Sigh. In your OPINION, you're not sacrificing anything.
No, that'd be a fact. As I said before, a feature never needed is a feature not sacrificed.
However, that does not change the fact that Macs are incapable of what I said and you ARE giving up those options, regardless of whether YOU want them or not.
See above.
And all of that has nothing to do with what I said about the way OS X handles external displays.
As I was saying, OS X can't handle multiple displays properly, like Windows can. In Windows, everything is controlled through software. I can disable the built-in display, or the external, as well as the other controls such as cloning and extending, plus I can set custom resolutions, custom refresh rates, etc. Can't do that in OS X. The only way I can disable the built-in display is to start the system with the lid closed. Used to be able to sleep the system and wake it with the lid closed, but that doesn't work properly any more in Snow Leopard.
So, once again, proper multi-display support is something you do have to sacrifice, on top of the fact that Macs make it unnecessarily cumbersome by requiring different adapters for each connection.
Once again, just because you weren't an educated consumer when you supposedly purchased (I say supposedly because I'm starting to doubt you've ever actually even owned a Mac) your Mac doesn't mean it works improperly, merely that it doesn't work the way YOU want it to.
Yup. We are. I'm just pointing out Apple's double standards. Advertising something in one way while ignoring it in another way, and pointing out just one of the few sacrifices one has to make to own a Mac.
I'm not a gamer. What am I sacrificing? More terminal lack of comprehension skills.
Doesn't take one to realize that the gaming market pulls in billions upon billions upon billions more than Apple's ENTIRE market.
Again, see earlier where I mentioned Apple's profits. They. Don't. Care.
Again, are you just here to pick a fight? Your argument about "needs" has no place when discussing what something can or cannot do. As I've stated, sure something might be right for someone, but that doesn't change the fact that the particular product in question is incapable of certain things.
Not picking a fight. Just pointing out your severe lack of understanding about real world use. And the original question was in regards to a broad generalized opinion that Mac users have to give up a lot to use it, to which I asked how is that anything other than an opinion. And the question was not even directed at you.
Is Windows capable of running Logic? Is Windows capable of running FCP? Is Windows capable of forwarding X sessions from Linux/Unix servers out of the box? How's tsch and bash in Windows?
How's Windows do with virtual desktops out of the box? Oh that's right; it doesn't. So I'm supposed to choose a software product because there's more variety on the Windows side? More awesome logic there. Love it.
So, again, it does not matter what someone needs or wants when discussing what a certain product is capable of. Do you get it yet?
It does matter, if those capabilities are irrelevant to that user. DO YOU GET IT YET?
Thanks for the laugh. The ability to work with large amounts of data in PS is irrelevant? I see you've never worked with Photoshop before. A decompressed multi-megapixel image can easily eat up hundreds of megabytes of RAM. Then you start making changes to it, opening additional layers, etc., and you can hit that 4GB limit almost immediately.
I've been working with PS since 2.5. How about you? How about you go to the other thread about the new iMacs where the guy from Atlanta is using OS X with 50mp Hasselblads. What camera do you shoot with that you were hitting a brick wall with CS4 on a Mac? Do you even own PS? Do you even own a Mac?
Let's go ask Bert Monroy just how important the ability to work with more than 4GB of data is, shall we?
You mean the Bert Monroy who uses Macs as his tool of choice?
http://mac.meetup.com/238/calendar/10204187/
So every image exceeds 4GB? Uh, no. They don't. If you're not utilizing that size of an image, then it's irrelevant. Also, CS4 is the first version of PS that supports 64-bit for Windows, and 64-bit support is coming for OS X in CS5. So your constant ranting about it is largely irrelevant, like I've already said. As an avid user of Windows and Photoshop, you must have been the driving force behind getting PS to 64-bit on Windows first, right?
As I've said, your argument of wants and needs has absolutely no bearing when discussing what something is actually capable of. Sure, 32-bit Photoshop might work for you. But that doesn't change the fact that by choosing Photoshop on the Mac you are sacrificing the ability to work with more than 4GB of data.
FOR ONE VERSION OF THE SOFTWARE. See above. Or maybe your favorite Wikipedia can help you understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoshop#CS3
Again, your personal preference has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Windows offers more choices and capabilities. Your choice suits you, but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand, and that argument being that Windows gives you more. You're just picking a fight.
