I'm betting that Quark's market data is bad. They may have been using incorrect ways of gathering it and are therefore making incorrect assumptions from it. The only part of the publishing world where Windows has gained is in in-house corporate publishing (where Windows IS/IT geeks force people to use Windows) and also newspapers. And newspapers are largely cross platform users. The main reason for newspapers using Windows is because of consolidation of smaller local papers into larger conglomerates usually owned by media conglomerates or banks. Most of these will also die out since the best automated publishing systems are based on Macs (AppleScript) and designers are still based on Macs. As a long time Quark user all I have to say is that Quark is already Dead.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Quark's Response
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Quark numbers
NuVector's comments about Quark's data on sales made me think of something. I know very few designers or printshops who are buying Quark for the Mac. It's not because they are buying PCs. In fact they are buying more Macs than PCs. It's becaues they don't want Quark 5 (and many don't even want Quark 4). Adobe may see something similar to this soon. Most professionals I know are only buying Photoshop 7 and Illustrator 10 because they run native under Mac OS X. Many of them (including myself) would rather use an older version but we also want to move to MOSX now. Anyways, Quark's sales are going to be mostly PC right now because few in the Mac community have seen a reason to upgrade Quark. There have been no must have features added or performance improvements.
NuVector's comments about Quark's data on sales made me think of something. I know very few designers or printshops who are buying Quark for the Mac. It's not because they are buying PCs. In fact they are buying more Macs than PCs. It's becaues they don't want Quark 5 (and many don't even want Quark 4). Adobe may see something similar to this soon. Most professionals I know are only buying Photoshop 7 and Illustrator 10 because they run native under Mac OS X. Many of them (including myself) would rather use an older version but we also want to move to MOSX now. Anyways, Quark's sales are going to be mostly PC right now because few in the Mac community have seen a reason to upgrade Quark. There have been no must have features added or performance improvements.
Changes in the Creative Markets
I think linescreen needs a little more experience in the creative markets. I have not seen a move to PC in either professional design or print shops. There has been an increase in use of PCs for design by untrained and inexperienced wannabe's who think if they buy a cheap PC and get some pirated software they can become designers too. But it just doesn't work. They have no knowledge of layout, typography, or color... let alone the more important aspects of communication. These are the people buying PCs (they also love Corel for some reason). Print shops are adding PCs to the mix because there are (and have always been) a lot of cheap business men who won't pay for good design work. They figure a secretary or the wiz kid from church can do it for them for nothing. These so called business men think that charging anything more than $20/hr is too much. Print shops still want the business so they add PCs so they can print these jobs as well. It's important to keep those presses rolling -- even if they are rolling crap! The only areas where I see PC making real inroads into professional design are in Web and multimedia publishing (where cross platform is critical).
I think linescreen needs a little more experience in the creative markets. I have not seen a move to PC in either professional design or print shops. There has been an increase in use of PCs for design by untrained and inexperienced wannabe's who think if they buy a cheap PC and get some pirated software they can become designers too. But it just doesn't work. They have no knowledge of layout, typography, or color... let alone the more important aspects of communication. These are the people buying PCs (they also love Corel for some reason). Print shops are adding PCs to the mix because there are (and have always been) a lot of cheap business men who won't pay for good design work. They figure a secretary or the wiz kid from church can do it for them for nothing. These so called business men think that charging anything more than $20/hr is too much. Print shops still want the business so they add PCs so they can print these jobs as well. It's important to keep those presses rolling -- even if they are rolling crap! The only areas where I see PC making real inroads into professional design are in Web and multimedia publishing (where cross platform is critical).
Huh??
From your post on Macs are Dying: "5) The mac really does not compare in performance to a new pc these days....os x is still sluggish at times compared to jaguar."
Ummm... OSX is sluggish compared to Jaguar? Jaguar IS OSX! By what logic do you make a statement comparing PC performance to Mac performance and then say that OSX is slower than itself? Did you mean to say that OSX is sluggish compared to Windows?
From your post on Macs are Dying: "5) The mac really does not compare in performance to a new pc these days....os x is still sluggish at times compared to jaguar."
