What separates a Mac from a PC? - Page 6

MRT144 · May 5, 2003, 15:46

what i meant was that most PC users dont care about the lamentations of the Mac user. of course there are people like asher who love computers like nothing else and would debate it to death. but they are just wasting their breath.

Asher · May 5, 2003, 15:50

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
what i meant was that most PC users dont care about the lamentations of the Mac user. of course there are people like asher who love computers like nothing else and would debate it to death. but they are just wasting their breath.

I don't understand how people can use Macs knowing that their system bus is only 133MHz! It would drive me crazy, I would cry if I had one and beg Steve Jobs for an 800MHz system bus like Intel's.

Hmm. Okay, I'll shut up now.

MRT144 · May 5, 2003, 15:52

Agathon · May 5, 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
So are you saying that we should pay even more money to be able to use our Macs in a stable, decent way? What happened to your much-vaunted "Low TOC because they last forever" argument, lovingly brushed under the carpet eh?

Anyway, There's no OSX-native version of the only Mac killer App, Quark XPress. No wonder so many newspapers are switching to PC/Adobe Indesign...

Quark Xpress 6 should be out soon.

That's their fault, not Apple's.

And most mac users have switched to Mac/Indesign.

Agathon · May 5, 2003, 16:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

I don't understand how people can use Macs knowing that their system bus is only 133MHz! It would drive me crazy, I would cry if I had one and beg Steve Jobs for an 800MHz system bus like Intel's.

But I'd have to use Windows. Which I won't do, ever again.

That is unless I buy a computer for the express purpose of playing lo-mac.

Asher · May 5, 2003, 16:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Quark Xpress 6 should be out soon.

That's their fault, not Apple's.

It's both.
99% of Win9x programs run natively in Windows NT, Apple just doesn't have the technical-1337ness of MS to pull something like that off.

Their solution is a cheap, slow VM which forces you to launch OS 9 inside OS X. Brilliant, Apple.

Agathon · May 5, 2003, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

It's both.
99% of Win9x programs run natively in Windows NT, Apple just doesn't have the technical-1337ness of MS to pull something like that off.

Their solution is a cheap, slow VM which forces you to launch OS 9 inside OS X. Brilliant, Apple.

I doubt that's the reason. The Carbon API makes it reasonably easy to make Classic apps run in 10 if the developer can be bothered doing it -and the Classic mode runs fine with everything else. And it isn't slow - I've been running Falcon 4 with a full campaign and all the graphics turned up to the max and there is no appreciable difference in performance (In fact it seems to run better in classic than it did in OS 9 - strange).

But I'm now temporarily grounded as I managed to break my flightstick during a particularly vigorous engagement with a MiG 29.

MRT144 · May 5, 2003, 17:07

agathon, how are you even posting here, your plane crashed and youre either POW/MIA or KIA. If your captors allowed to post on a message board id be shocked as this seems like a lapse in judgement. If this is your ghost then may the lord help us all.

Agathon · May 5, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
agathon, how are you even posting here, your plane crashed and youre either POW/MIA or KIA. If your captors allowed to post on a message board id be shocked as this seems like a lapse in judgement. If this is your ghost then may the lord help us all.

Unfortunately callsign "Agathon" perished many times at the hands of the North Korean enemy and once in the frag field of his own cluster bombs as he rained them down upon the enemy in an act of suicidal bravery.

BustaMike · May 5, 2003, 17:25

Let me clear up the Mac vs. PC argument... as a Graphic Design/Print major I have been forced to use Mac's. The reason is bases on Postscript Fonts vs. TrueType fonts. Postscript fonts are Mac and TrueType is PC. Since the beginning of computers in the Print world, printing has been done with Postscript fonts, making Macs the dominant computer of the Print Industry. With the correct software and hardware, PC's will do the exact same job as any Mac. The problem is that Print companies have been and continue to use 95% Macs. And if you make something on a PC, and try to print it from a Mac, chances are it won't look the same... so you're stuck using a Mac.

Initially, I went in with an open mind about Macs. I've always been a PC person, but I figured that maybe there were good things about Macs. THERE AREN'T. I've learned that Macs suck and the only reason they exist at all is because print people won't switch!

Macs are ridiculously more expensive for comparable software.
Why the hell does the menu bar always have to be at the top of the screen?
Why only one ****ing mouse button?
Good games come out a year later if at all!
There's no way to minimize everything and just work from the desktop... all the stupid windows just close into a little bar.
There is no taskbar... just that little pull down thing in the corner.

