<strong>Nothing you say is new to us. Apple is selling hardware three times to cost of comparable x86 systems with a incomplete, slow, and bloated OS.
Most Mac users who have a brain have given up the arguement that Macs are in any significant way faster than comparable PC's one-third the cost and that OS X is undoubtedly superior to Win XP.
You're right that Apple's hardware isn't as fast as high-end Wintel hardware, but you're wrong about OS X.
OS X is vastly superior to Windows XP, and I'm not alone in thinking so. If and when Apple brings their hardware up to competitive levels, they will mop the floors with Wintels on both the software AND hardware fronts.
For now, I'm comfortable in knowing that my Powermac runs the best consumer operating system money can buy. It would be nice if Apple's hardware was more competitive but I think it will be soon enough. This situation cannot persist for long, either Apple's sales are doomed or Apple is destined for great new heights.
I think its more along the lines of braging rights or productivity. if i had a dual 2.4 p4 with all the top of the line goodies I am sure I could brag but I would not be as productive as I would with a dual 1Ghz
<strong>Correct, PSD is the extension for a Photoshop document. Years ago, I used to refer to anything Photoshop-related as "8BIM" and I organized folders with that nickname in it... funny that no one else understood why.
Do you? I'll bet Leonis does. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I always use
"PS" for Photoshop
"AI" for Adobe Illustrator
"AE" for After Effects
"C4D" for Cinema 4D
"LW" for Lightwave
"SI" for SoftImage
"P3D" for Pixels 3D
"3DS" for 3D Studio Max
"FCP" for Final Cut Pro
"DW" for Dreamweaver
"GL" for GoLive
"FW" for Fireworks
"MC" for Media Cleaner or Media Composer (Avid)
I have seen people using "AW" for Maya
PSD stands for PhotoShop Document. People will laugh at me hard if I am saying PSD as photoshop
<strong>You've been using Media Access Control since the early 90's? What's your point? </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's about the stupidest post I've ever seen here - you want to make someone look stupid, then give some good reasons, all you've done is call out "typo". Really smart.
Shut the fsck up about acronyms already! MAYA vs Maya? fsckin' nitwits. The point is that an Athlon box pisses on a Mac in everything. Sorry to say, but it's true. I have an Athlon XP 1700 runninn Win2000Pro, and it embarrasses my DP800 PowerMac up and down the line. Mac OS X is still embarrassingly slow. Yeah, I know it's still a work in progress, but how about some progress in speed? And about "wait until Macs get comprable hardware to pc's"? When do you suppose that will happen? "Considering the performance gap is getting wider instead of narrower, I expect Apple to close the gap, oh, say, NEVER. This is why I'm no longer a shareholder and I've started using a Windows box along with my Macs. Oh - that Athlon box I'm talking about - it cost me less than $500 shipped to my door. Apple is lucky to have even a 3.4% market share, considering the shit state of hardware and a piss-slow OS X.
Yes it does, and I already have. I wish Apple would give me something more, but it doesn't look like it will happen. And if you smell poop, that's our ultra-modern 133 MHz front side bus just tearin' it up.
<strong>I think its more along the lines of braging rights or productivity. if i had a dual 2.4 p4 with all the top of the line goodies I am sure I could brag but I would not be as productive as I would with a dual 1Ghz
Mac and a damn multibutton mouse</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is exactly the case. Apple sells 1. pretty plastic to get noticed 2. a quality usability experience to hook you 3. hardware which does the task to keep you busy.
It's a bit frustrating that they're not more agressive on their hardware such as the top-iMac not having a L3 cache or 133 mHz bus or not having moved to DDR on the tower series. I suspect this is because the Motorola roadmap is filled with potholes and want to be able to introduce in regular product cycles and reliably demonstrate improvement within their product line. Also they need to weigh the transition of MacOS 9 to MacOS X knowing a 64-bit transition isn't *that* far out. I'm sure Steve and Joe are very concerned about the growth of the Mac hardware and where it can go.
When will Apple "catch up"? Probably never--not in this 32-bit generation. That's fine. They're not competing with build-your-own computers anyway but brand hardware and competing on a slightly different field due to who chooses Macs which tend to be educators and creatives and so they direct their attention differently than Dell & others who really just package up the MS experience.