Ummm... OSX is sluggish compared to Jaguar? Jaguar IS OSX! By what logic do you make a statement comparing PC performance to Mac performance and then say that OSX is slower than itself? Did you mean to say that OSX is sluggish compared to Windows?
Marketshare
Several people have posted about the issue of Apple's marketshare (and also Quark's). This is something that always bugged me as well. Apple's marketshare has recently been calculated as between 2% and 5% (I really don't trust any of these number). The problem is that so far as I can tell, computers are the only industry where that marketshare (expressed as a percentage) is highly valued. Almost every industry uses marketshare percentages to help them guage their success, but in most other industries it is only one metric that is used. In fact it usually isn't even the most important metric used in measuring success of a company. Sales figures and profit margins are far more valuable. You can have a huge marketshare and still go out of business if your other sales, financial and marketing metrics are not good. You can have a very small marketshare and still be the most healthy and most profitable company in your market/industry if your other metrics are good. Why do we put such a huge value on marketshare in computers but in no other industry?
Several people have posted about the issue of Apple's marketshare (and also Quark's). This is something that always bugged me as well. Apple's marketshare has recently been calculated as between 2% and 5% (I really don't trust any of these number). The problem is that so far as I can tell, computers are the only industry where that marketshare (expressed as a percentage) is highly valued. Almost every industry uses marketshare percentages to help them guage their success, but in most other industries it is only one metric that is used. In fact it usually isn't even the most important metric used in measuring success of a company. Sales figures and profit margins are far more valuable. You can have a huge marketshare and still go out of business if your other sales, financial and marketing metrics are not good. You can have a very small marketshare and still be the most healthy and most profitable company in your market/industry if your other metrics are good. Why do we put such a huge value on marketshare in computers but in no other industry?
Re: Switch to pc?
Are you crazy?
Seriously, a Mac does not cost $3,500, first of all. A Mac DOES NOT COST MORE THAN A PC of comparable performance and features. That's all that matters to the designers, etc. Furthermore, you can get a perfectly capable Mac for $2,200 or so.
The Mac can also do, feature for feature, everything a PC can do in a heterogenous work place. Can you name anything that the Mac doesn't run that you need to run? If you company, like mine, has a couple of proprietary PC apps, use Virtual PC and be done with it.
Let's take the scenario of a web publishing house. True, it is slightly different than the print-publishing house, but this is from where my experience stems. The web publishing house can have Macs running OS X that the web designers and developers can have all their deployment web apps on: MySQL, Oracle, Apache, PHP, MacASP, and so forth. They can also administrate with the terminal or a GUI. It is a far more compelling reason to use the Macintosh in this scenario because all of the design applications, all of the productivity applications, and all of the deployment applications, can run on one machine. No other platform can do this.
Also, in one of the previous posts, someone mentioned that companies are trying to consolidate onto .NET and Java. First of all, .NET is a huge flop. Second, both Java (now) and .NET (near future) run on the Mac. So how does that prevent the Macintosh from competing?
The Macintosh has NEVER been more pervasive in the heterogenous company as it is now. Your IT directors love UNIX, your designers like the design apps, your bean counters and paper jockies like the productivity apps, and everyone likes the GUI. The speed, although marginally slower for long 3d rendering jobs, is not an issue for the average worker. The average worker in a company has a 2 year old machine, at best, with low specs. Only a select few actually need the high end performance. Granted, most of those people are the ones reading these posts, but raw horsepower is not the juggernaut of computeing that it used to be.
I've read no less than 3 articles from CES keynotes and company press releases than say the same story: "people are buying computers based on what they can do, not how fast they can do it." Why? because the machine they've had for 2 years is fast enough to do the mundane daily tasks of the average computer user. Furthermore, the Macintosh's marketshare is INCREASING finally. The reasons are obvious: people are sick to death of the frankenstein PC market and the constant invasion of privacy, security, and lack of usability. I have first hand seen several people in my company switch to a Macintosh because they liked OS X. None mentioned speed as being a problem for them, and they all have 1.x GHz Wintel boxes with XP.
Are you crazy?
