A buying quandry (Mac vs. Intel)
Me
After many years of being a staunch Mac advocate, I find myself having
a rough time deciding which type of computer, Mac or Windows, to buy
for my personal use. I am posting this question in a few different groups
in order to request some different perspectives on this question.
Right now, I have a Mac Performa 6400/200. This Mac, which I am using
now has served me well during the past three years or so since I bought
it, but now, I need a more powerful computer at home to help me with my
plans to start up my own side business.
I recently started using Photoshop 5.5 and I am thoroughly impressed
with this software, but upgrading my Mac to run it effectively would
not be a wise investment. This is what is hastening my decision to
get a new computer. A fully loaded PC with 128mb of RAM is going to
set me back a lot less money than a Mac.
What I am uncertain of is how well Photoshop 5.5 runs in a Windows 98
environment, compared to the Mac version. I use both Windows 2000 and
Mac OS 8.6 at work, but I have no experience with Photoshop under MS
Windows and only a few hours worth of experience using it on a Mac. If
anyone who has used Photoshop 5.5 under both the Mac OS and Win 98
environments could compare the two, I would be very appreciative!
The other apps that I want to run are ones which I have used quite a
bit under both environments. As far as I can tell, MS Office apps such
as Word and Powerpoint work equally well in both environments. In favor
of MS Windows is the availability of Frontpage 2000 and also some stock
investment analysis tools, and more public domain software and cheaper
peripherals. As such, I am having a tough time justifying the purchase of
a Mac G4 400Mhrtz when I can buy a much faster machine with a monitor for
about the same memory that also has a larger hard disk.
So if anyone has some comments to make regarding a comparison between
the two platforms, I would very much appreciate it. A few years ago, it
was no question in my mind that the Mac OS was far and away the more user
friendly, but user friendliness is not at the top of my list of priorities
as far as this purchase goes. I simply want the most powerful system I can
get for the money with a good upgrade path so I can run resource hog type
software such as Photoshop.
Thanks.
Santiago
<Stuff 'bout Photoshop on Mac and Windows snipped>
You might want to go read the just-posted article at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/04
/17/BU1016CH.DTL comparing Photoshop 5.5 running on an Athlon, a Pentium
III, and a G4 (with the latter being the clear winner when using AltiVec
acceleration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
santiago@@cs..utexas..edu http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/santiago/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I had invented a new color the other day,
but it turned out to be a pigment of my imagination.
Paul Angstrom
<sant...@nastyPinkCannedMeat.cs.utexas.edu> wrote in message
<santiago-AD0D14...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu>:
>In article <38FBA677...@home.com>, Me <sr...@home.com> wrote:
>
><Stuff 'bout Photoshop on Mac and Windows snipped>
>
> You might want to go read the just-posted article at
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/04
>/17/BU1016CH.DTL comparing Photoshop 5.5 running on an Athlon, a Pentium
>III, and a G4 (with the latter being the clear winner when using AltiVec
>acceleration).
Too bad they didn't put together their own system. Here's what I would
have put up against the G4 for far less money to spend:
$261 - ASUS P2B-D *dual* CPU motherboard
$1380 - Two (2) Coppermine Pentium III 800 MHz CPUs
$250 - 256 MB PC133 SDRAM
$265 - 40 GB 7200 RPM hard drive
$179 - Matrox G400 Max Dual-Head graphics card 32 MB
$10 - keyboard
$22 - Microsoft Intellipoint wheelmouse
$40 - 56k internal modem
$37 - Sound Blaster Live
$97 - Antec full tower case w/ 300 watt PS
$30 - speakers
$20 - 3.5" floppy
$65 - Zip drive
$40 - 40x CDROM
---------------------
Total cost: $2696 for a dual Pentium III 800 MHz system.
For $275 each, and $100 in cooling equipment, you can replace the 800
MHz CPU's with two Pentium III 600e slocket chips, and easily overclock
them to at least 800 MHz, and possibly as high as 900 MHz. Total cost
for this rig then drops to a mere $1966 for a *dual* 800 to 900 MHz
Pentium III system. Compare that to the cost of a similarly accessorized
256 MB G4 system.
This system is *far* less expensive and will absolutely blow away any
single-processor 1 GHz processor system in Photoshop and 3DS Max. Also
unlike the G4, this dual-CPU system can use pre-emptive multitasking and
run other tasks while rendering complex images.
(Note that the earlier mentioned dual 800 MHz system can likewise be
overclocked to 1 GHz.)
When looking at comparisons such as the one cited earlier, keep in mind
that mainstream brand-name manufacturers such as Hewlett-Packard
typically use mediocre components when building their machines; you'll
get far better performance if you build a machine to your own spec.
I'm almost sure that the Hewlett-Packard 1 GHz machine used either the
i820 or VIA chipsets which are actually *slower* than the older BX
chipset used by the ASUS P2-D.
Jerry Kindall
<angs...@no.spam.please> wrote:
> When looking at comparisons such as the one cited earlier, keep in
> mind that mainstream brand-name manufacturers such as Hewlett-Packard
> typically use mediocre components when building their machines;
> you'll get far better performance if you build a machine to your own
> spec.
Well, sure, but who the hell wants to build their own computer? It's
the year 2000, for God's sake; making your own is _so_ 1970s. It's like
suggesting we all build our own cars because we'll get better
performance for our dollars. It may be true, but who gives a fart?
There is absolutely no reason for someone whose primary business is
illustration or design to have to know enough about computers to put
together a machine from scratch. You build it yourself and you also
have all the support hassles that someone else would normally take care
of for you.
The article is about what you can do with off-the-shelf, name-brand
equipment -- you know, the kind most companies use -- not what a geek
can jury-rig on a shoestring budget using bleeding-edge techniques.
--
Jerry Kindall <mailto:je...@manual.com> Technical Writing, etc.
Manual Labor <http://www.manual.com/> We Wrote the Book!
View my digital photographs @ http://homepage.mac.com/kindall/album.html
Ernie Bin
I couldn't picture having to work with a creative process such as
photoshop on a generic off the shelf machine. - it'd be like using a mac
;)
I haven't seen a pre-made system I'd be proud to own yet. As for support
hassles, I like the fact that I can fix my computer faster than a
company could send out an on-site tech, and it only takes about an hour
to assemble a computer from parts.
I just think that graphic designers should learn their tools a bit
better.
Helmut P. Einfalt
Jerry Kindall schrieb in Nachricht ...
>Well, sure, but who the hell wants to build their own computer? It's
>the year 2000, for God's sake; making your own is _so_ 1970s. It's like
>suggesting we all build our own cars because we'll get better
>performance for our dollars. It may be true, but who gives a fart?
Nay - that ain't true. What you suggest is good ole' Hery Ford's attitude:
"They can have it in any color they want as long as it is black".
Most off-the-shelf 'puters are simply not designed for serious graphics
work -- not enough RAM or slow processor or the wrong HDs or whatsoever.
They are General Purpose machines, and to get any of them working the way
you want you'll have to customize them anyway.
When H. Ford delivered his Tin Lizzy, many garages started changing it,
adjusting it to the need of cosuomers who were *not* happy neough with the
standard off-the-shelf construction (yes, I know, they don't fit on
shelves...). Among these updaters were the brothers Chevrolet....
What the poster suggested is to make a selection of what you want to do with
the machine, and any decent computer shop will be able to put together
exactly that machine -- no need for somebody to turn a single screw.
Helmut
grasshopper
will assemble and burn it in for $50 or less.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:53:31 GMT, Jerry Kindall <je...@munged.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <38fe45dc...@news.remarq.com>, Paul Angstrom
><angs...@no.spam.please> wrote:
>
>> When looking at comparisons such as the one cited earlier, keep in
>> mind that mainstream brand-name manufacturers such as Hewlett-Packard
>> typically use mediocre components when building their machines;
>> you'll get far better performance if you build a machine to your own
>> spec.
>
>Well, sure, but who the hell wants to build their own computer? It's
>the year 2000, for God's sake; making your own is _so_ 1970s. It's like
>suggesting we all build our own cars because we'll get better
>performance for our dollars. It may be true, but who gives a fart?
>
Jerry Kindall
<hp.ei...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Jerry Kindall schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >Well, sure, but who the hell wants to build their own computer?
> >It's the year 2000, for God's sake; making your own is _so_ 1970s.
> >It's like suggesting we all build our own cars because we'll get
> >better performance for our dollars. It may be true, but who gives a
>
> Most off-the-shelf 'puters are simply not designed for serious
> graphics work -- not enough RAM or slow processor or the wrong HDs or
> whatsoever. They are General Purpose machines, and to get any of them
> working the way you want you'll have to customize them anyway.
>
> When H. Ford delivered his Tin Lizzy, many garages started changing
> it, adjusting it to the need of cosuomers who were *not* happy neough
> with the standard off-the-shelf construction (yes, I know, they don't
> fit on shelves...). Among these updaters were the brothers
> Chevrolet....
And Chevrolet is still producing aftermarket upgrades for Ford cars even
to this day, eh? No, the market changes. So must the computer market
-- so it has, to a certain extent, but it will change even further.
> What the poster suggested is to make a selection of what you want to
> do with the machine, and any decent computer shop will be able to put
> together exactly that machine -- no need for somebody to turn a
> single screw.
Well, that's great, until you need it fixed and find out the computer
shop has gone out of business, or you move and suddenly your support is
2000 miles away. And, of course, you have to factor in dealer markup --
they're going to want to make some money on the system, so you'll pay a
little more than the raw-parts quote given earlier. Maybe significantly
more if they provide any kind of service or support. Oh yes, don't
forget to buy a copy of Windows for the machine -- funny how the PC
builders always leave that out. If you build the machine yourself
you'll need to spend, oh, another couple hundred bucks for Win2K, I
suppose -- probably a better choice than 98.
Yes, assuming you have a certain level of computer proficiency, you can
educate yourself on the various parts of PCs and how to put them
together, and pat yourself on the back for putting together a screamer
of a machine at a fantastic price. Then the first time something goes
wrong you can spend more time educating yourself on DLLs, IRQs, and the
like. Maybe it doesn't bring your billable work to a complete halt, but
your productivity goes way down as you hunt for the magic incantation
that will make that spurious alert go away. Windows _is_ getting better
at stuff like that, but you still need to know way too much about
computers just to keep a Windows box running.
It's not as if I don't have a Windows box myself; it's exactly the kind
of custom-built machine you're recommending here (although a few years
old and designed to be cheap rather than for sheer performance -- I
don't use it for graphics work). A friend of a friend, who runs a
computer shop, built it. Out of the box, the parallel port had an IRQ
conflict with the built-in sound hardware. I didn't particularly need
either so disabled them both in the BIOS. (I can't think of any reason
why a graphic artist should even have to know what BIOS means.) The
thing still crashes at least once a day doing non-challenging stuff like
MS Word and Web surfing. "Yeah, we found out those motherboards are
crap," the guy told me when I told him what the machine was doing. (Too
bad he didn't bother to find that out before he sold several hundred of
them to local businesses. Tellingly, however, the companies he sold
them to have not complained. Their IS guys just expect these kinds of
problems as a matter of course; it's really no worse a problem than the
issues they deal with on other PCs.) He suggested I buy a new
motherboard for the machine, which is a great suggestion -- if only I'd
known, when I'd bought the machine, that I wasn't actually done buying
it when I thought I was.