Apple's doing very well in executing their overall strategy. People get too caught up in "benchmarks". As long as the product performs to your expectations, and MOST tasks are limited by the user's pace not the hardware's abilities, there's no reason to obsess about benchmarks which tend to not translate to your real world computer useage. There are times like rendering, building or movie creation where speed matters and Apple's doing decently well in that regard. This is mostly a concern, that is it's Apple's biggest vulnerability, for the "Pro" line.
Could Apple correct this "lag" perhaps in the 64-bit era? Who knows. That's not a big deal so long as they remain "in the game" and keep selling the Apple experience. Renewing that Apple experience in the customer's mind is exactly what Steve did with AQUA and the original iMac (and later hardware designs).
This experience is enough to bring in NEW computer users & converts from Windows who have had enough of the Microsoft XPerience (which contrary to myth isn't so much unreliable--W2K, and presumably XP, *IS* reliable--or slow as just second-rate with little care for the user) while still leaving them with production shortages (witness our 4, 5, 6 week wait for an iMac earlier this year).
And, as someone who didn't use a Mac after mid-96 (an 8500-120, Sys 7.5.x), I must say MacOS 9 is TERRIBLE. MacOS X offers a superior, if still rough (the dock), experience. It's so good that Macintosh may well become my primary computing platform once we get Airport and a wireless hub in place. The VAIO desktop may go away entirely leaving a SONY VAIO notebook (which I chose over the pathetic 1st gen. snow iBook) and the 800MHz iMac.
<strong>Correct, PSD is the extension for a Photoshop document. Years ago, I used to refer to anything Photoshop-related as "8BIM" and I organized folders with that nickname in it... funny that no one else understood why.
Do you? I'll bet Leonis does. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Nothing you say is new to us. Apple is selling hardware three times to cost of comparable x86 systems with a incomplete, slow, and bloated OS.
Most Mac users who have a brain have given up the arguement that Macs are in any significant way faster than comparable PC's one-third the cost and that OS X is undoubtedly superior to Win XP.
<strong>Correct, PSD is the extension for a Photoshop document. Years ago, I used to refer to anything Photoshop-related as "8BIM" and I organized folders with that nickname in it... funny that no one else understood why.
Do you? I'll bet Leonis does. </strong><hr></blockquote>
that all may be the case but they're going to lose me a user if they don't get their act together hardware wise.
i just bought this new powerbook 550 g4 in november, and now i find out that its 16 mb of VRAM is insufficient to take advantage of the ridiculous Open-Gl driven interface in the next version OS X. well, is there a way to upgrade my vram? nope. so what can i do? sell my powerbook and get a new 667 powerbook?
why would i want to do that??? when obviously, OS XI will come out and require a 1 GHz G4? when obviously, it's slower than XP? and I'm having to buy all new software anyway, the new OS X versions of everything, and they're not any faster or better than their counterparts on OS 9... the only difference is that they run slower and use up more screen real estate. oh yeah, and they have more colorful buttons. and the rendering of postscript fonts onscreen is less accurate than under ATM Deluxe (which won't be coming out for OS X). i.e. Quartz blows.
meanwhile, I see my friends with Compaq and Dell laptops running XP, and it's much faster; in fact, it's lightning fast. and it's stable. so it has some security breaches -- it's not like i care about that stuff. it has photoshop and everything else, and since i'm going to have to buy new versions anyway, and since i would have to sell my powerbook and buy a new one anyway to take advantage of Extreme Quartz, why not buy a Windows laptop instead, since I can get a 1GZ machine running a much faster OS?
anybody want to convince me why i should stay with the mac platform ?? i've been a mac user since 1984, but i'm not stupid, and if apple has really lost its edge, i'm outta here...
i just bought this new powerbook 550 g4 in november, and now i find out that its 16 mb of VRAM is insufficient to take advantage of the ridiculous Open-Gl driven interface in the next version OS X. well, is there a way to upgrade my vram? nope. so what can i do? sell my powerbook and get a new 667 powerbook?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you install Jaguar on your 550 and enjoy all the other new features, the vastly improved Finder and the (estimated) 20% across-the-board speed increase. Quartz Extreme is an extra benefit, not a basic system requirement.