Seriously, a Mac does not cost $3,500, first of all. A Mac DOES NOT COST MORE THAN A PC of comparable performance and features. That's all that matters to the designers, etc. Furthermore, you can get a perfectly capable Mac for $2,200 or so.The Mac can also do, feature for feature, everything a PC can do in a heterogenous work place. Can you name anything that the Mac doesn't run that you need to run? If you company, like mine, has a couple of proprietary PC apps, use Virtual PC and be done with it.
Let's take the scenario of a web publishing house. True, it is slightly different than the print-publishing house, but this is from where my experience stems. The web publishing house can have Macs running OS X that the web designers and developers can have all their deployment web apps on: MySQL, Oracle, Apache, PHP, MacASP, and so forth. They can also administrate with the terminal or a GUI. It is a far more compelling reason to use the Macintosh in this scenario because all of the design applications, all of the productivity applications, and all of the deployment applications, can run on one machine. No other platform can do this.
Also, in one of the previous posts, someone mentioned that companies are trying to consolidate onto .NET and Java. First of all, .NET is a huge flop. Second, both Java (now) and .NET (near future) run on the Mac. So how does that prevent the Macintosh from competing?
The Macintosh has NEVER been more pervasive in the heterogenous company as it is now. Your IT directors love UNIX, your designers like the design apps, your bean counters and paper jockies like the productivity apps, and everyone likes the GUI. The speed, although marginally slower for long 3d rendering jobs, is not an issue for the average worker. The average worker in a company has a 2 year old machine, at best, with low specs. Only a select few actually need the high end performance. Granted, most of those people are the ones reading these posts, but raw horsepower is not the juggernaut of computeing that it used to be.
I've read no less than 3 articles from CES keynotes and company press releases than say the same story: "people are buying computers based on what they can do, not how fast they can do it." Why? because the machine they've had for 2 years is fast enough to do the mundane daily tasks of the average computer user. Furthermore, the Macintosh's marketshare is INCREASING finally. The reasons are obvious: people are sick to death of the frankenstein PC market and the constant invasion of privacy, security, and lack of usability. I have first hand seen several people in my company switch to a Macintosh because they liked OS X. None mentioned speed as being a problem for them, and they all have 1.x GHz Wintel boxes with XP.
All the lies and FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) are put to rest by this page:
http://www.macvspc.info/
If you doubt the viability of the Mac, the speed of the Mac, the compatibility of the Mac, go to the above page.
http://www.macvspc.info/
If you doubt the viability of the Mac, the speed of the Mac, the compatibility of the Mac, go to the above page.
That page says Macs are better, good now i can put all my personal observations to rest and forget then. What do i know, i have only worked with both platforms for 5+ years... Please... I prefer to think for myself.
PLEASE compare apples to apples before you "take your ball and go home"
You're kidding right?
"Harumph. I got presented with a bunch of facts and I'm still going to sit here with my arms folded and tell you that unsubstantiated opinion beats facts any day of the week."
Nice try, cowboy.
You're kidding right?
"Harumph. I got presented with a bunch of facts and I'm still going to sit here with my arms folded and tell you that unsubstantiated opinion beats facts any day of the week."
Nice try, cowboy.
Re: Re: Mac's are dying
Thank you, primalman! The first bit of reasonability in this whole thread.
"Marketshare" and any broad statistic are worthless information. People need to remember that Apple and Dell have been the ONLY profitable computer manufacturers over the past 18 months (excepting the most recent quarter). Apple's business is healthy and well-positioned for when the economy starts growing again.
Thank you, primalman! The first bit of reasonability in this whole thread.
"Marketshare" and any broad statistic are worthless information. People need to remember that Apple and Dell have been the ONLY profitable computer manufacturers over the past 18 months (excepting the most recent quarter). Apple's business is healthy and well-positioned for when the economy starts growing again.
First, let me say that I run Jaguar on an original Titanium... only 500mhz and 512mb of RAM, and it runs faster than the previous versions of OS X, which were usable to begin with. Not as fast as OS 9, but keep in mind that 9 only got so much faster because Apple had to optimize the hell out of it for Classic. The speed, anyway, has to be balanced against 9's lack of a command line and preference for crashing.
