Windows for virtualization.

Very true. But the people who actually need or want to virtualize an OS number in the single digits well below Apple's worldwide marketshare.

You don't need Windows for audio, video, and photo work

You'd be wrong there. Photoshop is currently 64-bit ONLY on Windows. So if you need to work with more than 4GB of data, you can only do it on Windows.

Windows is better for video work. Why? Because it can actually playback that 1080p H.264 45Mbps video you just cut.

As for audio, Windows gives you a much wide variety of hardware and software to use, plus you can set up a complete system for thousands less than a Mac Pro set up. In fact, audio work is a perfect example of how you have to make sacrifices for OS X. If you choose to do your audio work in OS X you're limiting yourself to a very small subset of hardware and software. Granted Pro Tools is the industry standard and it is on OS X, if you don't want, need, or can't afford it, theres literally thousands of choices available on Windows that will do everything you want.

For example - I bought into video - then DVD but I'm not buying into BR so I'm not sacrificing anything. I'm not ever going to use any CAD software - no sacrifice. I have a 3 year old - I don't need games - never did - never will - no sacrifice (unless you count my wife searching for missing objects for approx 1 hour every two months)

So I'm not actually sacrificing anything.

You're not sacrificing anything, you're just forcing yourself to miss out on things for some unknown reason.

Again, there are more PC gamers, more blu-ray fans, and more PC movie watchers than there are Mac users total.

I also want to point out the fact that 85% of Mac owners have a PC too http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353788,00.asp That many Mac owners having both platforms says even more than I have about the platform. That clearly shows that OS X absolutely DOES NOT do everything people want or need it to do.

 

[polaris20]

As I've said before, there are more PC gamers and people who watch movies on their PC than there are Mac users in total. So while YOU in particular might not "give up" anything, there are tens of millions more out there who would. And this is 2009. Theres no reason for it other than Apple being able to keep hardware specs low and profits high.

So they buy a Windows PC and be happy. I care because.....why?

That doesn't change the fact that you still have to jump through certain hoops to get certain things to work they way they should in 2009, such as multi-display support.

Works fine for me. I set my MacBook Pro on the stand next to my 24", fire it up, and the 24" is my primary, the MBP my secondary. Don't assume that because it doesn't work the way YOU want it to means it's incorrect or defective. Doesn't work the way you want? Then buy a Windows PC and be happy. Don't whine about it simply because YOU didn't research your purchase well enough in advance and find out it doesn't work how you want it to.

Like I said before, there are more PC gamers than there are Mac users in total. No matter how much Apple likes to ignore the gaming market and suggest it either doesn't exist or its not important, it is a larger and more profitable market than Apple. Just look at the iPod touch and iPhone. No matter how much Apple wants the iPhone to be something serious, people look at it as a portable gaming system. So, again, the PC gaming market segment is larger than Apple's entire market segment, iPod excluded (which is now a gaming market itself).

Something tells me Apple really doesn't care about the gaming market, given their recent quarterly earnings. But feel free to disagree.

And OS X is terrible at playing DVDs. DVD Player likes to crash with certain DVDs (such as the Lord of the Rings Extended Edition original release), it can't decode DTS audio, the Dolby Digital decoder tosses out the LFE channel in EVERY instance other than bitstreaming over SPDIF, and the image quality is nothing short of terrible. Windows Vista and 7's built-in decoder supports full bitstream decoding for video. Or you can use FFDShow with Media Player Classic (both freeware) to decode DTS plus upscale the image like you wouldn't believe. Or you can use paid software that uses CUDA to upscale the image, plus DTS decoding AND blu-ray playback.

You might want to have your Mac looked at, because my 15" MBP, my 13" MBP, and every other Mac in my company plays DVDs very well, fullscreened. But like I've said before, we do real work on computers here, not just use it as an entertainment toy.

However, if you're worried about compatibility, then you should take the safe road and use Windows for Office. Plus its easier on IT departments to stick with one version of Windows and one version of Office rather than having a fragmented business where different people use different versions of Office and different OSes.