Again, you're constant ramblings about features or capabilities that people buying the computer don't give a rats ass about are irrelevant. Keep going though, I love the huge multi-quoters.
No, what has no place in this discussion is basically your entire argument. You're obviously just here picking a fight.
The same could be said for you, who is arguing the same tired crap in a thread about processors. You're obviously here trolling again.
Oh yeah, Apple's numbers speak for themselves. It's just *mind blowing* when a company goes finally manages 4% worldwide market share
Yet is worth far more money than many PC manufacturers. Yup, I guess they should just throw in the towel.
Again, your argument has no place. We're discussing actual capabilities and you're trying to bring up personal preference. Personal preference means absolutely nothing when discussing actual capabilities. You might be happy with the Mac, but that doesn't change the fact that it is more limited than a PC.
NO, you're discussing them, again in a thread that's got nothing to do with the OP.
Preference plays absolutely NO PART when discussing actual capabilities.
So you're going to tell someone looking for a computer that it can't play video games or run CAD, even when they will never care? What sort of F'd up logic is that? Clearly you live on a different planet than I do. Do me a favor: go to your local Apple Store. Find a potential customer. Tell them it doesn't run as many games as Windows does, and tell them it doesn't run AutoCAD. Let me know what happens.
When it comes to quality, ignorance is bliss.
You don't know what you're missing out on when it comes to quality until you've seen it.
Oh, you mean like the quality of your favorite HP, that
you yourself had problems with and that came in last place in a
3 year reliability study? That study is 30,000 computers, btw. Hope that's good enough for you, since you liked the 2300 survey.
Sure, Apple isn't at the top either, but at least they stand
behind their product. Of course, since YOU personally weren't delighted with your experience, all other evidence is null and void.
Because CS5 will make up for the years of CS4 being limited on the Mac?
Sure, if the user requires more than 4GB. Otherwise they'll continue to not care.
And, again, personal preference means absolutely nothing when discussing capabilities, which is what the argument was about until you jumped in and tried to change it. It doesn't matter if you prefer a Mac, because the discussion is about what is more capable. If the Mac suits you, thats fine. But that doesn't change the fact that a Windows PC is more capable, and that even a Mac running Windows is more capable than it was without Windows. A person liking a Honda Civic doesn't change the fact that a Mustang Cobra is a faster car. Personal preference means NOTHING when discussing actual capabilities.
Oh there you go with the car analogies. Okay, I'll play. The Mustang is faster, but the Civic get 15mpg more. The buyer needs a car with good gas mileage, and doesn't care that the Mustang does the 1/4 mile in under 14sec. Obviously the Civic is the right choice. See how that works?
No, you're just picking a fight and trying to bring up an argument that means absolutely nothing in the overall discussion.
I'm sorry; I thought this was a thread about Arrandale processors, of which your comments have nothing to do with either? Let me refresh your memory:
MacRumors said:
The Arrandale CPUs are based on the advanced Nehalem architecture first introduced into Macs earlier this year. These new mobile processors are said to come in mainstream as well as low-voltage variants that will make them suitable for both the MacBook Pros as well as ultra-thin notebooks such as the MacBook Air. These new chips are expected to deliver significant performance boosts over the currently shipping Apple notebooks.
Point out where it says anything about capability of OS X vs Windows. You've deviated (as usual) from the OP just as much as anyone else in this thread, generally more.
Funny how small surveys are perfectly okay when they work in favor of Mac users, huh?
Pot, meet kettle. Funny how YOUR links are good when you find them. Funny how PCMag.com is good enough for when YOU need it to be. At least my surveys are larger than 2300. And did you get those numbers yet? How many of the 85% were pre-existing PC's? How many are cheap PC's purchased for kids? Numbers please?
And like I said before, I don't have to prove a thing to you. Especially when you come into a discussion with an absolutely irrelevant argument with no intention other than to pick a fight.
You have nothing to prove, because you have ZERO real world experience supporting any user other than yourself, and have no idea when it comes to a buyers actual needs, and you continue to pollute this forum with your ridiculous Apple hate.
So I'll keep asking the question. I think it's positively cowardly you can't even say what industry you're in. I also think it's funny you rarely ever make comments about anything but the Mac's ability to be an entertainment toy. That's because out side of that, you clearly have no idea.