Now, if I'd been depending on this machine for my livelihood, rather
than running some software on it to be documented and playing the
occasional game of Minesweeper (oh, a PC makes a fine CD player, too) I
would have made the guy eat it. But in any case, it seems to me you
need to know as much about the machine as the shop building it to make
sure something like this doesn't happen to you. At the very least, you
have to be able to tell flakiness caused by conflicting hardware from
the general flaky behavior of Windows.
Artists should be concerned about _art._ They should no more have to
worry about the myriad technical details of their computer than they
should have to worry about different brands of acrylic paint conflicting
and causing their paintbrush to crash. If someone knows enough about
computers to build and support their own machine, they could probably be
making more money in IS than in the graphics business.
In an informal study of several graphics arts colleges I just pulled out
of my ass, not one included a course on building and troubleshooting
your own computer as a requirement for graduation. I have never seen a
designer include specs of the computers they'd built in their portfolio.
Curious, that colleges would fail to teach such an essential skill to
their students or that artists would fail to mention it when looking for
work.
In the long term, building a PC yourself only saves you money if you
fail to value your own time. Supposing you use a Mac and know more or
less how it works, then say the concepts you will need to learn about to
build your own PC will take you twenty hours to learn. Or say you
decide to pay a little bit extra to have a shop build one for you, and
you only need ten hours of study to make sure you're getting what you
want. Suppose your billable hourly rate is $75. OK, so, for your first
PC you've spent $750-$1500 of your time in addition to the cost of the
machine. Of course, that's a sunk cost; for your next PC you'll spend a
lot less of your own time, you'll probably just pick up the phone and
order another from the same guys that built this one for you, no
incremental cost. At worst you'll have to spend a couple hours on
newsgroups or something asking for recommendations on what to buy for
yourself.
Then there's support. Let's say on a Mac you spend forty hours a year
troubleshooting the machine. Let's say on a PC you spend just 50% more,
which seems more than reasonable -- 60 hours instead of 40. Boom,
there's $1500. (Studies _have_ been done to determine PC support costs
in a corporate environment. I'm intentionally being conservative here.
Even if you support your machine yourself, you have to assume it costs
about the same in terms of your time. The only way it comes out cheaper
is if you don't value your time, and if that's the case, what business
do you have trying to charge other people for it?)
Suddenly the Mac isn't looking so bad.
And when you realize that the top of the Mac line always has a premium
price and that you can get 90% of the speed at 75% of the cost by
getting a 450 MHz G4 instead of a 500, and still smoke any
single-processor Pentium for Photoshop work and not have to become a
computer geek in order to do it, it looks even better.
Now, if you're _already_ a computer geek, fine, buy whatever you want.
The journey is the reward and all that. I'm well aware of the rush and
the personal satisfaction you can get from mastering technology and I'm
not knocking it at all. I share it to a great extent, thought not as
much as I did when I was younger. But most people, and indeed most
artists, are not like us. Even the majority of people who want a fast
car just buy a stock model from a well-known manufacturer, and they take
it to Jiffy Lube to get the oil changed just like the rest of us. Only
the real car geeks get aftermarket performance enhancements or learn how
to service their machines themselves.
Now, the personal computer is about twenty years old. There is no more
excuse in the year 2000 for a computer user to _have_ to know how their
machine works in order to achieve market-leading performance than there
is for a driver to _have_ to know how internal combustion engines work.
That users still have to understand the difference between hard disk and
RAM -- that they still have to explicitly copy files from one to another
or _lose_all_their_work_ -- is a tremendous failure of the entire
industry IMHO.
Enough ranting for now, I think. Time to go make some billables... <g>
Paul Angstrom
When looking at comparisons such as the one cited earlier, keep in mind
that mainstream brand-name manufacturers such as Hewlett-Packard
typically use mediocre components when building their machines; you'll
get far better performance if you build a machine to your own spec.
I'm almost sure that the Hewlett-Packard 1 GHz machine used either the
David Roknich
I find myself in a similar situation.
I've found that over the years, the actual functioning of
programs like Photoshop and PageMaker has become
increasingly simlar on the 2 competing platforms.
It's true as other point out here that the raw processing
power of the current Macs beats the competetion hands down-
in this respect you get what you pay for. You may well find that
you'll need that 128 meg of RAM on a "fully loaded PC"
whereas on a mac, you could get by on half as much for the same
level of performance. The difference between platforms used to be much
greater.
Even now, you may need a PIII to match the performance of your current Mac.
A "full-loaded" PIII with 128 meg of RAM.
I'm using a 266Mhz PII with 128 meg of RAM right now, and it doesn't always
outshine my old 80 Mhz Mac PowerPC.
If your main concern is Photoshop, the mac gives you more bang for the buck.
This has been well documented over the years.
btw:
Media forum and live video at:
http://media.virtualrealo.com
I'm currently working on a 30minute art video which I'll soon be posting in
RealVideo
format. I'll consider posting samples of you experimental web videos on my
site.
Contact me or Stephen via the forum at the above URL
Dave
David Roknich
I share your sense of pride- but I use a mac.
I've been able to customize my old mac 5200 so that
it plays MPEGS better than most stock PCs and my
80Mhz PPC so it almost matches my custom-hacked
PII-266. Once I install the G3 accelerator in the PPC,
it will blow the PC clear out of my house. The price
of the G3 upgrade has dropped to less then $250.
The joy of installing it, and pride in ownership is just as
you describe, and furthermore, for mutlimedia applications
the mac platform (begat from the Motorola-IBM hardware)
has always and continues to offer more bang for the buck.
David
Ernie Bin wrote:
> The sense of pride I have working on my custom-built machine is immense.
> I couldn't picture having to work with a creative process such as
> photoshop on a generic off the shelf machine. - it'd be like using a mac
> ;)
>
> I haven't seen a pre-made system I'd be proud to own yet. As for support
> hassles, I like the fact that I can fix my computer faster than a
> company could send out an on-site tech, and it only takes about an hour
> to assemble a computer from parts.
>
> I just think that graphic designers should learn their tools a bit
> better.
>
> Jerry Kindall wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, sure, but who the hell wants to build their own computer? It's
> > the year 2000, for God's sake; making your own is _so_ 1970s. It's like
> > suggesting we all build our own cars because we'll get better
noS...@hotmail.com
>If your main concern is Photoshop, the mac gives you more bang for the buck.
>This has been well documented over the years.
>
98.
grasshopper
And enjoy your new Mac.Wow! When they are souped up they are really
expensive.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:10:22 +0800, ACE in hungry
<wolfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Paul Angstrom wrote:
>
>> $261 - ASUS P2B-D *dual* CPU motherboard
>> $1380 - Two (2) Coppermine Pentium III 800 MHz CPUs
>> $250 - 256 MB PC133 SDRAM
>> $265 - 40 GB 7200 RPM hard drive
>> $179 - Matrox G400 Max Dual-Head graphics card 32 MB
>> $10 - keyboard
>> $22 - Microsoft Intellipoint wheelmouse
>> $40 - 56k internal modem
>> $37 - Sound Blaster Live
>> $97 - Antec full tower case w/ 300 watt PS
>> $30 - speakers
>> $20 - 3.5" floppy
>> $65 - Zip drive
>> $40 - 40x CDROM
>> ---------------------
>
>Mmm..., let me guess: you must write some OS by yourself, because you do not
>have to buy a Windows NT/2000 in favor of your dual processors, which cost...,
>oh, I find my invoice (for my new Athlon), another 230 bucks. And you do not
>need Quicktime 4.0 pro? Mmm..., I can understand this, but the registration
>fee along with every G4 is 30 bucks. Oh, right, about the Ethernet card, I
>think it cost another 30 bucks. Oh, yes, I haven't bought a firewire PCI card,
>which should make my Photoshop run faster than Ultra 66. And I found some
>Adaptec 8920 with $268 in Yahoo shopping. Did I mention DVD-RAM? I think not.
>Oh! I can not find any price on the web, so let's guess that it may be $200
>more than a $40 CDROM.
>
>I think I may lose some peripheral, but I have no time to list them. G4 has no
>floppy, and I think ATI RAGE 128 do not cost $179, maybe just about $109, so I
>should add these bucks to G4. So, let's sum up them: $3,454 (dual PIII 800) to
>$3589 (G4 500:$3499+floppy+$179-$109). Ok, I think Mac user is still dumb to
>buy a one-CPU G4 500, because G4 500 is definitely slower than Dual-PIII 800
>when running Photoshop.
>
>I today get a training contract about US$12,000 with a design company. My most
>advantage than other competitors is my acquaintance with Macintosh, a rare
>qualification in Taiwan. So, to my iMac: a G4 500 will soon accompany you!
>
>Wolf Ding, the Happy
>Drop ppp to reply
>
>
Paul Angstrom
<rok...@virtualrealo.com> wrote in message
<38FDCFEE...@virtualrealo.com>:
>Even now, you may need a PIII to match the performance of your current Mac.
>A "full-loaded" PIII with 128 meg of RAM.
>I'm using a 266Mhz PII with 128 meg of RAM right now, and it doesn't always
>outshine my old 80 Mhz Mac PowerPC.
Out of curiosity, what motherboard and chipset are you using on your
PII-266? What OS are you using? If you are using Win 9x for Photoshop,
you should limit the disk cache to no more than 32 MB. By default, Win
9x inefficiently attempts to use *all* memory in a dynamic disc cache.
This tends to lead to unnecessary disk swapping in many situations.
If you're going to compare "bang for the buck," you should compare what
kind of machine you can get for the same price on each platform. For
example, compare a $2000 PC to a $2000 Mac. Also keep in mind that if
you order a custom PC to spec, you will get much better performance than
from a stock mass-marketed PC. A PC running on Win 9x or Win NT can
pre-emptively multitask, while a Mac cannot (OS X is supposed to finally
allow that however).
Obviously I favor PC's, but will readily acknowledge that they are not
for everyone. For those who don't want to deal with the innards of their
computer and/or OS, the Mac is ideal if they are willing to spend extra
for the convenience. Macs are undeniably far easier to set up out of the
box and don't have to deal with the potential hardware and software
conflicts inherent in the vastly larger pool of options available to the
PC market.
I wish that PC manufacturers put the same level of attention to hardware
layout and case design that the designers at Apple did with their G3/G4
line.
However, for those who are looking for a good bargain and are willing to
learn a little about how their computer works, the PC is a good choice.