That's the close-minded thing to do, sure. However if you work for a company that values personal productivity and freedom, you give your employees choice. Sure, we primarily stick to Office 2007 on Windows and 2008 on Mac, but we don't force it down their throats. about 1000 users and it hasn't been a problem so far! We've also got a mix of fellows using Linux with OpenOffice. Again, not a problem.

If you care about quality at all, then you do need Windows to watch movies. If you want to watch any sort of high definition video, you need Windows.

Again, as I've said before: I have a TV for that. I have a Blu Ray player for that, attached to the TV. If I'm looking for all out quality, I'm watching it in my home theater setup, not a frickin' laptop. If that doesn't suit your needs personally, super!! Buy a Windows laptop and be happy.

It's like being upset after buying a 6 string guitar that it doesn't make the sounds a 7 string guitar does. If you only need 6 strings and never would need the 7th, exactly what difference does it make? If you need the sounds, then buy the 7 string guitar. It's personal preference: are you seeing a theme here?

Very true. But the people who actually need or want to virtualize an OS number in the single digits well below Apple's worldwide marketshare.

So? I can virtualize all I want, and that's what matters.

You'd be wrong there. Photoshop is currently 64-bit ONLY on Windows. So if you need to work with more than 4GB of data, you can only do it on Windows.

Did I say there was a 64-bit version of Photoshop on Mac? No, I didn't. So I am not wrong. Does Photoshop on Mac suit the needs of our marketing department? Yes it does. IT'S PREFERENCE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? Clearly not.

Windows is better for video work. Why? Because it can actually playback that 1080p H.264 45Mbps video you just cut.

Again, do you understand workflow preference, at all? Do you? Because you seem to be having one helluva time with it. The device we use (AJA i/o) does 1080i, which plays back just fine on any Mac or Windows PC in the company, and it definitely suits OUR needs. After several sales as a result of it, I'm not sure I really care that you think Windows is better for video work.

As for audio, Windows gives you a much wide variety of hardware and software to use, plus you can set up a complete system for thousands less than a Mac Pro set up. In fact, audio work is a perfect example of how you have to make sacrifices for OS X. If you choose to do your audio work in OS X you're limiting yourself to a very small subset of hardware and software. Granted Pro Tools is the industry standard and it is on OS X, if you don't want, need, or can't afford it, theres literally thousands of choices available on Windows that will do everything you want.

Again, you're arguing against my PREFERENCE. DO you understand that? I PREFER OS X for audio. It is better FOR ME. I'm figuring that by capitalizing it, you might actually begin to understand.

You're not sacrificing anything, you're just forcing yourself to miss out on things for some unknown reason.

I'm missing out on nothing, and the reason I've already posted several times. Preference.

Again, there are more PC gamers, more blu-ray fans, and more PC movie watchers than there are Mac users total.

Again....So? So buy a Windows PC if that's what you need a computer for.

I also want to point out the fact that 85% of Mac owners have a PC too http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353788,00.asp That many Mac owners having both platforms says even more than I have about the platform. That clearly shows that OS X absolutely DOES NOT do everything people want or need it to do.

Wow, 2300 people surveyed. How comprehensive! Is the PC their main machine? Was it purchased before or after the Mac? Did they buy it because the Mac didn't do something they needed it to, or did they already have it and just not throw it away? What are the numbers on that, please?

Can you seriously not understand what personal preference is? Really?

You're basically trying to prove me wrong about my opinions and preferences, which is absolutely hysterical.

If I say I realize I can perform audio recording tasks within Windows but prefer using OS X, and that my marketing team prefers Adobe CS on a Mac along with FCP, and you're saying we're wrong, then I'm afraid you might have some significant comprehension issues when it comes to telling the difference between facts and opinion or preference. But as we've discovered before, this is nothing new.

 

[polaris20]

Oh, I almost forgot: what field did you say you were in, Mosx? I'm curious, as you are always referencing home entertainment issues, however you rarely mention anything else.

I am asking because I'm basing my viewpoint on not only my personal uses, but also my experiences managing a network supporting the previously mentioned userbase.

YMMV.

 

[Chappers]

snip.

I can't get into the multi-quote argument - but I'm afraid the whole preference/ need thing is OSX for me. I realise you didn't read that I know BR is better quality but I'm not buying into it, so I'm not sacrificing anything. Games - its the same for me -I don't play games ( I know they exist) - so I'm still not sacrificing anything.

