Does anyone know why MACs are supposed to be so much better then PCs in graphics? Honestly PCs have come a long way and most graphics software you can get for MACs you can get for PCs now. I don't really see the point in MACs anymore other then if you really hate Microsoft for some reason. Personally I think they make the best OS at the moment. The difference is that more people hate Microsoft so they are alway trying to find exploits in their OS.
I'll take a stab at answering that.
Although I use primarily Windows-driven PCs, my experience with the Apple OSX is that its design is much cleaner and more streamlined than Windows. What I mean by that is, because the Apple OSX is designed for known hardware, the OS is designed to work specifically with that hardware. When you purchase a Mac, you are getting the hardware and the OS designed to support that hardware.
Because Windows supports a much more diverse arena of hardware (or tries to), they have a tendency to include just about every driver and DLL necessary to support the vast majority of the most popular hardware. This, combined with many other largely useless gee-gaws they incorporate leads to a lot of OS bloat. There are services in Windows that simply do not need to be started or run for any reason on many systems, but they are on in case of the off chance that you may need them.
So for many applications that are very CPU and RAM intensive, the Mac/Apple OSX is actually the better choice because it isn't running a billion background applications and services that may be completely unnecessary.
You should have stopped here while your post was still based somewhere in reality
At this point, Windows has actually taken an even worse step with Vista. The OS is seriously bloated and for non-superusers, they can't understand why applications and games that used to run well on XP encounter memory and driver errors with Vista, so they can't even begin to be able to correct the issues.
So while I'm not in the "Mac love" camp, I can certainly appreciate how much cleaner operating systems like Apple's OSX, Linux or Ubuntu is very appealing. I mean, you can run Ubuntu from a CD! The whole operating system!
If anything, Microsoft needs to take a step back and scale down Windows to provide the user with the basic operating system and OS-specific enhancements and create a web portal for downloading and installing drivers that support a user's hardware during installation. That way, the user gets the OS and only the drivers and services they need, rather than all of it at once.
It would also allow them to concentrate on the visual areas where they are constantly taking a backseat to Apple and applications like Beryl.
Does anyone know why MACs are supposed to be so much better then PCs in graphics? Honestly PCs have come a long way and most graphics software you can get for MACs you can get for PCs now. I don't really see the point in MACs anymore other then if you really hate Microsoft for some reason. Personally I think they make the best OS at the moment. The difference is that more people hate Microsoft so they are alway trying to find exploits in their OS.
legacy really. back in the day it was absolutely true - but today the gap is closed in terms of graphic and desktop publishing, music, video, and the like. Many movies are now made on PCs - if I recall correctly Lucas Arts uses Windows based PCs for editing. but as many of the 'creative' types first found the Mac superior it still remains their choice overall.
Originally posted by Zeldithin
macs are the top of the line-microsoft origanally made the pc for math and data organizing for large corperate companies. macs are better for anything having to do with media- movies, editing, photo work, sound, digital media. movies like Lord of the rings, Narnia, Rush Hour 3, the bourn ultimatium, spiderman 3, and pirates of the carribian 3 were edited on final cut pro using a mac. the pc is now mainly used for-word proccessing, corperations, gaming, and taxes you can't beat a pc for gaming but the mac is number one in graphics and they now take up 37% of all the computors in the USA and the reason pc's are cheap is because theyre made of shity plastic and aluminum parts-macs are made from polifibers,steal, titanium, and carbon fibers
Just about everything said here is incorrect. Yes, in the past Macs excelled at multi-media tasks but that gap has been closed and PCs now are on par with Macs in this area and about all others on the creative fields even if preference remains with the Mac. Apples don't hardly make up 3.7% of all computers let alone 37% - anyone suggesting that is true is patently ignorant. XP is about 80% to 85% of the desktop market, Vista is about 8% and Mac/Linux vascillate around 4% to 6% with legacy stuff rounding out the rest.
Originally posted by Somnulus.
Originally posted by Flyte27
Does anyone know why MACs are supposed to be so much better then PCs in graphics? Honestly PCs have come a long way and most graphics software you can get for MACs you can get for PCs now. I don't really see the point in MACs anymore other then if you really hate Microsoft for some reason. Personally I think they make the best OS at the moment. The difference is that more people hate Microsoft so they are alway trying to find exploits in their OS.
I'll take a stab at answering that. Although I use primarily Windows-driven PCs, my experience with the Apple OSX is that its design is much cleaner and more streamlined than Windows. What I mean by that is, because the Apple OSX is designed for known hardware, the OS is designed to work specifically with that hardware. When you purchase a Mac, you are getting the hardware and the OS designed to support that hardware Because Windows supports a much more diverse arena of hardware (or tries to), they have a tendency to include just about every driver and DLL necessary to support the vast majority of the most popular hardware. This, combined with many other largely useless gee-gaws they incorporate leads to a lot of OS bloat. There are services in Windows that simply do not need to be started or run for any reason on many systems, but they are on in case of the off chance that you may need them.