Paul Angstrom
<cybe...@xyzhushmail.com> wrote in message
<mR3+OBqOdS5YdO...@4ax.com>:
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:10:22 +0800, ACE in hungry
><wolfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul Angstrom wrote:
>>
>>> $261 - ASUS P2B-D *dual* CPU motherboard
>>> $1380 - Two (2) Coppermine Pentium III 800 MHz CPUs
>>> $250 - 256 MB PC133 SDRAM
>>> $265 - 40 GB 7200 RPM hard drive
>>> $179 - Matrox G400 Max Dual-Head graphics card 32 MB
>>> $10 - keyboard
>>> $22 - Microsoft Intellipoint wheelmouse
>>> $40 - 56k internal modem
>>> $37 - Sound Blaster Live
>>> $97 - Antec full tower case w/ 300 watt PS
>>> $30 - speakers
>>> $20 - 3.5" floppy
>>> $65 - Zip drive
>>> $40 - 40x CDROM
>>> ---------------------
>>
[snip]
>>I think I may lose some peripheral, but I have no time to list them. G4 has no
>>floppy, and I think ATI RAGE 128 do not cost $179, maybe just about $109, so I
>>should add these bucks to G4. So, let's sum up them: $3,454 (dual PIII 800) to
>>$3589 (G4 500:$3499+floppy+$179-$109). Ok, I think Mac user is still dumb to
>>buy a one-CPU G4 500, because G4 500 is definitely slower than Dual-PIII 800
>>when running Photoshop.
You missed the text from my original message that the
$2696 dual Pentium III 800 MHz system can be overclocked to 1000 MHz (1
GHz) and that the $1966 dual Pentium III 600 MHz system can be
overclocked to 800 MHz.
Going by your calculations for additional purchases, a dual 600 MHz
system overclocked to 800 MHz would cost $2724 instead of $3454. By
comparison the single-CPU G4 500 MHz you cite would cost over $800 more.
BTW, a dual 600 MHz system overclocked to 800 MHz is actually faster
than a non-overclocked 800 MHz system due to the 133 MHz front-side bus.
>>I today get a training contract about US$12,000 with a design company.
Congratulations!
Helmut P. Einfalt
>> Among these updaters were the brothers
>> Chevrolet....
>And Chevrolet is still producing aftermarket upgrades for Ford cars even
>to this day, eh? No, the market changes. So must the computer market
>-- so it has, to a certain extent, but it will change even further.
Nope -- they aren't. But Henry Ford managed to set *their* business running
simply by not providing the variety users wanted.
Apple has contributed a lot to the uprise of all them clone makers (as has
IBM, for that matter), and with considerable success...
>> no need for somebody to turn a
>> single screw.
>Well, that's great, until you need it fixed and find out the computer
>shop has gone out of business, or you move and suddenly your support is
>2000 miles away. And, of course, you have to factor in dealer markup --
>they're going to want to make some money on the system, so you'll pay a
>little more than the raw-parts quote given earlier.
Well -- having my custom machine built cost me exactly 50 extra dollars. I
*could* very well have done it myself, but I *wanted* it to be done by the
shop, and simply for the fact that *my* time would have cost a lot more.
And as for support -- if the box is good and you go for *good* parts (nor
for cheap ones, and not considering overclocking as a standard feature from
the beginning) -- you don't need very much support. Defective parts will be
exchanged, and that's about it...
>another couple hundred bucks for Win2K, I
>suppose -- probably a better choice than 98.
Agreed -- the initial listing forgot about Win NT (and I'd very much not
recommend to go for Win2k, nor to stick with the after all still DOS-based
Win9x).
>Windows _is_ getting better
>at stuff like that, but you still need to know way too much about
>computers just to keep a Windows box running.
Nope. It *helps* if you know your way, and it allows you to do more things,
but it is not strictly necessary.
Many -- if not most -- of the problems arise from the fact that users know
that many different things are possible on a PC, and they tend to want to do
them all, and simultaneously, if possible. So the machines get 3D graphics
cards that were originally designed to run games fast, and users wonder why
their "serious" application software doesn't like the cards.
>The
>thing still crashes at least once a day doing non-challenging stuff like
>MS Word and Web surfing.
Exactly. Word for one matter is a program that has responded to what MS
seemed to believe "users' needs" -- from an excellent text processing
software it has turned into a wanna-be layout&graphics&whatthehellelse
hthing that can -- yes -- process text, too. But all the overhead that you
drag along makes it sluggish and prone to crash, and virtually the same
applies to both of the big Internet browsers.
But it's the more-shiny-more-glitzy-philosophy behind it -- badly programmed
java applets and the like that make the programs crash...
>Artists should be concerned about _art._ They should no more have to
>worry about the myriad technical details of their computer than they
>should have to worry about different brands of acrylic paint conflicting
>and causing their paintbrush to crash.
But that's exactly the point: Ever since the comptuerhas become an art
*tool* there have been discussions about its use as a tool. There was a
period when every product generated on a computer either tried to look
"computer-like" -- shiny bubbly surface, etc, -- or to look as if someone
imitated the traditional toos like crayon, charcoal or -- worst of all --
"oil on canvas". I've assisting the jury for one of the world's most
important computer art awards for fourteen years now, and what struck me
over the years was that in most cases when the works were *really* worth
considering they wouldn't let you *see* the tools involved. But in all these
cases, too, the most noticeable results were achieved by people who knew
their tools well enough to not only work *with* them, but also to work *on*
them.
To be a good painter you don't necessarily know how to make your own colors,
nor burshes. But it helps if you do know -- and many of the greatest
paintings in history were made by artists who had a superb command of the
technologies of their time -- Tizian didn't buy his famous red in a tube off
the shelf (although at his time he could have bought ready-made colors) --
he experimented with mixtures until he came up with what he wanted. The
greatest typographic artists did not only print with the ready-available
types, but started designing (and in very many cases even cutting) their own
type. Etc. Etc.
What I want to express is that it isn't strictly *necessary* to know the
technology behind your work to make good -- or even outstanding -- work. And
if you decide that you'll buy your canvas already pre-grounded and set-up on
a work-frame, this is definitely a legitimous and viable choice. Those
buying the raw canvas, preparing it for painting, fixing it to a back frame
of their own design and make, spending a lot of time to stretch and span it
evenly may be considered stupid to waste so much time just because they save
a few pennies. But they have the *choice* to do as they please, to prepare a
canvas 2'' by 12 ft it they want and if they think it appropriate, or they
can make round or oval or whatsoever canvases to fit their own desires and
needs.
If you buy Apple's Prefabricated Canvas you get excellent quality in a
couple of standard sizes. If you build your own Clone Canvas you're
responsible for quality and shape, but you get it the way *you* want it, not
the way someone wants it for you. And if you can afford to buy Sil(k)icone
Graphics Extra Fine Canvas -- fine. You must be aware that if anything
doesn't work out the way you want it, you won't be able to roll your lunch
in it (or to play games) -- but then, you can't expect that you'll paint
your living room with a pure sabre brush, even if it costs five times as
much as the simple wallpainter's brush....
Neither of the choices has anything to do with artistic quality, and the
productivity issue is just one of many. Macs are good for Mac people --
those who don't *want* to know about the innards of their tools. They'd also
buy their oils off the shelf -- very fine, and if they have enough artistic
inspiration they'll do outstanding work.
Custom-built-clones are for custom builders -- those who'd rub their colors
on a stone, stir it for hours with all kinds of liquids and fluids just to
make *that one* color that they dream of and that would beat every other
color in the world. Very fine -- and if they lack the necessary artistic
inspiration they'd end up with one turly weird color -- and a bunch of
rotten canvases no one cares to have a second look at, let alone buy.
So it's a different approach for everybody, and neither is better than the
other, for neither sabre is better than nylon, nor pure bristle... oil isn't
better than water color -- you can just make different things with it, and
that's everyone's personal choice.
Mac? Clone? TrueBlue? Dell? Sun? IRis? MacOS? Windoze? Linux? Who cares...
definitely not the customer. But the artist should be allowed to chose his
or her working tools and environment as he or she pleases. Each of the
systems has great advantages over all the others, as has an igloo over a
bamboo hut (but not for someone who prefers to live in Hawaii), as has a
iron bed over a hammock (but not if you live in a tree 30 feet above
ground), and although people have lived in tents all over the world it does
not mean that a tent is the best solution in every case ... -- and it
depends on personal preference whether you want to live in a tent at all (I,
for instance, am no camper at all, but I have freinds who prefer adventure
and mobility and ants over comfort any day...)
>If someone knows enough about
>computers to build and support their own machine, they could probably be
>making more money in IS than in the graphics business.
If someone knows enough about making colors ... but what is *enough*?
>In the long term, building a PC yourself only saves you money if you
>fail to value your own time.
Not necessarily -- if I adopt the machine to my needs and that helps me
increase my productivity later -- then it is a good investment. If I just do
it to spend less *cash* now it might be a waste of funds.
>Suddenly the Mac isn't looking so bad.
*I* never said that -- and no sane person would. But the Mac, on the other
hand, doesn't look as good as many Maccers want it to look in any
comparison, either....
>That users still have to understand the difference between hard disk and
>RAM -- that they still have to explicitly copy files from one to another
>or _lose_all_their_work_ -- is a tremendous failure of the entire
>industry IMHO.
I don't really understand that statement of yours ... I've been working on
PCs (and a few Max in between) ever since 1979, but I never had to *copy" a
file from Ram to Hard disk (and not because in the olden days there were no
harddisks, let alone Macs) -- with one exception: If you use a RAMdisk, i.e.
allocate RAM as a virutal disk. That's what we would do back in the early
eighties, when PCs were 8080/8086/8088, and a 80286 was a high-end machine
And If someone does that, well -- there's enough readmes to tell them the
risk they're running. I hope you're not speaking out of your own experience,
else I would have to deny you the right to comment on these matters at all
:-P
Macs are as good as PCs, and PCs are as good as Macs. In the eyes of those
who know only about Macs, Macs are better. In the eyes of those who know
only about PCs, PCs are better. In the eyes of someone who has worked on
both it is a matter of taste. I *hate* one-button mice (and the plastic
design of the newer Macs), but there is no significant reason by which I
could state that this would hinder me to work on a Mac if I had to.
And now I have to go back to my server -- a 1993 vintage IBM PS/2. No
platic, massive steel. And yes, it is a 486. And yes, it has only 64 MB RAM.
BUT it has been running as a server on a 24/7 basis ever since its previous
owner -- a bank -- bought it, and yes, it does not compare favorably to a G4
in terms of performance.
BUT it provides the network with data, and communicates to the rest of the
world via an active ISDN card, and it runs Linux and it cost less than 50
dollars, and no, I did not spend valuable time on it, you see, it is
MicroChannel.... Mac? Clone? Pah....
Argument closed, as far as I'm concerned.
Helmut
Jerry Kindall
<hp.ei...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Jerry Kindall wrote:
> >That users still have to understand the difference between hard disk
> >and RAM -- that they still have to explicitly copy files from one to
> >another or _lose_all_their_work_ -- is a tremendous failure of the
> >entire industry IMHO.
>
> I don't really understand that statement of yours ... I've been
> working on PCs (and a few Max in between) ever since 1979, but I
> never had to *copy" a file from Ram to Hard disk (and not because in
> the olden days there were no harddisks, let alone Macs) -- with one
> exception:
Every time you save, you're making an explicit copy of a file that's in
RAM to disk. There's just no excuse for having to _tell_ the computer
to save your changes to a permanent storage medium. Do you have to
"save" your work after you finish making a pencil drawing? No, the act
of creating it inherently fixes it in a permanent form. Similarly, the
computer should save _all_ your changes without you even asking, then
give you flexible options for undoing them.