So all in all I'm a happy Mac user - not sacrificing anything ( I even installed Windows because i thought I was missing something - I wasn't).

If I follow your example - you recently recommended a laptop - in fact you let someone buy it but it didn't have a BR option - it also had a slot drive (something you hate) by your rather dubious logic you basically sold a machine to someone who was therefore sacrificing quite a lot to own it.

 

[polaris20]

I can't get into the multi-quote argument - but I'm afraid the whole preference/ need thing is OSX for me. I realise you didn't read that I know BR is better quality but I'm not buying into it, so I'm not sacrificing anything. Games - its the same for me -I don't play games ( I know they exist) - so I'm still not sacrificing anything.

So all in all I'm a happy Mac user - not sacrificing anything ( I even installed Windows because i thought I was missing something - I wasn't).

If I follow your example - you recently recommended a laptop - in fact you let someone buy it but it didn't have a BR option - it also had a slot drive (something you hate) by your rather dubious logic you basically sold a machine to someone who was therefore sacrificing quite a lot to own it.

What I find very amusing is that given a specific set of needs in a computing platform, a choice to go with a particular platform is "wrong" or "not as good as Windows".

I wonder if I were using Ubuntu as my primary platform if I'd be equally wrong, or slightly less so because it's not a Mac, it's still a PC, but it's just not Windows.

I actually did use Ubuntu as my main machine for quite awhile, and with the exception of a little trickiness in getting the webcam to work with Skype, it worked beautifully too.

 

[mosx]

Works fine for me. I set my MacBook Pro on the stand next to my 24", fire it up, and the 24" is my primary, the MBP my secondary. Don't assume that because it doesn't work the way YOU want it to means it's incorrect or defective. Doesn't work the way you want? Then buy a Windows PC and be happy. Don't whine about it simply because YOU didn't research your purchase well enough in advance and find out it doesn't work how you want it to

See, this is one example of where your argument fails miserably.

See, you might be perfectly happy with the way OS X handles multiple displays. But that doesn't change the fact of what I said. You both need a mess of dongles and and cables, plus you have to turn things on, close lids, or wake systems with perfect timing to get the displays to work the way you want them. OS X is the only modern OS that doesn't have full monitor support in software/drivers. That is what I was arguing, that is a fact, you absolutely cannot argue personal preference because it has no place in this argument.

Something tells me Apple really doesn't care about the gaming market, given their recent quarterly earnings. But feel free to disagree. [/quote

Well, two things here. Obviously Apple DOES care about gaming. Haven't you seen the iPod touch ads from the last two years? "The Funnest iPod ever"? Haven't you seen Apple's own product pages? Immediately after the unibody MacBook (original) was announced, and the promotional video during the announcement, there was a page talking about how the new 9400M could play modern games.

On the topic of Apple's earnings, just think of how much better their profits could be if they'd cater to the gaming crowd. PC gamers account for more profits than any other market segment, and they're directly responsible for the powerful hardware we have today.

So while Apple likes to turn a blind eye to gaming while advertising it at the same time, that doesn't change the fact that there are more gamers than Mac users.

You might want to have your Mac looked at, because my 15" MBP, my 13" MBP, and every other Mac in my company plays DVDs very well, fullscreened. But like I've said before, we do real work on computers here, not just use it as an entertainment toy.

Like I've said many times, some of us prefer quality. This is, again, where your personal preference argument fails miserably. It is YOUR personal preference to play DVDs on OS X and think they play "fine". But it is a fact that Windows has better built-in, paid, and free options to play all types of video at much better quality than OS X. Windows has bitstream decoding for all major video codecs, plus DXVA capable software can tap into that capability. Windows software AC3 decoding doesn't drop channels, it decodes higher quality formats, plus Windows can bitstream higher quality lossless and uncompressed audio. Windows software can upscale in hardware or software for stunning results, and that software upscaling can be applied to HD video as well, if your resolution is higher than that of the video. That would be a good feature for the new 27" iMac.