You know, there are very few things I dislike more than idle threats. If you wish to leave the platform, fine. They're just computers. But don't expect me to perform like this is your own personal dog and pony show. You have a free will. You do your homework, you weight the options (there are options), you decide for yourself what's right for you. Convince yourself.
i just bought this new powerbook 550 g4 in november, and now i find out that its 16 mb of VRAM is insufficient to take advantage of the ridiculous Open-Gl driven interface in the next version OS X<hr></blockquote>
Actually, the Radeon 16MB AGP2x card in your powerbook 550 is enough to take advantage of Quartz Extreme. You need 32MB for optimal performance.
One thing on the speed of Mac OS vs. Windows. It's not all about the hardware. Your Athlon may indeed out perform your G4, but then again, You are comparing a G4 450 and G4 2x1000 to an Athlon 2100+ (which just hit the mainstream), that has DDR333 Ram (which very few people are using, most people right now who have DDR are using DDR200 or 266). Everyone knows that the Ram is the last real bottleneck that Apple hasn't dealt with. There are also your hard drives to think of. Are they all 7200 RPM?
But none of that is really the point.
On my mac, I find things easier to do. A lot of things that take a few steps to do in Windows take me one or two in Mac OS. This also goes for the Apps running in Mac OS.
One of my co-workers is taking classes to do with Web development and network administration. He is totally PC oriented, not too big on Macs. In one of his courses he ended up learning DreamWeaver and Photoshop on a Mac instead of a PC, and he said "It was different than the Photoshop and Dreamweaver on my PC, it was easier. Less steps involved in most things, and it seemed a little daunting on my PC".
So what is the point to my longwinded ramblings? Even though you may take a hit on processing speed, you will probably find that due to the better UI and intuitive ways of doing things, your actual prodcutivity up. Just my opinion.
I wish all you 'Apple is right no matter what' fools could see how silly you sound. The dude has as much right to voice his concerns as you all have the right to hail your God Jobs as the second coming of Bill Gates. Philter didn't put any of you down personally so grow up and stop this nonsense.
I am sorry, but there is nothing worse than whining cause you didn't hold out for a machine that will support bleeding edge features of a modern OS in development.
That IS exactly what is happening here. Besides if there were any content to the argument besides opinion (MISINFORMED opinion at that), it would be stomachable.
But idle threats to leave the platform is whining. Quartz sucks? Lets see XP pull off things that Quartz has offered to the OS X experience. Quartz is phenominal. Ahead of its time? Perhaps, as it is clunky on POS Macs. I for one believe that Jaguar will remedy much of this griping.
Anyone who compares two integers together for a comparison of systems and their usefulness is 1) missing the point, and 2) apparently not too secure in their own reasons for using a Mac in the first place.
I know why I use a Mac. It ain't a secret why. Ask anyone.
If he doesn't, well, I refer you to my first statement about doors and asses.
Comments
<strong>Nothing you say is new to us. Apple is selling hardware three times to cost of comparable x86 systems with a incomplete, slow, and bloated OS.
Most Mac users who have a brain have given up the arguement that Macs are in any significant way faster than comparable PC's one-third the cost and that OS X is undoubtedly superior to Win XP.
[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right that Apple's hardware isn't as fast as high-end Wintel hardware, but you're wrong about OS X.
OS X is vastly superior to Windows XP, and I'm not alone in thinking so. If and when Apple brings their hardware up to competitive levels, they will mop the floors with Wintels on both the software AND hardware fronts.
For now, I'm comfortable in knowing that my Powermac runs the best consumer operating system money can buy. It would be nice if Apple's hardware was more competitive but I think it will be soon enough. This situation cannot persist for long, either Apple's sales are doomed or Apple is destined for great new heights.
Mac and a damn multibutton mouse
<strong>Correct, PSD is the extension for a Photoshop document. Years ago, I used to refer to anything Photoshop-related as "8BIM" and I organized folders with that nickname in it... funny that no one else understood why.
Do you? I'll bet Leonis does.
Well, I always use
"PS" for Photoshop
"AI" for Adobe Illustrator
"AE" for After Effects
"C4D" for Cinema 4D
"LW" for Lightwave
"SI" for SoftImage
"P3D" for Pixels 3D
"3DS" for 3D Studio Max
"FCP" for Final Cut Pro
"DW" for Dreamweaver
"GL" for GoLive
"FW" for Fireworks
"MC" for Media Cleaner or Media Composer (Avid)
I have seen people using "AW" for Maya
PSD stands for PhotoShop Document. People will laugh at me hard if I am saying PSD as photoshop
[ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
<strong>You've been using Media Access Control since the early 90's? What's your point?