This is actually very true. It is quite a different thing to create an platform that runs with millions and millions of hardware and software combinations like Windows does verses a platform that works with 3 or 4 configurations. Macs are good computers for what tehy are - but they are niche devices and incapable of supporting the myriad of tasks and situations that Windows must function in.
It is also true that most issues in Windows come from third party non-Microsoft code. Be it drivers or applications or combinations thereof. If Windows only had to work with 3 or 4 hardware/software combinations it would be nearly flawless but it would be as incapable of supporting the vast open computing environment that Windows has spawned in today's world. Windows also has to run and include allot of legacy or otherwise unnecessary applications and services because of its broad deployment - there are always compromises when you are talking being all things to all people as Windows mostly is.
Originally posted by n25philly You should have stopped here while your post was still based somewhere in reality At this point, Windows has actually taken an even worse step with Vista. The OS is seriously bloated and for non-superusers, they can't understand why applications and games that used to run well on XP encounter memory and driver errors with Vista, so they can't even begin to be able to correct the issues. So while I'm not in the "Mac love" camp, I can certainly appreciate how much cleaner operating systems like Apple's OSX, Linux or Ubuntu is very appealing. I mean, you can run Ubuntu from a CD! The whole operating system! If anything, Microsoft needs to take a step back and scale down Windows to provide the user with the basic operating system and OS-specific enhancements and create a web portal for downloading and installing drivers that support a user's hardware during installation. That way, the user gets the OS and only the drivers and services they need, rather than all of it at once. It would also allow them to concentrate on the visual areas where they are constantly taking a backseat to Apple and applications like Beryl.
I agree Vista has issues, without a really good SP1 it could very well be ME II. It is an example really of just how good XP was IMHO as there is just nothing in Vista you need as XP has all the desktop computer role needs already. Vista is a bit like Norton or McAffe's 'security suites'. Back in the day they where streamlined utilities but each year they needed to cram in more stuff to make people buy a whole new version instead of renewing the old - so from 2002 to 2007 they have become bloated, overweight pieces of crap that in my professional experience cause more trouble than they prevent.
Apple is clean but also incapable of the myriad of tasks and roles that XP/Vista can do - so there is that trade off. And for the record, Ubuntu runs off a DVD - not a CD. While you can whittle down most Linux distros to a small enough footprint to boot off a CD the Live discs you are talking about are DVDs. Windows also can run off a CD (PE 1.6) and a DVD (PE 2.0) - the pre-installation windows environments are just not widely distributed and typically only available to MS partners and software assurance participants. That being said, Ubuntu's live discs make for a nice preview and install method but are born more of their need to exists nondestructively and demo on a Windows installed machine than any leap or advantage in technology or capability over Windows.
Originally posted by AgtSmith And for the record, Ubuntu runs off a DVD - not a CD. While you can whittle down most Linux distros to a small enough footprint to boot off a CD the Live discs you are talking about are DVDs. Windows also can run off a CD (PE 1.6) and a DVD (PE 2.0) - the pre-installation windows environments are just not widely distributed and typically only available to MS partners and software assurance participants. That being said, Ubuntu's live discs make for a nice preview and install method but are born more of their need to exists nondestructively and demo on a Windows installed machine than any leap or advantage in technology or capability over Windows.
You made many good points here, AgtSmith, and it appears that we agree on the majority of the Apple OSX vs. Windows issues.
I just wanted to reply to this one point; I have Ubuntu 6.06 on CD-R, weighing in at 698mb and it runs like a champ when I just feel like playing around with an alternate OS.
Although I agree with you that the non-destructive demonstration is an important reason why Ubuntu is distributed in this fashion, it clearly does have a size advantage over Windows.
When you consider that it is only 689mb including OpenOffice, web browsing, media player and other basic OS operations and applications, that demonstrates to me that it does have an advantage in size when compared to the 15gb of free space that Microsoft recommends for Windows Vista or the 1.5gb recommended for Windows XP.
I think we can both agree that a smaller OS will normally run faster and perform better than a larger OS with more loaded default services and background applications.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq Adnihilo Beorn Judge's Edge Somnulus Perfect Black ---------------------- Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2 Everquest / Everquest 2 Anarchy Online Shadowbane Dark Age of Camelot Star Wars Galaxies Matrix Online World of Warcraft Guild Wars City of Heroes
And for the record, Ubuntu runs off a DVD - not a CD. While you can whittle down most Linux distros to a small enough footprint to boot off a CD the Live discs you are talking about are DVDs. Windows also can run off a CD (PE 1.6) and a DVD (PE 2.0) - the pre-installation windows environments are just not widely distributed and typically only available to MS partners and software assurance participants. That being said, Ubuntu's live discs make for a nice preview and install method but are born more of their need to exists nondestructively and demo on a Windows installed machine than any leap or advantage in technology or capability over Windows.