What I really wanted to point out is that it is a JOY to do web development on OS X. Finally I can truly develop and test locally, with the exact same environment (Apache/PHP/MySql) as our production servers. When I'm done I can run mysqldump to get a copy of the local database to upload to the server. I can edit scripts in BBEdit and hit reload in my browser without having to upload to another machine first. Yum.
What I really wanted to point out is that it is a JOY to do web development on OS X. Finally I can truly develop and test locally, with the exact same environment (Apache/PHP/MySql) as our production servers. When I'm done I can run mysqldump to get a copy of the local database to upload to the server. I can edit scripts in BBEdit and hit reload in my browser without having to upload to another machine first. Yum.
First time reader, first time poster.
Hiya, I'm outta high school last year and have worked in a small print shop for about 10 months now.
I've been using Quark, and am by no means an expert.
But I never liked it, when I first started working in pre-press, I knew nothing of the program, and yes it works and all, but it's so crap!
There's nothing special about it, there's options which never fail to amaze me AREN'T THERE. I just get so annoyed at times thinking how long this program has been the norm, how long they program has never had a decent upgrade, and why it's taken so long for anyone (that's YOU adobe) to try and compete!
Unbelieveable, I'm sure InD2 isn't perfect, but I'd put money on it it does a lot of things better than Quark.
I use Quark out of necessity, but by no means by choice. I'd jump ship in the hope to use something better in an instant.
Hiya, I'm outta high school last year and have worked in a small print shop for about 10 months now.
I've been using Quark, and am by no means an expert.
But I never liked it, when I first started working in pre-press, I knew nothing of the program, and yes it works and all, but it's so crap!
There's nothing special about it, there's options which never fail to amaze me AREN'T THERE. I just get so annoyed at times thinking how long this program has been the norm, how long they program has never had a decent upgrade, and why it's taken so long for anyone (that's YOU adobe) to try and compete!
Unbelieveable, I'm sure InD2 isn't perfect, but I'd put money on it it does a lot of things better than Quark.
I use Quark out of necessity, but by no means by choice. I'd jump ship in the hope to use something better in an instant.
That old argument
I'm afraid you are the one bringing up an "old" argument. I haven't noticed a whole lot of optimizing compilers that automatically convert Altivec-specific C or assembly into x86 SIMD or whatever Intel / AMD uses. Now I haven't looked very hard, so maybe they are out there and work great. But since I can't imagine *any* market for this type of optimization, I strongly doubt it.
Let's assume I'm wrong (which I very well may be) and that there is at least one optimizing compiler suitable for the task of porting high end multimedia apps (graphics, video and audio apps which are the mainstay of the mac world) from PPC/Altivec to x86/SIMD. How good do you think the results will be from this "let the compiler figure it out" approach? Well, of course the results will vary drastically from app to app depending on the source code, but I'm certain that many companies will find the performance of this auto-optimized code unacceptable, to say the least. What then? It's called hand-coding, buddy - C and even assembly in some cases. And it will be not be quick or easy.
Now, it's possible that the windows versions of many of the apps in question could be harvested for their x86 SIMD-specific optimizations, thus cutting development time considerably.
My point is simply that porting the biggest and most powerful apps from PPC to x86 while maintaining top performance cannot be disregarded as a trivial task. The only people making this argument seem to base it on their experience of compiling a few UNIX apps on different processors, unaware that these apps rarely contain processor-specific source optimizations.
Anyway, I'm not going to pretend I know everything about this subject (not even close) but the fact that most UNIX apps are easy to recompile for different processors has little, if any, bearing on the question of recompiling mainstream Mac/PPC apps for x86.
I'm afraid you are the one bringing up an "old" argument. I haven't noticed a whole lot of optimizing compilers that automatically convert Altivec-specific C or assembly into x86 SIMD or whatever Intel / AMD uses. Now I haven't looked very hard, so maybe they are out there and work great. But since I can't imagine *any* market for this type of optimization, I strongly doubt it.