One of the many ways no computer works right today... :)
Paul Angstrom
<rok...@virtualrealo.com> wrote in message
<38FE1E3B...@virtualrealo.com>:
>and by the way, for $800 you can buy a complete G3 mac that will kick the pants
>off most any PIII running Photoshop.
[snip]
>I also recommend that you also look into the actual out-of-box performance stats
>of the
>current "low-end" macs, esp. with photoshop. Even the low end, discontinued,
>Barbie
>doll style iMacs with their G3 processors really run photoshop gracefully and
>now they can
>be had at a price competitive with their PIII counterparts, and the macs are
>between
>2 to 3 TIMES faster at a given clock speed.
If such a Mac can be had at the $800 level that you quote, I can't
disagree with you there. I also do not dispute that a Mac is faster than
a PC at the same clock speed.
From benchmarks I have seen, it is not until you set up a dual-processor
PC that the PC outperforms the Mac; this setup is also the point at
which you get the best price-performance disparity over the Mac in
Photoshop operations, which is why I suggest that if you prefer not to
mess around with hardware, go spend the extra and buy an Apple. I am a
graphic designer *and* a hardware tech-head, which is probably the
exception to the norm. I suppose my hobby of building computers has
skewed my frame of reference.
In the end, it doesn't really matter what platform I use to set my
typographic layouts as long as the job gets done, but I like to save
money and have fun getting the most out of it. I guess the mentality is
a bit like those who enjoy tinkering with their car.
[stuff about NeXT snipped]
>The mac is the premiere consumer desktop OS. Microsoft has alway been a
>follower.
Agreed. They've never really innovated much at all, and blatantly stole
the Mac look and feel. How they got away with it still puzzles me to no
end. Still, I *love* working with NT 5.0 aka Windows 2000 over Mac OS 9.
>Dare I mention the Quicktime saga? It does run better on macs, even though
>Steve struck a "deal with the devil" to provide it for windows.
>It provides the underlying code for efficient graphics processing.
>It is a clear point of distinction between the consumer-oriented innovation at
>apple
>and the corporate thaft at microsoft.
Yep.
>Linux on PC hardware is a different story, and WINNT has its place.
>CorelDraw under Linux, I believe has a bright future.
Perhaps. And with growing advancements in GIMP, perhaps we'll even see
real competition for Photoshop. Ultimately, it would be a good thing for
the end-user.
>As far as tinkering goes, all hardware is fair game to the true hardware
>enthusiast.
>But I don't believe a dedicated graphics designer (esp. one with serious
>deadlines)
>should need to screw around with the internals of their machine.
I do, but then again it's also my hobby and my tinkering occurs in my
spare time.
>Many of them
>would prefer an easel and stretched canvas!
You're thinking of painters, not graphic designers in the usual sense.
However, given a choice between the old rubylith/x-acto
knives/T-squares/press-type and a computer, I'd take the computer
without hesitation.
>I would say buy the hardware on the basis of how well your job will run on it.
>Photoshop runs best on a mac, no matter how you tweak out your PIII or Athalon.
>Try arguing with Computer Shopper or PC World about this.
>They certainly don't give the mac stories high profile, but their tests and
>Intel's test
>indicate that Apple has the most powerful hardware.
From an earlier post:
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium.html has benchmarks showing that a dual
Pentium III 600 MHz (and not even an 800 MHz or 1000 MHz as I can build
or order to spec) beats out a G4 400 MHz in Photoshop operations. The
tone of the web page clearly indicates that the author favors Macs over
PCs. The 600 MHz P3 may not be the fastest in single-CPU operations, but
in SMP-enabled applications such as Photoshop or 3DS Max it will beat
the G4.
>Given the architecture of
>the
>processor that Apple is using, the gap will grow even wide in the near future:
>the upcoming cpus fromApple will have lower power consumption and also
>have lower production costs.
Perhaps. But then again the same statement about lower power consumption
and lower production costs also applies to AMD and Intel chips.
>So it seems the Apple products will continue to lead in "bang for the buck",
>esp. in the graphics production market.
>
>Don't you think there's a reason why the great preponderance of professional
>graphic artists uses Macintosh computers?
Inertia has an effect on that tendency. In the past, the Mac was clearly
superior to the PC platform in the graphic design field, but
advancements on the PC side have made huge changes in the equation.
Clearly, if this were the late '80s or early '90s I'd never consider
using anything but a Mac for digital graphic design, but things have
changed, and I'm willing to take advantage of the available
alternatives.
>-it was fun rambling on, hope you enjoyed it.
I did. Although I may have disagreed with you on some points, your post
was very well thought-out and didn't contain any of the all-too-common
"Macs rule!/PCs suck!" one-liners and their corollaries.
ACE in hungry
> $261 - ASUS P2B-D *dual* CPU motherboard
> $1380 - Two (2) Coppermine Pentium III 800 MHz CPUs
> $250 - 256 MB PC133 SDRAM
> $265 - 40 GB 7200 RPM hard drive
> $179 - Matrox G400 Max Dual-Head graphics card 32 MB
> $10 - keyboard
> $22 - Microsoft Intellipoint wheelmouse
> $40 - 56k internal modem
> $37 - Sound Blaster Live
> $97 - Antec full tower case w/ 300 watt PS
> $30 - speakers
> $20 - 3.5" floppy
> $65 - Zip drive
> $40 - 40x CDROM
> ---------------------
Mmm..., let me guess: you must write some OS by yourself, because you do not
have to buy a Windows NT/2000 in favor of your dual processors, which cost...,
oh, I find my invoice (for my new Athlon), another 230 bucks. And you do not
need Quicktime 4.0 pro? Mmm..., I can understand this, but the registration
fee along with every G4 is 30 bucks. Oh, right, about the Ethernet card, I
think it cost another 30 bucks. Oh, yes, I haven't bought a firewire PCI card,
which should make my Photoshop run faster than Ultra 66. And I found some
Adaptec 8920 with $268 in Yahoo shopping. Did I mention DVD-RAM? I think not.
Oh! I can not find any price on the web, so let's guess that it may be $200
more than a $40 CDROM.
I think I may lose some peripheral, but I have no time to list them. G4 has no
floppy, and I think ATI RAGE 128 do not cost $179, maybe just about $109, so I
should add these bucks to G4. So, let's sum up them: $3,454 (dual PIII 800) to
$3589 (G4 500:$3499+floppy+$179-$109). Ok, I think Mac user is still dumb to
buy a one-CPU G4 500, because G4 500 is definitely slower than Dual-PIII 800
when running Photoshop.
I today get a training contract about US$12,000 with a design company. My most
David Roknich
win9x,
and by the way, for $800 you can buy a complete G3 mac that will kick the pants
off most any PIII running Photoshop.
support
the video capture options that I enjoy on my AIW Pro.
I'm using a Shuttle 635 mobo with intel LX and Adaptec 7800.
I've found that I can move DOS volumes to my PPC and read from them just fine on
the
mac SCSI bus.
The only problem I have with my mac is that ultra wide or ultra2 wide scsi
support is really
expensive. I've found that I can use a 7200rpm ultra drive on either the mac or
PC,
or network them together by using either my NeXT cube or NT server to provide an
appletalk connection betweent ehm.
My only _point_ is that owning a mac doesn't preclude hardware tinkering.
I also recommend that you also look into the actual out-of-box performance stats
of the
current "low-end" macs, esp. with photoshop. Even the low end, discontinued,
Barbie
doll style iMacs with their G3 processors really run photoshop gracefully and
now they can
be had at a price competitive with their PIII counterparts, and the macs are
between
2 to 3 TIMES faster at a given clock speed.
I also like the PC, but I use mine for managing SCSI devices and experimenting
with
Java.
One fault of Apple is that that have not kept their java Runtime up to date.
One recent plus, however, is that they will now provide me with a free upgrade
to
my old NeXTStep OS, which, by the by, was used by the designers of WIN95.
I know this because many of the microsoft developers were selling their NeXT
equipment on comp.sys.next.marketplace about the time that the first incarnation
of
WIN95 arrived. What a kluge that was! Anything decent about it was ripped right
out of the Cube- most notably the networking concepts and the "Properties"
sheet.
The alledged "unique WINNT concept of machine accounts linked to users accounts"
is also a NeXTStep concept- old as the Black Hardware.
The mac is the premiere consumer desktop OS. Microsoft has alway been a
follower.
NeXTStep has helped MS in the process of "following".
Apple is lucky to have Steve back.
Dare I mention the Quicktime saga? It does run better on macs, even though
Steve struck a "deal with the devil" to provide it for windows.
It provides the underlying code for efficient graphics processing.
It is a clear point of distinction between the consumer-oriented innovation at
apple
and the corporate thaft at microsoft.
Linux on PC hardware is a different story, and WINNT has its place.
CorelDraw under Linux, I believe has a bright future.
As far as tinkering goes, all hardware is fair game to the true hardware
enthusiast.
But I don't believe a dedicated graphics designer (esp. one with serious
deadlines)
should need to screw around with the internals of their machine. Many of them
would prefer an easel and stretched canvas!
I would say buy the hardware on the basis of how well your job will run on it.
Photoshop runs best on a mac, no matter how you tweak out your PIII or Athalon.
Try arguing with Computer Shopper or PC World about this.
They certainly don't give the mac stories high profile, but their tests and
Intel's test
indicate that Apple has the most powerful hardware. Given the architecture of
the
processor that Apple is using, the gap will grow even wide in the near future:
the upcoming cpus fromApple will have lower power consumption and also
have lower production costs.
So it seems the Apple products will continue to lead in "bang for the buck",
esp. in the graphics production market.
Don't you think there's a reason why the great preponderance of professional
graphic artists uses Macintosh computers?
-it was fun rambling on, hope you enjoyed it.
check out
http://media.virtualrealo.com
Web Forum, video, and happenings
David
Paul Angstrom wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:26:10 GMT, David Roknich
> <rok...@virtualrealo.com> wrote in message
David Roknich
I built myself a dual processor machine at work:
with a pair of 500 Mhz Katmai's, which were
expensive at the time.
It blew away every mac in the building-
(This is a large university department).
But it's important to note that the adavnatage is lost
if you revert to WIN9x.
I personally like NT 4.0, because I find I can squeeze
a lot of performance out of it on a great variety of hardware.
This is why you won't hear me spouting the usual one liners:
I've even got a server up and running NT 4 on an old
Gateway 486. I've been on leave for almost 3 months now, but
the machine is still doing its job.
I appreciate your refreshing approach to computers!
Thanks for avoiding the usual platitudes and one -liners!
David
Exovox
Man. Is that how hard you have to work to have a sense of pride?
In article <38FD7A9C...@home.com>, Ernie Bin <eb...@home.com>
Ernie Bin
of choice components, the quality of the build and I can assure you that
the computers I build are of extremely high quality.