You made many good points here, AgtSmith, and it appears that we agree on the majority of the Apple OSX vs. Windows issues.
I just wanted to reply to this one point; I have Ubuntu 6.06 on CD-R, weighing in at 698mb and it runs like a champ when I just feel like playing around with an alternate OS.
Although I agree with you that the non-destructive demonstration is an important reason why Ubuntu is distributed in this fashion, it clearly does have a size advantage over Windows.
When you consider that it is only 689mb including OpenOffice, web browsing, media player and other basic OS operations and applications, that demonstrates to me that it does have an advantage in size when compared to the 15gb of free space that Microsoft recommends for Windows Vista or the 1.5gb recommended for Windows XP.
I think we can both agree that a smaller OS will normally run faster and perform better than a larger OS with more loaded default services and background applications.
I've never seen Ubuntu on a DVD. Just downloaded the 7.1 beta last night and it's also on a cd. Most other versions of linux I've downloaded have been DVDs though such as Fedora, Suse, and Debian. Now it's just a matter of getting one of them to actually install. As nice as Linux can be, it's still too much of a pain in the ass to be anything more than a screw around with in my free time OS.
Size isn't necessary always an advantage, especially now that things like dual/quad/how ever many cores we can shove into this thing processors are available. When designed right performance will be scalable. To keep things apples to apples I'll compare XP vs. Vista. Put both on a pentium 4 and XP will usually run faster because it's designed to run on one core. Put them both on a dual core processor and in most cases it will even out or performance will go to Vista. Put them both on a quad and it will be rare that XP could keep up. It all depends on how the software is developed and what it's running on. The basic model I point out there with Vista is where every OS/program either is already going or will be in the future. Everything will be scalable. An Os could run faster with less hard drive space being used up but it's not a garauntee. Also, unlike some people seem to think, a number of windows process can be turned off. Since Windows is designed to be the Jack of all trades that it is the starting process are in most cases not the best selection, but it all depends on what you need.
Comments
I'll take a stab at answering that.
Although I use primarily Windows-driven PCs, my experience with the Apple OSX is that its design is much cleaner and more streamlined than Windows. What I mean by that is, because the Apple OSX is designed for known hardware, the OS is designed to work specifically with that hardware. When you purchase a Mac, you are getting the hardware and the OS designed to support that hardware.
Because Windows supports a much more diverse arena of hardware (or tries to), they have a tendency to include just about every driver and DLL necessary to support the vast majority of the most popular hardware. This, combined with many other largely useless gee-gaws they incorporate leads to a lot of OS bloat. There are services in Windows that simply do not need to be started or run for any reason on many systems, but they are on in case of the off chance that you may need them.
So for many applications that are very CPU and RAM intensive, the Mac/Apple OSX is actually the better choice because it isn't running a billion background applications and services that may be completely unnecessary.
You should have stopped here while your post was still based somewhere in reality
At this point, Windows has actually taken an even worse step with Vista. The OS is seriously bloated and for non-superusers, they can't understand why applications and games that used to run well on XP encounter memory and driver errors with Vista, so they can't even begin to be able to correct the issues.
So while I'm not in the "Mac love" camp, I can certainly appreciate how much cleaner operating systems like Apple's OSX, Linux or Ubuntu is very appealing. I mean, you can run Ubuntu from a CD! The whole operating system!
If anything, Microsoft needs to take a step back and scale down Windows to provide the user with the basic operating system and OS-specific enhancements and create a web portal for downloading and installing drivers that support a user's hardware during installation. That way, the user gets the OS and only the drivers and services they need, rather than all of it at once.
It would also allow them to concentrate on the visual areas where they are constantly taking a backseat to Apple and applications like Beryl.
member of imminst.org
legacy really. back in the day it was absolutely true - but today the gap is closed in terms of graphic and desktop publishing, music, video, and the like. Many movies are now made on PCs - if I recall correctly Lucas Arts uses Windows based PCs for editing. but as many of the 'creative' types first found the Mac superior it still remains their choice overall.
Just about everything said here is incorrect. Yes, in the past Macs excelled at multi-media tasks but that gap has been closed and PCs now are on par with Macs in this area and about all others on the creative fields even if preference remains with the Mac. Apples don't hardly make up 3.7% of all computers let alone 37% - anyone suggesting that is true is patently ignorant. XP is about 80% to 85% of the desktop market, Vista is about 8% and Mac/Linux vascillate around 4% to 6% with legacy stuff rounding out the rest.