Let's assume I'm wrong (which I very well may be) and that there is at least one optimizing compiler suitable for the task of porting high end multimedia apps (graphics, video and audio apps which are the mainstay of the mac world) from PPC/Altivec to x86/SIMD. How good do you think the results will be from this "let the compiler figure it out" approach? Well, of course the results will vary drastically from app to app depending on the source code, but I'm certain that many companies will find the performance of this auto-optimized code unacceptable, to say the least. What then? It's called hand-coding, buddy - C and even assembly in some cases. And it will be not be quick or easy.
Now, it's possible that the windows versions of many of the apps in question could be harvested for their x86 SIMD-specific optimizations, thus cutting development time considerably.
My point is simply that porting the biggest and most powerful apps from PPC to x86 while maintaining top performance cannot be disregarded as a trivial task. The only people making this argument seem to base it on their experience of compiling a few UNIX apps on different processors, unaware that these apps rarely contain processor-specific source optimizations.
Anyway, I'm not going to pretend I know everything about this subject (not even close) but the fact that most UNIX apps are easy to recompile for different processors has little, if any, bearing on the question of recompiling mainstream Mac/PPC apps for x86.
Re: PPC has got to go
Do you even understand that x86 is early to mid '80's technology while the PPC is a modern processor with IBM, who is ahead of Intel in many areas of processor design and fabrication, virtually staking their future on the viability of the PPC? It goes without saying that IBM is performing mind-numbing amounts of "r and d" on the PPC.
No, it doesn't. Read my post above, try porting a few apps in your spare time and let me know how it goes.
So nice of you to allow Apple to continue with one of the main focal points of their entire philosophy - i.e. *integrated* hardware and software. Without even considering the merits, apparently.
Actually, Apple is finally in a position to make some in-roads into WinTel's market dominance. With OS X, they've reached a kind of computing nirvana - superior reliability, ease-of-use, inter-operability, aesthetics, and leveraging of the massive inertia of open source development. So, yeah, now that they've made it through the all the hard times with their philosophy in tact and proven superior by a superior product, it's time to really start worrying about the future...
Exactly why? A Pontiac Trans-Am is faster than an Audi TT. Does that make it better? I think it depends on what's important to you and what you actually do with your computer.
Apparently processor speed is the dominant factor in your computing experience, which is fine, but does not neccessarily apply to everyone else. I think processor speeds in general have reached a point where it is a secondary consideration, but that's just me. I would also take an Audi TT over a Trans-Am any day...
Do you even understand that x86 is early to mid '80's technology while the PPC is a modern processor with IBM, who is ahead of Intel in many areas of processor design and fabrication, virtually staking their future on the viability of the PPC? It goes without saying that IBM is performing mind-numbing amounts of "r and d" on the PPC.
No, it doesn't. Read my post above, try porting a few apps in your spare time and let me know how it goes.
So nice of you to allow Apple to continue with one of the main focal points of their entire philosophy - i.e. *integrated* hardware and software. Without even considering the merits, apparently.
Actually, Apple is finally in a position to make some in-roads into WinTel's market dominance. With OS X, they've reached a kind of computing nirvana - superior reliability, ease-of-use, inter-operability, aesthetics, and leveraging of the massive inertia of open source development. So, yeah, now that they've made it through the all the hard times with their philosophy in tact and proven superior by a superior product, it's time to really start worrying about the future...
Exactly why? A Pontiac Trans-Am is faster than an Audi TT. Does that make it better? I think it depends on what's important to you and what you actually do with your computer.
Apparently processor speed is the dominant factor in your computing experience, which is fine, but does not neccessarily apply to everyone else. I think processor speeds in general have reached a point where it is a secondary consideration, but that's just me. I would also take an Audi TT over a Trans-Am any day...
Fine thanks, i do retuching on a dual 800 G4 with 1.5gb ram and a Cheetah X15 disc. I do programming on a 2.533ghz P4 with 512mb ram and a Atlas 10k disk. Both of these are hooked up to a Eizo 21" FlexScan (i ditched my 22" Cinema, the Eizo whips it). Both computers kick ass, but the PC is still faster and cheaper. I love Mac though, hope they solve the performance issues soon.