So, again, it might be your personal preference to settle for OS X's quality, but it is an absolute fact that Windows is better at playback and even better when it comes to quality.

Again, as I've said before: I have a TV for that. I have a Blu Ray player for that, attached to the TV. If I'm looking for all out quality, I'm watching it in my home theater setup, not a frickin' laptop. If that doesn't suit your needs personally, super!! Buy a Windows laptop and be happy.

Again, that is your personal preference. But that doesn't change the fact that Windows is better than OS X at video playback.

And like I said, some people, numbering in the millions, live off their laptop. Business travelers, college students, and some others. Apple could increase their profits even more by catering to those markets.

It's like being upset after buying a 6 string guitar that it doesn't make the sounds a 7 string guitar does. If you only need 6 strings and never would need the 7th, exactly what difference does it make? If you need the sounds, then buy the 7 string guitar. It's personal preference: are you seeing a theme here?

Again, your argument fails miserably and you're even going so far to kill your own argument for me.

It is a personal preference to buy one thing over another, but you can't change certain facts. You can like OS X better than Windows, but that does not change the fact that Windows is more capable.

So? I can virtualize all I want, and that's what matters.

Good for you. You can do that all you want. That is your preference. But that doesn't change the fact that Windows does many things that OS X can't.

Did I say there was a 64-bit version of Photoshop on Mac? No, I didn't. So I am not wrong. Does Photoshop on Mac suit the needs of our marketing department? Yes it does. IT'S PREFERENCE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? Clearly not.

Yes, you are wrong. You implied that OS X is as capable as Windows when it comes to photo work. It is not. Again, you can argue personal preference all you want. But personal preference does NOT override the fact that the Windows version is far more capable than the OS X version and you DO have to make a sacrifice when using the OS X version of the software over the Windows version.

Photoshop on OS X might work just fine for your company. But that absolutely does not change the fact that your marketing department sacrificed the capability to work with more than 4GB of data.

So one final time, Photoshop on OS X might work just fine for you. It might do everything you need. But, by using Photoshop on the Mac you are sacrificing the capability to work with large amounts of data. No amount of personal preference argument can change that fact.

Again, do you understand workflow preference, at all? Do you? Because you seem to be having one helluva time with it. The device we use (AJA i/o) does 1080i, which plays back just fine on any Mac or Windows PC in the company, and it definitely suits OUR needs. After several sales as a result of it, I'm not sure I really care that you think Windows is better for video work.

Once again, you can bring up personal preference all you want. And if it works fine for you, thats great. But that does not change the fact that Windows can play more types of video with full hardware support, something OS X can't do. Again, the software might work for you and you might be satisfied with the results. But that doesn't change the fact that Windows is more capable in this area and you do have to make a sacrifice regarding both quality and compatibility.

Again, you're arguing against my PREFERENCE. DO you understand that? I PREFER OS X for audio. It is better FOR ME. I'm figuring that by capitalizing it, you might actually begin to understand.

Again, you're arguing something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I originally said. You're basically just arguing for the sake of arguing.

If OS X's limited audio capabilities work for you, then great! But that doesn't change the fact that Windows offers far more choices when it comes to audio hardware, audio playback, audio bitstreaming, real time audio encoding, and audio recording.

Again, OS X is your preference. But that doesn't change the facts stated above.

Again, my argument was never about personal preference and had nothing to do with personal preference in any way shape or form. You're bringing something up that has nothing to do with the debate at hand really just to pick a fight. You might like something but that doesn't change the fact that its limited compared to other options. Another comparison would be that some people like front wheel drive cars because they tend to be higher mileage and cheaper, but that doesn't change the fact that rear wheel drive cars are faster and offer better handling. Theres a huge difference between personal preference and real facts, and personal preference means absolutely nothing when it comes to stating facts. You might like it but that doesn't mean its the best option.

I'm missing out on nothing, and the reason I've already posted several times. Preference.

Again, your personal preference argument has no place here. The topic was actual facts and real world capabilities. You might like something but that doesn't mean its the best. It's that simple.

Can you seriously not understand what personal preference is? Really?

You're basically trying to prove me wrong about my opinions and preferences, which is absolutely hysterical.