Picking the parts for the custom machines usually takes a week or more,
even when I am following the market. There's not a single part that
isn't evaulated carefully before being put in.
I hope you're not an IPC computer owner.
fixpix
something
extremely specific that may or may not be significant to
you:
Screen grabs. I create Web site training pages and need to
grab shots of buttons, icons and other components of app
windows to direct users. You know that the Mac OS allows
four universal means of grabbing screen images: Whole
screen,
by marquee, by window, and to clipboard.
How many ways can you do this in Windows? None! As far as
I
know, no Windows utility exists that does this in seconds as
the Mac OS does. An office mate shipped me an old third-
party app he uses that allows us to grab a full-screen shot,
but it takes a couple of minutes to bring that shot up in
yet
another app and crop the tiny part you want. I'm trying to
get clearance to rig my Mac up to the networks for which I
have to develop instruction sites so I can do them in a
fraction of the time.
If you aren't doing screen graphics, this is irrelevant; but
you do so and want to be productive, this could be good to
know. And if anyone knows of such a utility for Windows,
I'd
sure like to know about it. Does Photoshop do it on the
Windows side?
FWIW.
fixpix
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Paul Angstrom
<dfmeadN...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
<08fa7c84...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com>:
>Screen grabs. I create Web site training pages and need to
>grab shots of buttons, icons and other components of app
>windows to direct users. You know that the Mac OS allows
>four universal means of grabbing screen images: Whole
>screen,
>by marquee, by window, and to clipboard.
>
>How many ways can you do this in Windows? None! As far as
>I
>know, no Windows utility exists that does this in seconds as
>the Mac OS does. An office mate shipped me an old third-
>party app he uses that allows us to grab a full-screen shot,
>but it takes a couple of minutes to bring that shot up in
>yet
>another app and crop the tiny part you want.
Hypersnap-DX from http://www.hyperionics.com does this at least as well
as the Mac can, and allows you to configure what hotkey you want to use.
It allows you to capture using any of the following five methods using
either a menu or from a configurable hotkey:
1. Full-screen
2. Window
3. Active window
4. Active window without frame
5. Selected region
The captured image can be sent to the clipboard with a hotkey. This
certainly offers more options than the standard Mac capture method.
Immediately after you capture, you can crop/rotate/rescale the
screenshot from within the capture program, or continue making
screenshots.
Granted, this shareware utility does not come standard with Windows, but
it does nullify your assertion that no such ability exists on the PC.
Jay Evans
>Others have given you a general comparison. Here's
>something
>extremely specific that may or may not be significant to
>you:
>Screen grabs. I create Web site training pages and need to
>grab shots of buttons, icons and other components of app
>windows to direct users. You know that the Mac OS allows
>four universal means of grabbing screen images: Whole
>screen,
>by marquee, by window, and to clipboard.
>
>How many ways can you do this in Windows? None! As far as
>I
>know, no Windows utility exists that does this in seconds as
>the Mac OS does. An office mate shipped me an old third-
>party app he uses that allows us to grab a full-screen shot,
>but it takes a couple of minutes to bring that shot up in
>yet
>another app and crop the tiny part you want. I'm trying to
>get clearance to rig my Mac up to the networks for which I
>have to develop instruction sites so I can do them in a
>fraction of the time.
>
>If you aren't doing screen graphics, this is irrelevant; but
>you do so and want to be productive, this could be good to
>know. And if anyone knows of such a utility for Windows,
>I'd
>sure like to know about it. Does Photoshop do it on the
>Windows side?
>
>FWIW.
>
>fixpix
Duh, like you mean Alt-Print Screen which copies the active window to
the paseboard? Or for buttons and such, how about right click "Save
Picture As"
Jay Evans
hayman studio of commercial photography inc.
Jay Evans
Or you can try this for free
http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/stories/info/0,,000H6Y,.html
PrintKey is a system tray-based freebie that lets you do a real "Print
Screen," just like in the good old DOS days. Whenever the program is
active, press the PrintScrn key (or other configured key) on your
keyboard. PrintKey's main window pops up, displaying your capture
along with several picture and printer options. Adjust brightness and
contrast; adjust red, green, and/or blue; add a frame; swap or invert
colors; or convert to grayscale or black-and-white. Decide between
portrait and landscape modes, center your capture on the page,
maintain proportions, and adjust picture size. Captures can be
printed; sent to your default image editor/viewer; or saved in .gif,
.bmp, .jpg, .emf, or .wmf formats. You can print the date and time,
footer text, and user information. Along with full-screen captures,
you can capture just the active window, the client area, or any
rectangular area -- with or without the cursor. PrintKey is a fast way
to get hard-copy captures without having to use traditional
screen-capture methods -- and the price is definitely right.
Paul Angstrom
<wolfd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<39009707...@hotmail.com>:
>I have a test today with a G4 400/256MB. This test made my Athlon 800 384MB look not
>as great as yesterday. When you find the $2,300 Athlon is almost at half of the
>speed of a $1,800 G4 400 when running Photoshop, I think you will be as
>disappointed as me. The only thing I can't understand is: why can G4 double the
>speed of my G3 iMac (which is only a little slower than my new-bought Athlon) at the
>same MHz? Is altivec so powerful? Or can I bought additional L2 cache for my Athlon?
It's not that the G4 itself is that much more powerful, but rather it
gets its significant edge in Photoshop almost entirely due to the
specialized Altivec instructions.
See http://www.lowendmac.com/tech/insignificant.html for details. As
things currently stand, the G4 beats the PC platform in Photoshop
operations due to its amazing optimization for Altivec-enabled software.
However, the same may not necessarily hold true for software that
doesn't use Altivec. However, given that your focus seems to be on
Photoshop performance, I suppose that's not much consolation to you
unless you use your computer for non-Photoshop related applications.
For operations such as statistical analyses, CAD, and raw number
crunching, it's possible that the G4 falls behind the PC (if they're not
Altivec-enabled) but it seems most Mac users buy a Mac for graphic
design/multimedia applications.
As far as your Athlon goes, no it's not possible to add more L2 cache.
But don't feel disappointed in your K7; it's still a good machine.
Chris Cox
<wolfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think Christ Cox has taught us a lot of the speed of Photoshop in both
platforms,
> I won't bombard you with these kind of discussion.
>
> I have a test today with a G4 400/256MB. This test made my Athlon 800
384MB look not
> as great as yesterday. When you find the $2,300 Athlon is almost at half
of the
> speed of a $1,800 G4 400 when running Photoshop, I think you will be as
> disappointed as me. The only thing I can't understand is: why can G4
double the
> speed of my G3 iMac (which is only a little slower than my new-bought
Athlon) at the
> same MHz? Is altivec so powerful? Or can I bought additional L2 cache for
my Athlon?
Partly it's AltiVec, partly it's other changes in the CPU (cache control),
partly it's the new motherboard chipset and increased throughput to the
DRAM, and when you hit the disk it's the improved ATA support and drives.
The PowerMac G4 has a lot of good things going for it, not just a CPU with
a catch name ;-)
Chris
ACE in hungry
I won't bombard you with these kind of discussion.
I have a test today with a G4 400/256MB. This test made my Athlon 800 384MB look not
as great as yesterday. When you find the $2,300 Athlon is almost at half of the
speed of a $1,800 G4 400 when running Photoshop, I think you will be as
disappointed as me. The only thing I can't understand is: why can G4 double the
speed of my G3 iMac (which is only a little slower than my new-bought Athlon) at the
same MHz? Is altivec so powerful? Or can I bought additional L2 cache for my Athlon?
G4 400 will come to Taiwan next month. Consider the price differentiation, I do not
know if I should buy G4 400 or G4 500.
Wolf Ding
Drop ppp to reply
David Roknich
the new mobos make a big difference.
jst take a look at the earliest G4, which was
barely better than the G3s at the time.
also, Apple was a little behind in providing ATA-66 support.
sure, you could pop in a new ATA-66 drive, and it would install
as Mode 4, but its speed would be limited to that of the
ATA-33 interface.
now that the G4 mobo is up to date, the next thing is the gradual
addition of software support-
Adobe has always lead in this race:
that's how they keep their clientele.
David
www.virtualrealo.com
more coming soon- including mutlimedia java beginning next week
Cox wrote:
> In article <39009707...@hotmail.com>, ACE in hungry
> <wolfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think Christ Cox has taught us a lot of the speed of Photoshop in both
> platforms,
> > I won't bombard you with these kind of discussion.
> >
> > I have a test today with a G4 400/256MB. This test made my Athlon 800
> 384MB look not
> > as great as yesterday. When you find the $2,300 Athlon is almost at half
> of the
> > speed of a $1,800 G4 400 when running Photoshop, I think you will be as
> > disappointed as me. The only thing I can't understand is: why can G4
> double the
> > speed of my G3 iMac (which is only a little slower than my new-bought
> Athlon) at the
> > same MHz? Is altivec so powerful? Or can I bought additional L2 cache for
> my Athlon?
>
David Roknich
<snip all>
in my last flurry of typing I meant to underline that the
only thing I find really lacking on my mac is contemporary Java support.
It's not really germain to this thread to rave about the advances
in the Java Media Framework:
but it did set up really nicely for both streaming video playback
and capture on my Windows box. For capture it readily recognized my Video For
Windows setup along with my installed codecs.
Quicktime for Java is nice, but it is disappointing that Apple is
always at least a full year behind in providing Java Runtime support.
Peter van der Linden really rakes then for this in "Just Java",
which is the nicest Java 2 textbook I've yet seen.
but a lot new has happened since the book was printed early this year!
forgive my digression!
Video For Windows is crappy compared to Quicktime,
but my old PII supports Java to the extent that no macintosh
will until next year.
Otherwise, I'm almost tempted to scream "Macs Rule".
<gags self with Strangelovian gesture>
David
more coming soon at
http://www.virtualrealo.com
David Roknich
I mostly agree with you, but there is a keyboard shortcut that will
save the screen to clipboard in windows as a bitmap.
It doesn't save it as a file: you then have to paste it into a MS Office
application.
It creates really large files and sucks a lot of RAM, which is
why I've forgotten the command!
Elegant software is a good reason to buy a particular machine:
but the WIN platforms will run on a wide variety of hardware
and that's one of the main differences between windows and Mac,
Solaris, Irix, etc:
if you can spec out your hardware, you can craft much nice code for it
more easily.
David
java media coming soon at
www.virtualrealo.com
check out RealVideo and FREE web forum
wrote:
David Roknich
I've had to repair alot of WIN9x boxes with "broken" software,
and the mostly commonly hosed process is
systray
whenever there's a problem on my machine that's the first
thing I kil- well, there is no "Kill" command in windows,
but the first 3 finger salute gives you a list of running applications,
and you can then choose to terminate them individually.
msgsrv
is probably a close second.
The mac equivalents of msgsrv trap thier errors at least when they fail
so the machine doesn't hang up or crash.
David
ReallVideo at
java media coming soon!
Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:03:26 -0700, fixpix
> Or you can try this for free
> http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/stories/info/0,,000H6Y,.html
>
> PrintKey is a system tray-based freebie that lets you do a real "Print
> Screen," just like in the good old DOS days. Whenever the program is
> active, press the PrintScrn key (or other configured key) on your
> keyboard. PrintKey's main window pops up, displaying your capture
> along with several picture and printer options. Adjust brightness and
> contrast; adjust red, green, and/or blue; add a frame; swap or invert
> colors; or convert to grayscale or black-and-white. Decide between
> portrait and landscape modes, center your capture on the page,
> maintain proportions, and adjust picture size. Captures can be
> printed; sent to your default image editor/viewer; or saved in .gif,
Alan Zisman
<rok...@media.virtualrealo.com> wrote:
>I mostly agree with you, but there is a keyboard shortcut that will
>save the screen to clipboard in windows as a bitmap.
>It doesn't save it as a file: you then have to paste it into a MS Office
>application.
>It creates really large files and sucks a lot of RAM, which is
>why I've forgotten the command!
>
Printscreen saves the entire (Windows) screen to the Clipboard...
Alt+PrntScrn saves the active window... if you can't remember those,
you must REALLY have trouble with Cmd+Shift+3, the much-less intuitive
Mac keyboard shortcut for a screen dump.
==========================================================
When replying, please replace 'nospam' with 'home' in the e-mail address!
-- Thanks!
David Roknich
no, it's simply that "time heals all wounds"
the behavior of the files thus created was worth forgetting.
thanks though.
apple-shift-3 saves an actual file that is easy to handle on its
native platform
(then Dr. Strangelove once again struggled with his rebellious
left hand and held himself back from screaming
MACS RULE!)
dave
was made with Windows.
god, what is the world coming to!
java media, coming soon, at my URL
David Roknich
the mac shortcut creates a file:
the windows commands claim the clipboard, and if you pastye them into
an office application, the files become unreasonably large (compared to mac files
at the same resolution)
Photoshop 3 would run on a mac with only 16 meg of ram:
in the same year ('96) 16 meg in a PC wouldn't even let you run Word without crashing:
esp. if you tried to paste any kind of graphic into MS Word.
I'm certain things have improved, but I don't even comsider saving screenshots
on a PC even though I have several.
There's not as good at it as cheaper. older macs.
Period.
Take a look at the fellow with the $2800 Athalon outperfomed by a Mac G4
at 1/2 the price.
that's just one on many examples.
Use a machine for what it does best.
PC's clearly are wasted on any graphics maneuvers.
dave
was built with a PC. it happened to be online at the time.
oh well.
more movies coming soon, and java media to follow.
Niklas Dougherty wrote:
> <Alan Zisman|azi...@nospam.com> -> comp.multimedia <390231cc...@24.2.10.79> (Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:13:43 GMT):
> AZ: On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:17:07 GMT, David Roknich
> AZ: <rok...@media.virtualrealo.com> wrote:
>
> >>I mostly agree with you, but there is a keyboard shortcut that will
> >>save the screen to clipboard in windows as a bitmap.
> >>It doesn't save it as a file: you then have to paste it into a MS Office
> >>application.
> >>It creates really large files and sucks a lot of RAM, which is
> >>why I've forgotten the command!
>
> AZ: Printscreen saves the entire (Windows) screen to the Clipboard...
> AZ: Alt+PrntScrn saves the active window... if you can't remember those,
> AZ: you must REALLY have trouble with Cmd+Shift+3, the much-less intuitive
> AZ: Mac keyboard shortcut for a screen dump.
>
> Or Cmd+Shift+4 which lets you select what portion to save with a
> haircross. The reason it is saved to a file is because you often make a
> series of screendumps to put into a presentation. Just open it, copy, and
> then paste into whatever. Or convert the PICT to whatever. The file for a
> 1024x768 screen is about 350k. He must be low on RAM.
>
> N.
>
> --
> / Niklas Dougherty
> \ / /
> \\\' , / // WWW: http://homepage.mac.com/nikd/
> \\\// _/ //'
> \_-//' / //<'
> \ /// <//' Libertas optima rerum, nunquam servili sub nexu vivito.
> / >> \\\`
> /,)-^>> _\`
> (/ \\ / \\\
> // //\\\
> ((`
>
> While Titian was mixing rose madder,
> His model reclined on a ladder.
> Her position to Titian
> Suggested coition,
> So he leapt up the ladder and had 'er.
wolf
pull-down menu with the cursor displayed on it, and I have a nice control panel (maybe: Capture). But I can not find
it anymore. How can I get the newest version or any better alternatives now?
Wolf Ding
Drop ppp to reply
David Roknich
well, there has to be some reason for us to want something other than a mac:)
I guess I've been in Flatland lately!
David
http://www.virtualrealo.com
RealVideo Art
java media coming soon
> Hey, I like Macs too... but try telling this to anyone working in serious 3D apps.
>
> "...any graphics maneuvers"? Macs? I think not.
>
> Stu
>
> David Roknich wrote:
>
> > <snip> Use a machine for what it does best.
Stu Middleton
Stu Middleton
anything else tho and a Mac will do nicely.
Nice to have the luxury of choice aye?
Stu
David Roknich wrote:
> Stu,
>
> well, there has to be some reason for us to want something other than a mac:)
> I guess I've been in Flatland lately!
>
> David
>
> http://www.virtualrealo.com
> RealVideo Art
> java media coming soon
>
kelle...@yahoo.com
I've read through your quandry letter, and don't know much about photoshop.
But I do know that when measuring Megahertz on Mac vs. Windows, you cannot
compare them directly, because Mac is MUCH faster in MegaHertz to MegaHertz
vs. Windows. I also know there have been benchmarks that have shown a Mac
that was "slower" than a Windows computer (about 400 Mhz), that ran
photoshop renderings, twice as fast. You may have already known this, but
if you didn't, you can read about it more at any Mac Website.
Thankyou.
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
Diane Wilson
>
> I've read through your quandry letter, and don't know much about photoshop.
> But I do know that when measuring Megahertz on Mac vs. Windows, you cannot
> compare them directly, because Mac is MUCH faster in MegaHertz to MegaHertz
> vs. Windows
I would be very, *very* careful about these comparisons. I'd be
willing to bet they were run with Windows 95, which is still largely
16-bit code in critical sections, resulting in up to 30% loss in
performance. You can get that performance back by switching to
Windows NT or 2000; it really does make a significant, observable
difference. Further, W95 and W98 have very inefficient graphics
code; screen redraw is visibly much slower than with the same
applications in NT or 2000.
Mac vs. Windows? WHICH Windows? It makes a difference.
Also, you can build a multiprocessor PC for a reasonable price,
and get great performance. It looks like multiprocessor Macs
will be premium-priced products for some time to come.
--
Diane Wilson (di...@firelily.com, anon-...@anon.twwells.com)
Web design: http://www.firelily.com/
Personal: http://www.firelily.com/goddess/
It is neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never
question anything. (Joseph Heller)
Some...@somewhere.com
All good advice, which is why I will leave it unsnipped below,
except the comment about prices. Presumably, your budget is very
finite. But that is no reason not to get a Mac. Pricewise, the old
argument that Macs cost more is no longer true.
Shop and compare. You'll be surprised. Of course, you will have to
pay off the loan for the next three years. but that will be the same
for either machine.
Good luck.
In article <MPG.138b0b895...@news.mindspring.com>, Diane
Tom Roberts
Runs a lot of Hardware:
No USB Support
No Fire Wire Support
Flaky Drives for many Products
HMM 6th level of Service packs to get it right and now it's being replaced
What was that old car company slogan "The quality goes in before the name
goes on"
Tom
Gregory A. Gonzalez
I've had just about enough of Wintel bashing. I'm new to the Mac platform,
and you guys make me sick! I don't think the Mac platform is bad. I also
don't think the PC platform is bad. I just get annoyed at all of this
anti-PC posturing I've always seen in the Mac community. Jeez, it's like
you people have platform-envy or something.
Each platform has its good points and its drawbacks. I certainly don't
consider one platform any more stable than the other. And don't come back
with a tired old line like "Everyone knows about the Blue Screen of Death."
Sure they do. Most accidents occur within 2 miles of the home too. [If
that doesn't make sense to you, stop reading now.]
It comes right down to this:
Wintel is more affordable, and easier to connect to other platforms. Macs
don't play well with others. Therefore, not only is the initial investment
less, but the total cost of ownership is less. This is good business sense,
and lets face it, kids, business is where computers are made or broken.
I used to have the gung-ho rebel attitude back in high-school, too. "My
Atari ST can display 512 colors! What can your dinky 286 do?". Then I grew
up and joined the real world. It cost more to expand my Atari. My software
(and even my floppies) weren't compatable with the machines that were in
place, and running Lotus 123 and WordStar for years before my computer was
built.
Yes, the Atari was easier for a novice to use. Yes, it was a better
all-around architecture than the IBM-PC. But it was expensive, and
non-standard. Only one company was allowed to make it. The later versions
were completely incompatable with the older versions. Businesses would
never even consider such a system.
But it was right for me. And I accepted that. And when I went to school, I
learned to work with, program, and network PCs. But I accepted that some
people would prefer a different platform.
Don't hand me the All Powerful and Evil Lord Gates theory, either. If
someone could come up with a better OS, or a better integrating Office
Suite, or a more unifying design philosophy that allows users to easily
apply concepts used in one applicaton to another, then why haven't we seen
it?
I personally find the MacOS clumsy, and lacking in options. I tried Linux,
and found it to be too cryptic for the average casual user (my roommate).
BeOS... c'mon... It's practically Windows as it is.
So let's cut the crap, grow up, and quit scaring potential users away by
making think you're an insane cult.
-Gonzo
"Tom Roberts" <trobe...@home.com> wrote in message
news:B547807A.7B3%trobe...@home.com...
Helmut P. Einfalt
Some...@Somewhere.Com schrieb in Nachricht
<160520001731005130%Some...@Somewhere.Com>...
> Hi:
> All good advice, which is why I will leave it unsnipped below,
>except the comment about prices. Presumably, your budget is very
>finite. But that is no reason not to get a Mac. Pricewise, the old
>argument that Macs cost more is no longer true.
That depends largely on where you are. Here in Germany, for instance, there
still *is* a neat difference...
Helmut
Dave Anderson
> Hmm
>
> Runs a lot of Hardware:
> No USB Support
> No Fire Wire Support
That's not really surprising in a 4-year old OS. If he really needs those,
Win2k supports them natively.
> Flaky Drives for many Products
I assume you mean drivers. Drivers are the responsibility of HW
manufacturers, so fault them. My experience with 3rd party Mac SW/HW
suggests the situation is similar for the Mac OS.
> HMM 6th level of Service packs to get it right and now it's being replaced
How many revisions were there to OS 8? OS updates are *good* for the
consumer because they enhance the OS feature set and add support for
previously unsupported HW in addition to fixing bugs. Would you prefer that
Apple and Microsoft NOT provide OS updates?