Basically, it takes twice as long to do any simple action on a mac because there are less menus and one button and it costs you more to use one.

Why the hell would anyone use a Mac if they didn't have to?

Buck Birdseed · May 5, 2003, 19:35

Is the PostScript font thing even relevant anymore? Everything we print gets turned into PDF files first anyway.

Lawrence of Arabia · May 5, 2003, 20:25

You get lots of free software if you buy a mac.

Panag · May 5, 2003, 20:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
You get lots of free software if you buy a mac.

hi ,

shtttt , dont tell them that , ......

have a nice day

Nubclear · May 5, 2003, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
You get lots of free software if you buy a mac.

You can get lots of free software on PCs, too.

And even if you dont.....You can still get free software

Panag · May 5, 2003, 21:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

You can get lots of free software on PCs, too.

And even if you dont.....You can still get free software

hi ,

like you cant get free ware for a mac , ....

have a nice day

Q Classic · May 5, 2003, 21:57

actually, most scientific areas use linux, rather than apple. why? x86 systems are cheaper, and linux is free.

many hospitals, industries, and governmental agencies are also considering migrating from windows to linux.

i don't know where macs are used as a majority in any of those areas...

have a nice day

Drake Tungsten · May 5, 2003, 23:13

You guys are forgetting that Macs dominate the TV computer market. No, I don't mean the TV industry; I mean that Macs are everywhere on TV. If you don't believe me, try finding a show that doesn't use Macs as the computer prop.

Just more proof that Macs are the coolest.

Nubclear · May 5, 2003, 23:17

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

like you cant get free ware for a mac , ....

have a nice day

Ah ha, but thats where the issue of SOFTWARE AVALIBILITY AND COMPATIBLITY comes in

Quote:

Just more proof that Macs are the coolest.

They may be cool, but just like in high school, "cool" isn't always better

When it comes to computers, I'll take the geeks over the "Cool Clique" anyday

Urban Ranger · May 5, 2003, 23:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Kindly help me find them on that site, because I'm seeing lots of "problems" where people use the registry to change values, remove traces of programs, etc.

But I don't see anything dealing with problems with the registry itself.

Don't you understand this is part of the problem? If the only way to do certain things is to hack the registry, this points to a design problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

By .NET, I'm referring to the .NET CLR, managed code, etc.

And there certainly IS a .NET, Explorer.exe in Longhorn is written in .NET (Managed Code), and Visual Studio .NET 2003 just shipped last week.

Still, it doesn't matter. The entire Windows design is insecure. Even the NT branch is ridden with holes. Even if it's a bit harder to replace a core .DLL with your own trojan, it is still a fundamental design flaw.

Drake Tungsten · May 5, 2003, 23:23

Quote:

They may be cool, but just like in high school, "cool" isn't always better

When it comes to computers, I'll take the geeks over the "Cool Clique" anyday

This is what it basically comes down to. PC's are for subservient geeks, while Macs are for the cool and charismatic folks who'll be giving you geeks orders for the rest of your lives. Life ain't that different from high school, Tass; your nerd ass still belongs to me.

Urban Ranger · May 5, 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

But I haven't seen pages devoted to killing Steve Jobs

There was definete hatred for Jobs in the early 80s. Apple wasn't as big as Microsoft is now, but you couldn't say he was liked.

Jobs is crap, Woz is god. Nuff said.

Drake Tungsten · May 5, 2003, 23:29

Quote:

Jobs is crap, Woz is god. Nuff said.

I agree with Urban Ranger? Oh god...

Q Classic · May 5, 2003, 23:33

god, all you people arguing pro-mac or pro-win make me sick.

use what you want, and quit it with all this "my side is better" bs.

apple is good for some thing.
windows for others.
linux for still others.

apple is pricier, but better for video, sound, and chic design. it's piss poor for upgradability; it's also fairly easy to use for beginners. stability is decent.
windows is cheaper, but better for general purpose use and for gaming. options for upgrades are abundant and cheap as well. it's also gotten fairly easy to use for beginners. stability in the more recent versions is also quite decent.
linux is cheapest yet, best for development and power users. stability is usually solid, except if you're using experimental or beta programs. it also isn't as hardware dependent as the other two-- you can run the more recent linuxes on computers older than five years, while you can't make the same claim with the mac or windows oses.

