|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 9th, 2003 09:34 PM | |||||||||
| AChimp |
Using Macs 3 out of 5 hours at school for 2 years in high school lets me appreciate them plenty... as DOORSTOPS. 
|
||||||||
| Oct 9th, 2003 09:29 PM | |||||||||
| Gurlugon |
I like teh stellar Macintoshes.  I'm using one right now. It works just fine for everything. I've never had lock-ups. Need to buy some more RAM for the thing, but it's good nonetheless.Safari sucks. I loved it, but it stopped working for one site I need to visit very often (I moderate there, it's a phpBB forum), so I'm using MSIE. For the record, using Macs in school only doesn't let you appreciate them. I thought OS 8 and OS 9 sucked, but they're not the standard anymore; try OS X (Panther's coming out two Fridays from now), and I think you'll li... well, it'll suck less. 
|
||||||||
| Oct 8th, 2003 02:42 AM | |||||||||
| Anonymous |
Quote:
|
||||||||
| Oct 7th, 2003 10:59 PM | |||||||||
| AChimp | I think that Macs suck, and that's after 12 years of beating my head against them in school. | ||||||||
| Oct 7th, 2003 03:01 PM | |||||||||
| whoreable |
Re: goddamn. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Luxury computer? LOL Quote:
 I dont think macs suck, but I do think that it is pointless to get one these days considering price, compatibility, and upgradability, that is unless you are a moron. |
||||||||
| Oct 7th, 2003 01:57 PM | |||||||||
| stevejobs |
goddamn. Something called Quartz Extreme is built into osX, which is a transparancy layer that can use an idle video card to make truer, more realistic colors. Look at a presentation in Keynote, then look at one in PowerPoint. IE for Mac is shit because it's made by Microsoft. It's the only program on osX that ever froze on me. Look at benchmarks for Safari, Apple's browser. Nothing is faster, and it's only v1.0. Macs are faster. Look at any of the recent benchmarks, SPEC or otherwise. Clock speed does not equal performance, and it doesn't take much speed for a dual 64-bit G5 to beat any P4. On the laptop side, the G4 runs more coolly and thus can be set faster than x86s in a small enclosure. Not only is the software more user-friendly, it's seamless. Ever used Word with IE? They work together pretty well, editing Word text in IE text fields and writing HTML in Word. This is how it is with every application Apple makes for osX and with most third-party vendors. That's the point of osX - seamlessness. No programs are "hard" to run, and nothing is extensively slow, except maybe MS Office v.X. A USB mouse is a USB mouse. Apple uses USB mice. Apple mice can have one button, two buttons, eight buttons, whatever. You installed osX in high school? So I assume that was at least a year ago. osX was in beta from 97 to 2000. Functional issues were resolved with 10.1, and speed was optimized with 10.2, which came out about six months ago. 10.3 is to be released before the end of the year, which is reported by beta testers to be much snappier. You're judging a OS that wasn't finished yet, but if you use Windows, I guess that's what you're used to. osX is not Unix. osX is built on Unix, like a few other OSs, with Darwin, Aqua, Cocoa, Carbon, etc. developed by Apple on top. osX is thorough, and that's the premium you pay with Apple, along with only the highest quality parts. Dell is cheaper because Dell is Wal-Mart. For most people, Apple is a luxury computer. Uninformed opinions piss me off. |
||||||||
| Sep 3rd, 2003 12:51 AM | |||||||||
| imported_Wicked Steve | Computer monitors are RGB, light uses additive colors. CMYK (subtractive colors) is for printing, though it can be emulated with programs like Photoshop. But you're right, a monitor is a monitor, "Macs have more colors" is bullshit. | ||||||||
| Sep 2nd, 2003 11:31 PM | |||||||||
| Anonymous |
i personally dont like mac because my school bought imacs and my windows 3.1 ran faster they take 5 minutes to load up internet explorer
|
||||||||
| Sep 2nd, 2003 06:27 AM | |||||||||
| Anonymous | I never understood the 'Macs have more colors' argument. Is there like, some sort of magic fifth color channel (assuming you're going by CMYK) that only a macintosh can tap into? | ||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 06:18 PM | |||||||||
| O71394658 |
I favor PCs over MACs personally, although I'd have to admit I've never owned a MAC, but have a lot of experience with people who have. MACs aren't necessarily faster. I would disagree here. It's all in relative timescales. Since the G5 came out with their 64 bits, PCs are going to be as fast and beyond that in the coming months. Regarding loading times for programs and such, it makes no difference to me, as they're only seconds in difference. I would argue that MACs are easier to use. Everything on the OS is Apple. With PCs, there are a million different companies involvedi in executing a program. With MACs, everything is done through Apple. So one would most likely experience a lot less techincal problems with the MAC, as well as MACs being easier used. Most, if not all MACs now come with programs like iDVD, iPhoto, and such. From hearsay, these are very easy to use. But, these actions could also be accomplished on a PC through other programs. It's just that with MACs, they might be more "user-friendly". I've heard that in some professions, like designing and graphic arts, MACs are much better performance-wise. But, compatibility is a big problem for MACs. With everyone using programs that are either hard to run, extensively slow, or don't exist on MACs, the MAC user might have to be a bit more creative in working around such problems. |
||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 05:11 PM | |||||||||
| Anonymous |
Cop out. And C  you're not Jixby Phillips.