This is actually very true. It is quite a different thing to create an platform that runs with millions and millions of hardware and software combinations like Windows does verses a platform that works with 3 or 4 configurations. Macs are good computers for what tehy are - but they are niche devices and incapable of supporting the myriad of tasks and situations that Windows must function in.
It is also true that most issues in Windows come from third party non-Microsoft code. Be it drivers or applications or combinations thereof. If Windows only had to work with 3 or 4 hardware/software combinations it would be nearly flawless but it would be as incapable of supporting the vast open computing environment that Windows has spawned in today's world. Windows also has to run and include allot of legacy or otherwise unnecessary applications and services because of its broad deployment - there are always compromises when you are talking being all things to all people as Windows mostly is.
I agree Vista has issues, without a really good SP1 it could very well be ME II. It is an example really of just how good XP was IMHO as there is just nothing in Vista you need as XP has all the desktop computer role needs already. Vista is a bit like Norton or McAffe's 'security suites'. Back in the day they where streamlined utilities but each year they needed to cram in more stuff to make people buy a whole new version instead of renewing the old - so from 2002 to 2007 they have become bloated, overweight pieces of crap that in my professional experience cause more trouble than they prevent.
Apple is clean but also incapable of the myriad of tasks and roles that XP/Vista can do - so there is that trade off. And for the record, Ubuntu runs off a DVD - not a CD. While you can whittle down most Linux distros to a small enough footprint to boot off a CD the Live discs you are talking about are DVDs. Windows also can run off a CD (PE 1.6) and a DVD (PE 2.0) - the pre-installation windows environments are just not widely distributed and typically only available to MS partners and software assurance participants. That being said, Ubuntu's live discs make for a nice preview and install method but are born more of their need to exists nondestructively and demo on a Windows installed machine than any leap or advantage in technology or capability over Windows.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
You made many good points here, AgtSmith, and it appears that we agree on the majority of the Apple OSX vs. Windows issues.
I just wanted to reply to this one point; I have Ubuntu 6.06 on CD-R, weighing in at 698mb and it runs like a champ when I just feel like playing around with an alternate OS.
Ubuntu Download Page
Although I agree with you that the non-destructive demonstration is an important reason why Ubuntu is distributed in this fashion, it clearly does have a size advantage over Windows.
When you consider that it is only 689mb including OpenOffice, web browsing, media player and other basic OS operations and applications, that demonstrates to me that it does have an advantage in size when compared to the 15gb of free space that Microsoft recommends for Windows Vista or the 1.5gb recommended for Windows XP.
I think we can both agree that a smaller OS will normally run faster and perform better than a larger OS with more loaded default services and background applications.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq
Adnihilo
Beorn Judge's Edge
Somnulus
Perfect Black
----------------------
Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2
Everquest / Everquest 2
Anarchy Online
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Star Wars Galaxies
Matrix Online
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
City of Heroes
You made many good points here, AgtSmith, and it appears that we agree on the majority of the Apple OSX vs. Windows issues.
I just wanted to reply to this one point; I have Ubuntu 6.06 on CD-R, weighing in at 698mb and it runs like a champ when I just feel like playing around with an alternate OS.
Ubuntu Download Page
Although I agree with you that the non-destructive demonstration is an important reason why Ubuntu is distributed in this fashion, it clearly does have a size advantage over Windows.
When you consider that it is only 689mb including OpenOffice, web browsing, media player and other basic OS operations and applications, that demonstrates to me that it does have an advantage in size when compared to the 15gb of free space that Microsoft recommends for Windows Vista or the 1.5gb recommended for Windows XP.
I think we can both agree that a smaller OS will normally run faster and perform better than a larger OS with more loaded default services and background applications.
I've never seen Ubuntu on a DVD. Just downloaded the 7.1 beta last night and it's also on a cd. Most other versions of linux I've downloaded have been DVDs though such as Fedora, Suse, and Debian. Now it's just a matter of getting one of them to actually install. As nice as Linux can be, it's still too much of a pain in the ass to be anything more than a screw around with in my free time OS.Size isn't necessary always an advantage, especially now that things like dual/quad/how ever many cores we can shove into this thing processors are available. When designed right performance will be scalable. To keep things apples to apples I'll compare XP vs. Vista. Put both on a pentium 4 and XP will usually run faster because it's designed to run on one core. Put them both on a dual core processor and in most cases it will even out or performance will go to Vista. Put them both on a quad and it will be rare that XP could keep up. It all depends on how the software is developed and what it's running on. The basic model I point out there with Vista is where every OS/program either is already going or will be in the future. Everything will be scalable. An Os could run faster with less hard drive space being used up but it's not a garauntee. Also, unlike some people seem to think, a number of windows process can be turned off. Since Windows is designed to be the Jack of all trades that it is the starting process are in most cases not the best selection, but it all depends on what you need.
member of imminst.org