Urban Ranger · May 5, 2003, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
I don't understand how people can use Macs knowing that their system bus is only 133MHz! It would drive me crazy, I would cry if I had one and beg Steve Jobs for an 800MHz system bus like Intel's.

Hm, that seems like the FSB, since by system bus it sounds more like PCI.

Anyway, that's a non-comparison because the P4 takes multiple clock cycles to complete an instruction. In fact, the P4 is well known for it's low IPC.

Nubclear · May 5, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

They may be cool, but just like in high school, "cool" isn't always better

When it comes to computers, I'll take the geeks over the "Cool Clique" anyday

This is what it basically comes down to. PC's are for subservient geeks, while Macs are for the cool and charismatic folks who'll be giving you geeks orders for the rest of your lives. Life ain't that different from high school, Tass; your nerd ass still belongs to me.

Macs = 5 Percent
PCs = 95 percent

Were winning BIG TIME

"95 out of 100 people prefer PERSONAL COMPUTER over MACINTOSH"

Urban Ranger · May 5, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
apple is good for some thing.
windows for others.
linux for still others.

Linux or other *nix.

That's true, but that takes all the fun (?) out of this PC vs Mac religious war.

Nubclear · May 5, 2003, 23:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
god, all you people arguing pro-mac or pro-win make me sick.

use what you want, and quit it with all this "my side is better" bs.

apple is good for some thing.
windows for others.
linux for still others.

apple is pricier, but better for video, sound, and chic design. it's piss poor for upgradability; it's also fairly easy to use for beginners. stability is decent.
windows is cheaper, but better for general purpose use and for gaming. options for upgrades are abundant and cheap as well. it's also gotten fairly easy to use for beginners. stability in the more recent versions is also quite decent.
linux is cheapest yet, best for development and power users. stability is usually solid, except if you're using experimental or beta programs. it also isn't as hardware dependent as the other two-- you can run the more recent linuxes on computers older than five years, while you can't make the same claim with the mac or windows oses.

HEATHEN!!!!!

Asher · May 5, 2003, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Don't you understand this is part of the problem? If the only way to do certain things is to hack the registry, this points to a design problem.

This logic is soooooo flawed.

The Registry is a central database of settings, so hence that's what you tweak to change those settings. In which whimsical land does this equate a design problem?

Quote:

Still, it doesn't matter. The entire Windows design is insecure. Even the NT branch is ridden with holes. Even if it's a bit harder to replace a core .DLL with your own trojan, it is still a fundamental design flaw.

You've completely changed what you're talking about to avoid getting your ass handed to you.

.NET still exists, in fact Visual Studio .NET 2003 was released the other week and .NET Framework 1.1 was also recently released. Further, .NET eliminates .DLL hell and has a very robust versioning system as well. You also clearly do not understand the security "sandbox" in .NET, nor even the new security settings and defaults in Windows Server 2003. To say the Windows design is "insecure" is extremely laughable if you're talking about Windows Server 2003 and above, which are intended for use with .NET Framework 1.1. It's even more secure by design than Linux (due to the .NET sandbox), the only problems are implementation bugs that are sure to pop up in the 40M lines of code...

So

Asher · May 6, 2003, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Hm, that seems like the FSB, since by system bus it sounds more like PCI.

Anyway, that's a non-comparison because the P4 takes multiple clock cycles to complete an instruction. In fact, the P4 is well known for it's low IPC.

How long has it been since you've taken an architecture course?

The P4's IPC operates independently of the FSB (which is synonymous with system bus today, BTW), and I'm completely unsure how you think it could be directly related.

Agathon · May 6, 2003, 00:27

Most of the anti-mac commentary here seems to be complaining about the Classic Mac OS. If you want to compare this OS to it's competitors Windows 95, 98 and ME, I'd take the Mac OS any day. Enough of this misguided rubbish about extension conflicts and the taskbar.

Actually Asher, it is perhaps an accident that you aren't using a version of NextStep since in the late 80s the big PC manufacturers tried to buy it, in order to replace DOS, which they hated. I wish they had - almost everyone would be using what would amount to a version of OS X.

The reason most people run windows is the same reason they use QWERTY keyboards: namely ubiquity. If it wasn't for this no one would use MS crappy bug-ridden spy infested bloatware. That's why MS is so desperate to block off alternatives - because they know if one ever takes off that their rubbishy software can't compete. Anyone who can't admit this is severely deluded as to the public's love of Microsoft.