Let's add two more to your list: protected memory and preemptive
multitasking. Can you name a Mac OS that will be available for public
purchase in this millennium that has either of these? NT 3.x had them in
1993. Why is Apple 7+ years behind?
I like my Mac, but until I get a serious OS from Apple, it's still a toy.
--
Dave Anderson
Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms.
Dave Anderson
> I like my Mac, but until I get a serious OS from Apple, it's still a toy.
FWIW, I spend 8 hours as day sitting in front of a Mac, toy or not. The best
things about mine are BBEdit, 3 Microsoft products, and proximity to a
coffee maker. Doesn't say that much for Apple, does it?
BBEdit (even the Lite version) beats every other text editor out there
on every platform (and yes, it is better than emacs).
Mac OE5 is the best email client I've ever seen. Mac IE5 is the best
browser ever made (it even surpasses the Win32 version). The Microsoft
Intellimouse (USB/optical/$24 at NECX) is the best gift you can give a
Mac user - though some Mac users are so anti-Microsoft that such a gift
may send them into convulsions. I don't know which is handier - the
second button or the wheel. Both resulted in immediate productivity
gains for me. The optical feature is cool, too.
Proximity to the coffee maker is handy because I need something to do
while I wait for the system to reboot every time an application crash
takes down the OS (which is often). Give me protected memory and I'll be
caffeine free. Give me OS X and I may switch permanently to Apple. Give
me another 6-month delay and I may give up.
Chris Cox
<ggon...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> Wintel is more affordable, and easier to connect to other platforms. Macs
> don't play well with others. Therefore, not only is the initial investment
> less, but the total cost of ownership is less. This is good business sense,
> and lets face it, kids, business is where computers are made or broken.
You may be new to Macintosh - but you should already know that this is false.
Macintoshes work very well with Windows machines (networking and disk
media), while the reverse is only true with additional software. The only
problem I know of is Macintoshes connecting to NT servers that are not
running services for Macintosh -- then you may need a third party product
on the Macintosh (DAVE - which works quite well).
> Let's add two more to your list: protected memory and preemptive
> multitasking. Can you name a Mac OS that will be available for public
> purchase in this millennium that has either of these?
The Macintosh has had preemptive multitasking for about 5 years now.
It mostly gets used on MP machines (since it is technically part of the MP
support). In some applications it's used for conveniece in porting or
convenience in coding. If you don't disassemble applications or run a lot
of thread (aka task) monitoring utilities, you'll probably never know it's
being used.
Chris
Autoxer
memory on Win 2000 blows away any Mac I have used and has never crashed on
me.
"Richard L. Green" <circul...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:circularfile-ya02408...@news.pacbell.net...
> Having worked in both environments, I think you are better off with the
Mac.
> The Macintosh has always dealt with graphics better, and while the PC is
> catching up, it still isn't there yet. Photoshop is optimized for the
> Macintosh environment.
>
> All of the high-end goodies for dealing with graphics exist on the
> Macintosh -- and the vast majority of the service bureaus are using Macs.
> If you go to a service bureau with your graphics files, they likely will
> convert them to Mac format before printing them out. Not that they
couldn't
> potentially print out your file from a PC, but usually the cost would be
> prohibitive. To print from a PC they would have to turn off their print
> spooler (and all of their Macintosh print jobs) just to print your file. I
> know there some service bureaus specializing in PC's, but they are
> distinctly in the minority. And I'm not convinced you have as much control
> over color output printing from a PC.
>
> Also, stability of the operating system can make a big difference. I mean,
> even if you had a PC that ran at close to the speed of the Mac, if the PC
> is down for three days at a time as it keeps crashing on you -- the stable
> machine will do a lot more processing over a given period of time and is a
> better buy -- both personally and for business. All of the later versions
> of Windows are unstable. After all, if you have a Macintosh, you will
never
> have to call a tech to recover your registry file... :-)
>
> Hope this helps. Good luck!
>
> Richard
>
>
> In article <38FBA677...@home.com>, Me <sr...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello folks:
> >
> > After many years of being a staunch Mac advocate, I find myself having
> > a rough time deciding which type of computer, Mac or Windows, to buy
> > for my personal use. I am posting this question in a few different
groups
> > in order to request some different perspectives on this question.
> >
> > Right now, I have a Mac Performa 6400/200. This Mac, which I am using
> > now has served me well during the past three years or so since I bought
> > it, but now, I need a more powerful computer at home to help me with my
> > plans to start up my own side business.
> >
> > I recently started using Photoshop 5.5 and I am thoroughly impressed
> > with this software, but upgrading my Mac to run it effectively would
> > not be a wise investment. This is what is hastening my decision to
> > get a new computer. A fully loaded PC with 128mb of RAM is going to
> > set me back a lot less money than a Mac.
> >
> > What I am uncertain of is how well Photoshop 5.5 runs in a Windows 98
> > environment, compared to the Mac version. I use both Windows 2000 and
> > Mac OS 8.6 at work, but I have no experience with Photoshop under MS
> > Windows and only a few hours worth of experience using it on a Mac. If
> > anyone who has used Photoshop 5.5 under both the Mac OS and Win 98
> > environments could compare the two, I would be very appreciative!
> >
> > The other apps that I want to run are ones which I have used quite a
> > bit under both environments. As far as I can tell, MS Office apps such
> > as Word and Powerpoint work equally well in both environments. In favor
> > of MS Windows is the availability of Frontpage 2000 and also some stock
> > investment analysis tools, and more public domain software and cheaper
> > peripherals. As such, I am having a tough time justifying the purchase
of
> > a Mac G4 400Mhrtz when I can buy a much faster machine with a monitor
for
> > about the same memory that also has a larger hard disk.
> >
> > So if anyone has some comments to make regarding a comparison between
> > the two platforms, I would very much appreciate it. A few years ago, it
> > was no question in my mind that the Mac OS was far and away the more
user
> > friendly, but user friendliness is not at the top of my list of
priorities
> > as far as this purchase goes. I simply want the most powerful system I
can
> > get for the money with a good upgrade path so I can run resource hog
type
> > software such as Photoshop.
> >
> > Thanks.
Steffie
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Hmm
>
> Runs a lot of Hardware:
> No USB Support
> No Fire Wire Support
> Flaky Drives for many Products
> HMM 6th level of Service packs to get it right and now it's being replaced
>
> What was that old car company slogan "The quality goes in before the name
> goes on"
>
> Tom
a car company? I thought it was Zenith the computer monitor company, anyway,
they're out of business!
Chris Cox
<cli...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> get a life guy. My dual processor machine (using twin 850's) and a gig of
> memory on Win 2000 blows away any Mac I have used and has never crashed on
> me.
And my G4 blows away your machine (and the nice dual Gigahertz at the
office), and has never crashed on me.
So what?
Your Mileage May Vary.
Chris
Dave Anderson
>> Let's add two more to your list: protected memory and preemptive
>> multitasking. Can you name a Mac OS that will be available for public
>> purchase in this millennium that has either of these?
>
> The Macintosh has had preemptive multitasking for about 5 years now.
> It mostly gets used on MP machines (since it is technically part of the MP
> support). In some applications it's used for conveniece in porting or
> convenience in coding. If you don't disassemble applications or run a lot
> of thread (aka task) monitoring utilities, you'll probably never know it's
> being used.
You misquoted. I wrote the original, not Mr. Gonzalez. You also did not name
a Mac OS with such support. Of course Macs can have preemptive multitasking
and protected memory. Just install Linux to them.
Supposing what you say is true -- that the OS has such support -- why aren't
they in the core OS? Do Mac users not want them?
Imagine driving your car without preemptive multitasking (you can steer XOR
shift XOR brake XOR accelerate)...
Dave Anderson
> The Macintosh has always dealt with graphics better, and while the PC is
> catching up, it still isn't there yet.
Unless, of course, you consider 3D graphics:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/mc/20000522/tc/maya_dances_to_the_mac_2.html
> Also, stability of the operating system can make a big difference.
Right. My Mac crashes *daily*. I have a PC that hasn't crashed since I took
Win95 off in 1996 in favor of NT (and later Win2K).
> I mean, even if you had a PC that ran at close to the speed of the Mac,
My G3-350/128MB is certainly no faster than my PIII-450/128MB. The PC was a
lot cheaper (both were purchased about the same time), and has more goodies.
> if the PC is down for three days at a time as it keeps crashing on you -- the
> stable machine will do a lot more processing over a given period of time and
> is a better buy -- both personally and for business.
If that were true, perhaps you'd have a point. We'll have to keep
speculating...
> All of the later versions of Windows are unstable.
I hope I finish composing this reply before my Mac crashes again. I'll be
too worn out from laughing to re-type it later.
It's obvious from your post that you have little if any *actual* experience
with Windows. That by itself is OK -- but please don't pretend that you have
any. The NT family of operation systems is quite stable -- certainly far
more stable than any OS Apple has packaged for consumers.
I won't deny that it's easy for inexperienced users to hose a Windows system
-- I once had to talk a user through recovery from installing Word for
Windows CE on her desktop Windows OS (a total reinstall resulted) -- but
that's the nature of inexperience. Years of driving a Dodge Neon does not
prepare you for driving a Mack Truck, after all.
> After all, if you have a Macintosh, you will never have to call a tech to
> recover your registry file... :-)
You also never have to be confused by a second mouse button.
--
Dave Anderson, who cringes every time he hears Jeff "I don't have an email"
Goldblum's voice in Apple ads
LODOLA Dominic
That's quite true... although I get a least 4 buttons out of my Mac mouse : ctrl +
button, command + button, alt + button, etc.
Who invented the mouse anyway ? Wasn't it Apple ?
Think diffirent...
Dave Anderson
>> You also never have to be confused by a second mouse button.
>
> That's quite true... although I get a least 4 buttons out of my Mac mouse :
> ctrl +
> button, command + button, alt + button, etc.
Doesn't compare. What's your mouse/key combination for the wheel? I know --
you don't need a wheel, right? You can't miss what you never had...
The best $24 I ever spent was on the USB Intellimouse (optical):
http://necxdirect.necx.com/hai/prod_page.html?key=0000145962
It makes my Mac more convenient to use than my PC again.
> Who invented the mouse anyway ? Wasn't it Apple ?
Xerox, in the 1970s.
> Think diffirent...
Spel difrnt.
--
Dave Anderson
Dave Anderson
>> Who invented the mouse anyway ? Wasn't it Apple ?
>
> Xerox, in the 1970s.
Correction -- Stanford Research Laboratory, 1965. Made famous by Xerox PARC
in the 1970s.
Chris Cox
<joea...@texas.net> wrote:
> Chris Cox wrote:
>
> >> Let's add two more to your list: protected memory and preemptive
> >> multitasking. Can you name a Mac OS that will be available for public
> >> purchase in this millennium that has either of these?
> >
> > The Macintosh has had preemptive multitasking for about 5 years now.
> > It mostly gets used on MP machines (since it is technically part of the MP
> > support). In some applications it's used for conveniece in porting or
> > convenience in coding. If you don't disassemble applications or run a lot
> > of thread (aka task) monitoring utilities, you'll probably never know it's
> > being used.