That's about the stupidest post I've ever seen here - you want to make someone look stupid, then give some good reasons, all you've done is call out "typo". Really smart.
[ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: rambo47 ]</p>
Here's a little advice, free of charge: go buy one, be happy, stop bitching and throwing poop around here.
[ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: rambo47 ]</p>
<strong>I think its more along the lines of braging rights or productivity. if i had a dual 2.4 p4 with all the top of the line goodies I am sure I could brag but I would not be as productive as I would with a dual 1Ghz
Mac and a damn multibutton mouse</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is exactly the case. Apple sells 1. pretty plastic to get noticed 2. a quality usability experience to hook you 3. hardware which does the task to keep you busy.
It's a bit frustrating that they're not more agressive on their hardware such as the top-iMac not having a L3 cache or 133 mHz bus or not having moved to DDR on the tower series. I suspect this is because the Motorola roadmap is filled with potholes and want to be able to introduce in regular product cycles and reliably demonstrate improvement within their product line. Also they need to weigh the transition of MacOS 9 to MacOS X knowing a 64-bit transition isn't *that* far out. I'm sure Steve and Joe are very concerned about the growth of the Mac hardware and where it can go.
When will Apple "catch up"? Probably never--not in this 32-bit generation. That's fine. They're not competing with build-your-own computers anyway but brand hardware and competing on a slightly different field due to who chooses Macs which tend to be educators and creatives and so they direct their attention differently than Dell & others who really just package up the MS experience.
Apple's doing very well in executing their overall strategy. People get too caught up in "benchmarks". As long as the product performs to your expectations, and MOST tasks are limited by the user's pace not the hardware's abilities, there's no reason to obsess about benchmarks which tend to not translate to your real world computer useage. There are times like rendering, building or movie creation where speed matters and Apple's doing decently well in that regard. This is mostly a concern, that is it's Apple's biggest vulnerability, for the "Pro" line.
Could Apple correct this "lag" perhaps in the 64-bit era? Who knows. That's not a big deal so long as they remain "in the game" and keep selling the Apple experience. Renewing that Apple experience in the customer's mind is exactly what Steve did with AQUA and the original iMac (and later hardware designs).
This experience is enough to bring in NEW computer users & converts from Windows who have had enough of the Microsoft XPerience (which contrary to myth isn't so much unreliable--W2K, and presumably XP, *IS* reliable--or slow as just second-rate with little care for the user) while still leaving them with production shortages (witness our 4, 5, 6 week wait for an iMac earlier this year).
And, as someone who didn't use a Mac after mid-96 (an 8500-120, Sys 7.5.x), I must say MacOS 9 is TERRIBLE. MacOS X offers a superior, if still rough (the dock), experience. It's so good that Macintosh may well become my primary computing platform once we get Airport and a wireless hub in place. The VAIO desktop may go away entirely leaving a SONY VAIO notebook (which I chose over the pathetic 1st gen. snow iBook) and the 800MHz iMac.
[ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: dru ]</p>
<strong>Correct, PSD is the extension for a Photoshop document. Years ago, I used to refer to anything Photoshop-related as "8BIM" and I organized folders with that nickname in it... funny that no one else understood why.
Do you? I'll bet Leonis does.
8 Bit Image Map?
No idea..
BTW, doesn´t "native OSX version" means Cocoa version of a app?
If that is the case, you have not run any of them programs native.
Of course, I may have mixed up the meaning of that word.
At least that's what i think it means.
<strong>Nothing you say is new to us. Apple is selling hardware three times to cost of comparable x86 systems with a incomplete, slow, and bloated OS.
Most Mac users who have a brain have given up the arguement that Macs are in any significant way faster than comparable PC's one-third the cost and that OS X is undoubtedly superior to Win XP.
[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
OS X isn't slow on my machine and XP is an exercise in frustration most times I use it for anything more than menial tasks.
<strong>Correct, PSD is the extension for a Photoshop document. Years ago, I used to refer to anything Photoshop-related as "8BIM" and I organized folders with that nickname in it... funny that no one else understood why.
Do you? I'll bet Leonis does.