Re: Re: PPC has got to go
I think the car analogy isn't quite the best because most of us don't ever drive cars above 75 MPH (or so), and the analogy loses a lot. Think of it this way:
If everyone could pilot a plane, for most people a simple single engine prop would do fine. Some wouldn't mind a Blue Angel, but there will always be people that need that stealth bomber, and even that won't be enough speed. For most people all they need is something that takes them around the countryside enjoying the air. But, for people that need every second they can get, they need that bomber, and they need it now. People that are bombing things, for example. The problem is that Apple is targeting the bombing market with a Blue Angel- ungodly fast to the common man, but is easily outdone (speed wise) by the B2. Not to bring out the DVE tests, but Apple isn't exactly the fastest plane on the deck anymore. For most people, this doesn't matter, but to the audience that apple is targeting, it does!
I think the car analogy isn't quite the best because most of us don't ever drive cars above 75 MPH (or so), and the analogy loses a lot. Think of it this way:
If everyone could pilot a plane, for most people a simple single engine prop would do fine. Some wouldn't mind a Blue Angel, but there will always be people that need that stealth bomber, and even that won't be enough speed. For most people all they need is something that takes them around the countryside enjoying the air. But, for people that need every second they can get, they need that bomber, and they need it now. People that are bombing things, for example. The problem is that Apple is targeting the bombing market with a Blue Angel- ungodly fast to the common man, but is easily outdone (speed wise) by the B2. Not to bring out the DVE tests, but Apple isn't exactly the fastest plane on the deck anymore. For most people, this doesn't matter, but to the audience that apple is targeting, it does!
Planes, Trains & Automobiles
Yo, Locovaca... Though I agree with the sentiment of your posting, you should get a clue about aviation. A "Blue Angel" is not an airplane. It's a Navy Squadron that last I heard flew F/A-18s. Thunderbirds are the Air Force equivalent (flying F-16s). And a B2 StealthBomber is NOT a speed demon. In fact the F/A-18 is much faster. B2's travel in the subsonic (under the speed of sound) range. The F/A18 can go supersonic (Mach numbers, faster than sound, really fast). The F-15 is even faster. Sorry about being picky, but I'm not just a Mac geek. I'm also an aviation geek. BTW: Stealth planes don't go supersonic because the shape of a stealth aircraft is not very good for trans & supersonic flight. Also, supersonic aircraft are a little easier to spot in the infrared. Stealth aircraft like to go SLOW! It helps them stay stealthy.
Yo, Locovaca... Though I agree with the sentiment of your posting, you should get a clue about aviation. A "Blue Angel" is not an airplane. It's a Navy Squadron that last I heard flew F/A-18s. Thunderbirds are the Air Force equivalent (flying F-16s). And a B2 StealthBomber is NOT a speed demon. In fact the F/A-18 is much faster. B2's travel in the subsonic (under the speed of sound) range. The F/A18 can go supersonic (Mach numbers, faster than sound, really fast). The F-15 is even faster. Sorry about being picky, but I'm not just a Mac geek. I'm also an aviation geek. BTW: Stealth planes don't go supersonic because the shape of a stealth aircraft is not very good for trans & supersonic flight. Also, supersonic aircraft are a little easier to spot in the infrared. Stealth aircraft like to go SLOW! It helps them stay stealthy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mac's are dying
The Pentium III chip debuted on February 28, 1999 with speeds ranging from (IIRC) 400Mhz-500Mhz. The most current PowerMac available was the recently released (January, 1999) Blue & White G3 with speeds ranging between 300Mhz and 400Mhz.
RL
The Pentium III chip debuted on February 28, 1999 with speeds ranging from (IIRC) 400Mhz-500Mhz. The most current PowerMac available was the recently released (January, 1999) Blue & White G3 with speeds ranging between 300Mhz and 400Mhz.
RL
Re: Planes, Trains & Automobiles
I apologize- I didn't want to try to come off as smart about planes 'cause I really don't know jack crap besides the airshows they put on. Thanks for clearing that up. The spirit of my post remains, and considering that you'll never see a high end sports car peaked at the max of its power, it becomes a poor analogy because nobody can imagine a high end sports car going faster than another one, whereas most people have seen (if by accident) videos of planes flying at high rates of speeds and can compare the utility of a prop vs. jet engine. I dunno, it works better for me!