No, whats hysterical is that you're bringing up something that has absolutely no place in this topic. The discussion, again, was actual facts and real world capabilities.

Like I've repeatedly stated, you can like something but that doesn't mean its the best option.

You can like OS X's DVD playback, but that doesn't mean its the best option. You might prefer it, but that doesn't mean its the best. You might like it, but that doesn't change the absolute fact that you're giving up compatibility and quality by using OS X over Windows.

Photoshop on OS X might work just fine for your marketing department, but that doesn't change the absolute fact that they DID sacrifice the ability to work with large amounts of data.

Personal preference means absolutely NOTHING when discussing what a product is or is not capable of.

that I know BR is better quality but I'm not buying into it, so I'm not sacrificing anything. Games - its the same for me -I don't play games ( I know they exist) - so I'm still not sacrificing anything.

Actually, you can't buy into blu-ray or games because you sacrificed those capabilities by choosing a Mac over a PC. So whether you think you're not missing out or not, you made the choice to exclude yourself entirely.

It is your preference to use a Mac, but that doesn't change the fact that by going with a Mac, you sacrifice ever even having those capabilities.

If I follow your example - you recently recommended a laptop - in fact you let someone buy it but it didn't have a BR option - it also had a slot drive (something you hate) by your rather dubious logic you basically sold a machine to someone who was therefore sacrificing quite a lot to own it.

Not true at all. Sure, I don't like slot loaders. But my real world experience is that PC manufacturers have much better repair policies than Apple.

But even without a built-in blu-ray drive, non-slot loading notebook PCs can have an internal drive added, or any notebook Windows PC can have added blu-ray capabilities by getting an external drive. Can't do that with a Mac without installing Windows and making sure you have the right GPU, since it was only this year that Apple stopped using Intel graphics.

 

[Chappers]

snip

No still haven't got time. Of course I could buy into Blu-Ray and get a player for the TV - but I don't want too. If Apple ever put BR on Mac - I hope its as an option. I am getting bored of having a drive on my computer - I so rarely use it. I buy everything with my personal choice/preference/need in mind and nothing else.

I can't really play games on my Mac - we all know that. I knew that when I bought it and I still know it. I didn't know about BR on Macs when I bought it but I did know that it wasn't something I was interested in.

For those of us who made informed decisions when we bought our Macs - well we know what we have and why we bought it.
So you also saying that the laptop you recommended that had a slot loader as a negative point and no BR unless you drag around an external isn't a sacrifice. I'd say its a sacrifice - along with dragging around the discs.

You have to be giving up something you need or want for it to be a sacrifice. I'm not so no sacrifice. Sorry but as always - you lose.

 

[polaris20]

See, this is one example of where your argument fails miserably.

See, you might be perfectly happy with the way OS X handles multiple displays. But that doesn't change the fact of what I said. You both need a mess of dongles and and cables, plus you have to turn things on, close lids, or wake systems with perfect timing to get the displays to work the way you want them. OS X is the only modern OS that doesn't have full monitor support in software/drivers. That is what I was arguing, that is a fact, you absolutely cannot argue personal preference because it has no place in this argument.

As I said before (clearly you're not actually reading all of my posts, or perhaps misunderstanding them) I: put the computer on the riser. I open the lid. I plug in a single cable already attached to a $15 MDP to DVI. I press the power button. Ooh! That was hard! If I need to use it with a projector, all I need is another small $15 adapter. I don't need multiple ports on the side of the laptop.

Well, two things here. Obviously Apple DOES care about gaming. Haven't you seen the iPod touch ads from the last two years? "The Funnest iPod ever"? Haven't you seen Apple's own product pages? Immediately after the unibody MacBook (original) was announced, and the promotional video during the announcement, there was a page talking about how the new 9400M could play modern games.

They care about gaming on the iPhone OS because of the way the app store is. However we're talking about OS X and Macs here, are we not?

On the topic of Apple's earnings, just think of how much better their profits could be if they'd cater to the gaming crowd. PC gamers account for more profits than any other market segment, and they're directly responsible for the powerful hardware we have today.

I'm not a market strategist, and neither are you.