|
||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 04:14 PM | |||||||||
| Command Prompt |
MACS ARE ONLY GOOD FOR GRAPHIC DESIGN BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BROADER COLOR DEPTH AND SPECTRUM AND THE FILTERS INTERLACE BETTER WITH THE GRAPHICS. OR SO I WAS TOLD WHO GIVES A FUCK ANYWAY EVERY SHUT UP AND TALK ABOUT METAL GEAR 3 OR SOMETHING ALREADY
|
||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 04:02 PM | |||||||||
| AChimp | Well, for one, the fact that you're defending OSX makes it shitty. | ||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 02:46 PM | |||||||||
| Anonymous | You're sounding like a fanboy. What exactly is 'shit' about MacOS and what is better about Windows? | ||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 02:44 PM | |||||||||
| AChimp |
Even DOS is better than OSX.
|
||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 02:40 PM | |||||||||
| Anonymous |
So what is better? WinXP?
|
||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 02:37 PM | |||||||||
| AChimp |
OSX is shit. I have used it. I helped install it on a bunch of computers at my old high school.  OSX
|
||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 02:17 PM | |||||||||
| Anonymous | Have you ever used OSX? It's fucking beautiful. I'll admit Macs are overpriced and lack seriously in software - which is why I'd never buy one - but anybody who says OSX is a piece of shit either never used it, is lying, or is a M$ fanboy. The Macs being faster argument is dead. It could hold water a few years ago, but with the speed of current PCs it is no longer an issue. | ||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 02:01 PM | |||||||||
| AChimp |
OSX is a piece of shit (it's not even MacOS anymore, it's Unix) and the "Macs really are faster" is a lie. Photoshop 7 loads in 3 seconds flat on my 1.33GHz AMD. I can only imagine how much faster it would be on a new 3GHz P4. I have never encountered a Mac that worked that fast, even their new G5s. The only thing that Macs have going for them right now are those widescreen LCD monitors. But, since they don't actually contain any computer, I guess that's what makes them kinda good. :P |
||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 01:50 PM | |||||||||
| Nerd | I once had a Mac....but I only had it for a month. Slow as hell. | ||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 12:51 PM | |||||||||
| Perndog |
I agree with Chimp about the price issue, though maybe not about the power... The G5 is currently being touted as the fastest PC on the market (MACS ARE PCS! PC, PERSONAL COMPUTER, THINK ABOUT IT!), but they cost far more than Windows-based systems. Per the buck, you will get far more power and, more importantly, customizability out of a Windows machine. I built my own computer with $1000 that has a 1.66 GHz CPU, 512M of memory, and a near-top-end graphics card. That was a year ago, and prices have dropped since then. On the Mac side, a $1000 eMac is has a 1GHz processor and 128M memory, and you can't find an iMac or a Power Mac for less than $1300. Even with the faster frontside bus, which offsets clock speed somewhat, Macs don't have the same power in the same price range. Therefore, Macs suck because they're expensive. I will not pay an extra $300 for a computer just because OS-X is better than Windows (yes, it is). |
||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 12:12 PM | |||||||||
| AChimp |
Macs smoke long cocks. I had to use them all the time in high school in my graphic arts courses, and they constantly were running out of memory for even the simplest Photoshop filters, and there's no reason for that with 64MB. Macs are also super slow (even my old P2-233 ran faster than half the new Macs) and uber-expensive. Who wants to pay $4000 for a Mac when you can get a faster PC with a hard drive 10x bigger for 1/3 of that? |
||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 12:09 PM | |||||||||
| Mockery | I think macs are very lacking compared to PC's, but when it comes down to it, computers are just tools. Use whichever one gets the job done well for you. The PC vs. MAC wars are stupid as shit anyway, much like the first post in this thread. | ||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 03:50 AM | |||||||||
| Anonymous |
i  OSX. pc just has more software i use.
|
||||||||
| Sep 1st, 2003 03:28 AM | |||||||||
| Perndog | They make two-button mice for Macs, and I think (correct me please) you can connect a regular USB mouse to them. My roommate uses a two-button trackball, and the right click works the same as a Windows right click. | ||||||||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||||||||