I know why.
i just bought this new powerbook 550 g4 in november, and now i find out that its 16 mb of VRAM is insufficient to take advantage of the ridiculous Open-Gl driven interface in the next version OS X. well, is there a way to upgrade my vram? nope. so what can i do? sell my powerbook and get a new 667 powerbook?
why would i want to do that??? when obviously, OS XI will come out and require a 1 GHz G4? when obviously, it's slower than XP? and I'm having to buy all new software anyway, the new OS X versions of everything, and they're not any faster or better than their counterparts on OS 9... the only difference is that they run slower and use up more screen real estate. oh yeah, and they have more colorful buttons. and the rendering of postscript fonts onscreen is less accurate than under ATM Deluxe (which won't be coming out for OS X). i.e. Quartz blows.
meanwhile, I see my friends with Compaq and Dell laptops running XP, and it's much faster; in fact, it's lightning fast. and it's stable. so it has some security breaches -- it's not like i care about that stuff. it has photoshop and everything else, and since i'm going to have to buy new versions anyway, and since i would have to sell my powerbook and buy a new one anyway to take advantage of Extreme Quartz, why not buy a Windows laptop instead, since I can get a 1GZ machine running a much faster OS?
anybody want to convince me why i should stay with the mac platform ?? i've been a mac user since 1984, but i'm not stupid, and if apple has really lost its edge, i'm outta here...
<strong>
i just bought this new powerbook 550 g4 in november, and now i find out that its 16 mb of VRAM is insufficient to take advantage of the ridiculous Open-Gl driven interface in the next version OS X. well, is there a way to upgrade my vram? nope. so what can i do? sell my powerbook and get a new 667 powerbook?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you install Jaguar on your 550 and enjoy all the other new features, the vastly improved Finder and the (estimated) 20% across-the-board speed increase. Quartz Extreme is an extra benefit, not a basic system requirement.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Besides, your ignorance with respect to your argument is hurting my head.
Go have fun with Bill and your newly found viruses.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
i just bought this new powerbook 550 g4 in november, and now i find out that its 16 mb of VRAM is insufficient to take advantage of the ridiculous Open-Gl driven interface in the next version OS X<hr></blockquote>
Actually, the Radeon 16MB AGP2x card in your powerbook 550 is enough to take advantage of Quartz Extreme. You need 32MB for optimal performance.
One thing on the speed of Mac OS vs. Windows. It's not all about the hardware. Your Athlon may indeed out perform your G4, but then again, You are comparing a G4 450 and G4 2x1000 to an Athlon 2100+ (which just hit the mainstream), that has DDR333 Ram (which very few people are using, most people right now who have DDR are using DDR200 or 266). Everyone knows that the Ram is the last real bottleneck that Apple hasn't dealt with. There are also your hard drives to think of. Are they all 7200 RPM?
But none of that is really the point.
On my mac, I find things easier to do. A lot of things that take a few steps to do in Windows take me one or two in Mac OS. This also goes for the Apps running in Mac OS.
One of my co-workers is taking classes to do with Web development and network administration. He is totally PC oriented, not too big on Macs. In one of his courses he ended up learning DreamWeaver and Photoshop on a Mac instead of a PC, and he said "It was different than the Photoshop and Dreamweaver on my PC, it was easier. Less steps involved in most things, and it seemed a little daunting on my PC".
So what is the point to my longwinded ramblings? Even though you may take a hit on processing speed, you will probably find that due to the better UI and intuitive ways of doing things, your actual prodcutivity up. Just my opinion.
--PB
<strong>philter...
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Besides, your ignorance with respect to your argument is hurting my head.
Go have fun with Bill and your newly found viruses.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I wish all you 'Apple is right no matter what' fools could see how silly you sound. The dude has as much right to voice his concerns as you all have the right to hail your God Jobs as the second coming of Bill Gates. Philter didn't put any of you down personally so grow up and stop this nonsense.
That IS exactly what is happening here. Besides if there were any content to the argument besides opinion (MISINFORMED opinion at that), it would be stomachable.
But idle threats to leave the platform is whining. Quartz sucks? Lets see XP pull off things that Quartz has offered to the OS X experience. Quartz is phenominal. Ahead of its time? Perhaps, as it is clunky on POS Macs. I for one believe that Jaguar will remedy much of this griping.
Anyone who compares two integers together for a comparison of systems and their usefulness is 1) missing the point, and 2) apparently not too secure in their own reasons for using a Mac in the first place.
I know why I use a Mac. It ain't a secret why. Ask anyone.
If he doesn't, well, I refer you to my first statement about doors and asses.
whining != constructive, sound argument