<snip>

You seem to be having a tough time when it comes to determining user needs and desires, so let me make it really, really simple for you:

User needs a product. Product A does function 1 and function 2. Product B does function 1, 2, and 3. However User has no use whatsoever for function 3, and therefore it is irrelevant to that user. User also prefers greatly how Product A does functions 1 and 2 as opposed to how Product B does them.

Understand now?

The ability to go beyond 4GB in PS is irrelevant, therefore not a factor. Are we supposed to switch to Windows for the ENTIRE marketing dept. for 64-bit even though we don't need it, then switch back to OS X when CS supports 64-bit? I don't think you quite understand business decisions very much if you think so.

As for audio: I'm using the same device on OS X as I did on Windows. Logic perfectly suits my needs more so than any platform on Windows. So I'm supposed to switch back to Windows for audio, just because I have more choices for DAW software?

No, whats hysterical is that you're bringing up something that has absolutely no place in this topic. The discussion, again, was actual facts and real world capabilities.

What has no place in this topic are your usual broken record rants about OS X not being the perfect entertainment toy for you. Look at the topic title. It's about CPUs.

Real world use and real world capabilities are two very different things, of which you seem to have a ton of trouble discerning. Most people purchasing computers have no concept or care about the things you ramble on about. Do you think Apple would be selling more Macs than ever if people were remotely concerned about the stuff you ramble on about? I think the numbers speak for themselves really.

Like I've repeatedly stated, you can like something but that doesn't mean its the best option.

Again, you're completely misunderstanding how to determine a user's needs. Preference and usability are just as important as capability.

You can like OS X's DVD playback, but that doesn't mean its the best option. You might prefer it, but that doesn't mean its the best. You might like it, but that doesn't change the absolute fact that you're giving up compatibility and quality by using OS X over Windows.

I've been using OS X full time for awhile now, and have had zero compatibility issues, and have had no quality or stability issues. Neither has anyone else in my user base.

Photoshop on OS X might work just fine for your marketing department, but that doesn't change the absolute fact that they DID sacrifice the ability to work with large amounts of data.

Again, see above. An ability never needed is an ability that is irrelevant. Besides, when CS5 comes out your argument is also irrelevant.

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/08/13/adobe-cs5-on-mac-to-be-intel-only-cocoa-64-bit-native

Personal preference means absolutely NOTHING when discussing what a product is or is not capable of.

Again, you haven't a clue when it comes to determining the needs of a user. You're also completely missing my point throughout this whole thread. That is nothing new, of course.

Actually, you can't buy into blu-ray or games because you sacrificed those capabilities by choosing a Mac over a PC. So whether you think you're not missing out or not, you made the choice to exclude yourself entirely.

See my user example above. PM me if you have questions.

And can you answer my questions that you ignored?

Oh, I almost forgot: what field did you say you were in, Mosx? I'm curious, as you are always referencing home entertainment issues, however you rarely mention anything else.

Wow, 2300 people surveyed. How comprehensive! Is the PC their main machine? Was it purchased before or after the Mac? Did they buy it because the Mac didn't do something they needed it to, or did they already have it and just not throw it away? What are the numbers on that, please?

 

[polaris20]

I forgot to mention I too fall into that 85% of Mac users that also own a PC.

The Athlon X2 (running Ubuntu, no cost to me)
Dell laptop (wife's laptop from 2006)
HP XW4600 (spare PC purchased at work prior to Mac)
HP SFF from 2005 (running MythBuntu for MythTV)

As you can see, none were purchased due to OSX not suiting a need, but rather were leftover PC's from before my switch.

So I patiently await those numbers from the 2300 owners (out of millions) in the study you posted. Feel free to run away for a month like you have before though, then post to get the last word.

 

[Chappers]

So I patiently await those numbers from the 2300 owners (out of millions) in the study you posted. Feel free to run away for a month like you have before though, then post to get the last word.

Yes I seem to remember mosx famously saying that such a small number of people surveyed couldn't possibly represent millions ...... yet here we are with mosx doing exactly that. Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing.

And if not hypocrisy then does this mean mosx now believes that large numbers of Windows users downgraded from Vista to XP because they felt that Vista was a bit of a dog? Just curious.