I apologize- I didn't want to try to come off as smart about planes 'cause I really don't know jack crap besides the airshows they put on
. Thanks for clearing that up. The spirit of my post remains, and considering that you'll never see a high end sports car peaked at the max of its power, it becomes a poor analogy because nobody can imagine a high end sports car going faster than another one, whereas most people have seen (if by accident) videos of planes flying at high rates of speeds and can compare the utility of a prop vs. jet engine. I dunno, it works better for me!**off topic**
BUT - Does anyone know when the P4 first made it's debut (@ 1GHz, if it ever was below), and what the current G4 speeds were at that time? (so mayb not *so* off topic, but I can't seem to find the info and don't want to start another thread, PLUS someone just gave info on the PIII above)
BUT - Does anyone know when the P4 first made it's debut (@ 1GHz, if it ever was below), and what the current G4 speeds were at that time? (so mayb not *so* off topic, but I can't seem to find the info and don't want to start another thread, PLUS someone just gave info on the PIII above)
Thread Summary - Points of view
Switch to PC if you want, stay on the mac if you want, Quark will be out for OSX and plenty of people will love it and some will hate it, some will switch, some will complain that Apple needs more 1). Marketshare 2.) Faster processors 3.) Better Marketing 4). Some combination of all of these. InDesign will get better, more people will switch, Apple won't go out of business, Quark will not go out of business, design shops and prepress shops will migrate to PC and/or InDesign (Question, is InDesign offered for Windows?), some will stay. Guess what? This is what happens when you have a society of individuals. Deal with it.
It's the people that have to convince everyone else that their way is the best/fastest that keeps threads like this alive this long. It's also what keeps us free and at the same time binds us to certain societal dilemmas. Imagine if there were only one fastest, best way to do something. Business evolution would have snuffed out companies that we all use because they weren't the best or fastest, but they did make sense for a good number of people.
Does anyone convince or change anyone else's mind about anything in this type of forum? Like, "Oh yeah, i see your point! PCs are faster! I'm dumping what i'm comfortable with cause you said that they are faster and your link proved it to me!" or "Quark is better than InDesign cause PrePress houses only have Quark and they won't use ID" and finally "Apple is doomed cause the G4 is so old and slow that you can't even write email with it". Does anyone else see the ridiculousness of this? If your way works for you, but is slower than someone else's, it's invalid? Um, no.
So let's be a little more realistic and accepting of each other's points' of view. We're all entitled to our own, and are highly unlikely of persuading someone else to change their mind.
Finally, please close this thread if it doesn't stay on topic (like this post!)
Switch to PC if you want, stay on the mac if you want, Quark will be out for OSX and plenty of people will love it and some will hate it, some will switch, some will complain that Apple needs more 1). Marketshare 2.) Faster processors 3.) Better Marketing 4). Some combination of all of these. InDesign will get better, more people will switch, Apple won't go out of business, Quark will not go out of business, design shops and prepress shops will migrate to PC and/or InDesign (Question, is InDesign offered for Windows?), some will stay. Guess what? This is what happens when you have a society of individuals. Deal with it.
It's the people that have to convince everyone else that their way is the best/fastest that keeps threads like this alive this long. It's also what keeps us free and at the same time binds us to certain societal dilemmas. Imagine if there were only one fastest, best way to do something. Business evolution would have snuffed out companies that we all use because they weren't the best or fastest, but they did make sense for a good number of people.
Does anyone convince or change anyone else's mind about anything in this type of forum? Like, "Oh yeah, i see your point! PCs are faster! I'm dumping what i'm comfortable with cause you said that they are faster and your link proved it to me!" or "Quark is better than InDesign cause PrePress houses only have Quark and they won't use ID" and finally "Apple is doomed cause the G4 is so old and slow that you can't even write email with it". Does anyone else see the ridiculousness of this? If your way works for you, but is slower than someone else's, it's invalid? Um, no.
So let's be a little more realistic and accepting of each other's points' of view. We're all entitled to our own, and are highly unlikely of persuading someone else to change their mind.
Finally, please close this thread if it doesn't stay on topic (like this post!)