>
> You misquoted. I wrote the original, not Mr. Gonzalez.
Sorry about that.
> You also did not name a Mac OS with such support.
MacOS 7.5.1 was the first version, I believe.
> Supposing what you say is true -- that the OS has such support -- why aren't
> they in the core OS? Do Mac users not want them?
The support IS in the core OS, and has been for a while now.
The multitasking (in this case, nanokernel) got rewritten for MacOS 8.6,
and updated further in MacOS 9.
> Imagine driving your car without preemptive multitasking (you can steer XOR
> shift XOR brake XOR accelerate)...
Bad analogy. Take an operating systems class and you'll learn why.
(hint: while driving, you should ALWAYS be focused on the most important
task at the time, since dividing your attention tends to cause accidents)
Chris
Chris Cox
<joea...@texas.net> wrote:
>
> > Also, stability of the operating system can make a big difference.
>
> Right. My Mac crashes *daily*. I have a PC that hasn't crashed since I took
> Win95 off in 1996 in favor of NT (and later Win2K).
And my PentiumIII running NT 4sp4 crashes multiple times a day. If I
install service pack 5 or 6 it gets even less stable.
And my Macintosh crashes..., well...., actually this particular one has
never crashed -- in 3 years of use.
But I've got other systems where the reverse is true.
The moral: all machines crash, none of them are perfect.
> > I mean, even if you had a PC that ran at close to the speed of the Mac,
>
> My G3-350/128MB is certainly no faster than my PIII-450/128MB. The PC was a
> lot cheaper (both were purchased about the same time), and has more goodies.
Huh? You must have been shopping in the wrong places, or gotten a steal of
a deal on that PIII. Comparable systems (in terms of speed and features)
have been about the same price for several years now.
> > After all, if you have a Macintosh, you will never have to call a tech to
> > recover your registry file... :-)
>
> You also never have to be confused by a second mouse button.
Why? My Macintosh mouse has 3 buttons and a wheel.
Chris
Chris Cox
(Chris Cox) wrote:
> > You also did not name a Mac OS with such support.
>
> MacOS 7.5.1 was the first version, I believe.
Whoops - I had the wrong version.
It was 7.1.2.
Chris
Mike Walker
processor Mac? Bang for the buck, the dual celerons are unbeatable for
performance, and NT is a great operating system.
Mike
"Dave Anderson" <joea...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:B5500969.13C4D%joea...@texas.net...
> Richard L. Green wrote:
>
> > The Macintosh has always dealt with graphics better, and while the PC is
> > catching up, it still isn't there yet.
>
> Unless, of course, you consider 3D graphics:
>
>
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/mc/20000522/tc/maya_dances_to_the_mac_2.html
>
>
>
>
>
> Right. My Mac crashes *daily*. I have a PC that hasn't crashed since I
took
> Win95 off in 1996 in favor of NT (and later Win2K).
>
>
>
>
>
> My G3-350/128MB is certainly no faster than my PIII-450/128MB. The PC was
a
> lot cheaper (both were purchased about the same time), and has more
goodies.
>
>
>
>
you -- the
> > stable machine will do a lot more processing over a given period of time
and
> > is a better buy -- both personally and for business.
>
> If that were true, perhaps you'd have a point. We'll have to keep
> speculating...
>
>
>
>
> > All of the later versions of Windows are unstable.
>
> I hope I finish composing this reply before my Mac crashes again. I'll be
> too worn out from laughing to re-type it later.
>
> It's obvious from your post that you have little if any *actual*
experience
> with Windows. That by itself is OK -- but please don't pretend that you
have
> any. The NT family of operation systems is quite stable -- certainly far
> more stable than any OS Apple has packaged for consumers.
>
> I won't deny that it's easy for inexperienced users to hose a Windows
system
> -- I once had to talk a user through recovery from installing Word for
> Windows CE on her desktop Windows OS (a total reinstall resulted) -- but
> that's the nature of inexperience. Years of driving a Dodge Neon does not
> prepare you for driving a Mack Truck, after all.
>
>
>
>
to
> > recover your registry file... :-)
>
> You also never have to be confused by a second mouse button.
>
>
>
> Dave Anderson, who cringes every time he hears Jeff "I don't have an
email"
> Goldblum's voice in Apple ads
>
LODOLA Dominic
> >
> > That's quite true... although I get a least 4 buttons out of my Mac mouse :
> > ctrl +
> > button, command + button, alt + button, etc.
>
> Doesn't compare. What's your mouse/key combination for the wheel? I know --
> you don't need a wheel, right? You can't miss what you never had...
Have had, don't care for... I switched from a PC to a Mac 8 months back because
I was cheezed off with Windows.
SpaceBar + mouse button works just fine with Photoshop for scrolling ; and the
Mac scroll bars are intelligently situated so that the distance between all four
arrows is minimal (unlike Windows).
I find Mac OS more user-friendly, better designed and it hasn't crashed once ;
it's well worth the loss of a button or two off my mouse...
> > Think diffirent...
>
> Spel difrnt.
See, you're starting to get it !!!
Patrick Brinton
optical or mechanical?
Patrick Brinton
In article <ccox-ya02408000R...@news.slip.net>, Chris Cox
Dave Anderson
> The support IS in the core OS, and has been for a while now.
> The multitasking (in this case, nanokernel) got rewritten for MacOS 8.6,
> and updated further in MacOS 9.
Cooperative multitasking, no matter how updated, is not the same as
preemptive. My Mac (OS 9.0.4) does not have preemptive multitasking.
--
Dave Anderson
Dave Anderson
Mike Walker wrote:
Dave Anderson
> Where can I buy a Mac compatible muse with a scroll wheel? Is it
> optical or mechanical?
Here's a steal - USB Intellimouse Optical with Mac and Windows drivers:
http://necxdirect.necx.com/hai/prod_page.html?key=0000145962
I use it on both platforms, and think it's even better on a Mac than in
Windows.
Chris Cox
<rmw...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Gee, more PC bashing. What a surpass. Any of you out there have a Dual
> processor Mac? Bang for the buck, the dual celerons are unbeatable for
> performance, and NT is a great operating system.
> Mike
Yes, I do have dual processor Macintoshes.
And a couple of quad processor machines.
Chris
Chris Cox
<pbri...@wco.com> wrote:
> Where can I buy a Mac compatible muse with a scroll wheel? Is it
> optical or mechanical?
Logitech USB wheel mice have Macintosh drivers.
The Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer has Macintosh drivers.
And there are generic drivers available that will support any USB mouse.
Chris
Chris Cox
<joea...@texas.net> wrote:
> Chris Cox wrote:
>
> > The support IS in the core OS, and has been for a while now.
> > The multitasking (in this case, nanokernel) got rewritten for MacOS 8.6,
> > and updated further in MacOS 9.
>
> Cooperative multitasking, no matter how updated, is not the same as
> preemptive. My Mac (OS 9.0.4) does not have preemptive multitasking.
I'm sorry - but it does have preemptive multitasking available, and it has
been available since MacOS 7.1.2.
Chris
ACE in hungry
but it is too hard to press.
About IntelliEye, I am not sure if it is a good buy. My IntelliEye sometime
would 'tremble' for several pixels. The same conditions never happened on my
PC. I think I would try a Logitech for my G4 450.
Wolf Ding
Drop ppp to reply
Dave Anderson
>> Cooperative multitasking, no matter how updated, is not the same as
>> preemptive. My Mac (OS 9.0.4) does not have preemptive multitasking.
>
> I'm sorry - but it does have preemptive multitasking available, and it has
> been available since MacOS 7.1.2.
Then why doesn't it work?
Chris Cox
<joea...@texas.net> wrote:
> Chris Cox wrote:
>
> >> Cooperative multitasking, no matter how updated, is not the same as
> >> preemptive. My Mac (OS 9.0.4) does not have preemptive multitasking.
> >
> > I'm sorry - but it does have preemptive multitasking available, and it has
> > been available since MacOS 7.1.2.
>
> Then why doesn't it work?
What makes you think it doesn't work?
It does work -- very well.
Chris
Gregory A. Gonzalez
"jim" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:39269DE8...@spam.com...
> I'm real sorry that your Atari didn't work out well for you.
>
>
> If you buy the cheapest junk you can get your hands on, a Wintel PC may be
> cheaper than buying a good computer, but you will pay for it if you rely
on
> that computer for work.
Smacks of bias not backed up with emperical data.
>I'm
> thinking of the rebooting 3 or 4 times a day , reloading applications
when
> they stop working, reloading the operating system a couple times a year
> (recommended by people like Brian Livingston, author of the "Windows XX
> Secrets" series of books
Only necessary for the hardcore user that pushes the computer and the OS
farther than intended. Story is the same on Macs when used like this.
> That is lost time that has to be made up. It costs my boss money, delays
the
> completion of projects, and makes me have to stay to make up the lost
time.
> Factor that into your total cost of ownership. The mill by dad used to
work
> in had a sign that said "LOST DAYS TO ACCIDENTS", we should have one that
reads
> "LOST DAYS TO CRASHED COMPUTERS." ...and lets face it, kids, business
is
> where computers are made or broken.
Sounds like a badly disorganized IT Department, and poorly trained users.
Setup of a truly "crashed" computer should take no more than an hour if
proper disaster recovery has taken place, and users should be trained to
save data "early and often to a shared, backed up resource". This is true
in any platform / multi-platform network.
> Wintel is the least cross-platform compatible operating system you can
buy.
> This Sparcstation can recognize and read a peecee disk, so can a
Macintosh.
> A Mac can read a Zip disk created on a peecee, the opposite is not true.
If
Disks, as most Mac users seem very egar to point out, are dead. Besides,
with minimal utilities, any system can read disks from any other. I do this
many times a day. I'm talking about network compatability. If you're still
swapping files using disks, I can see why total cost of ownership would be
high.
> by "other platforms" you mean Windoze 9x AND NT, then I suppose you are
> right. They do work kinda well together most of the time. Macs
don't
> play well together?
I never said that. Macs play GREAT with each other. But that's not very
much of a realistic benefit on today's IT landscape. Transparent
inter-operability between platforms is what I'm talking about.
>That's the same kind of ignorant comment our "hardware
> person" at work would spout, and does spout to our customers. He's
NEVER
> owned a Macintosh, I don't think he's EVER owned any computer, but he is a
> Microsoft Certified Professional, so he was able to go to some classes and
pass
> some tests. Back in college 10 or 15 years ago he used a Mac SE once to
> write a term paper. I think of him as not computer literate.
Again, kudos to your IT Department.
> The GOOD thing about peecees is for people that really don't have a use
for
> them, except for maybe playing those murder simulation games like DOOM.
> There's constantly bigger faster processors and hard disks that you can
spend
> all your money on, then you can brag to your friends how you have the
biggest
> fastest latest thing.
>
Kinda like the G4, eh?
Seriously, though. My point was that each platform has it's pros and cons.
Most office environments will thrive on Windows or Mixed-with-Windows
environments. There will be some businesses that will thrive on Macs [i.e.
the print shop mentioned in another section of this thread].
Many casual and even enthusiast-level users would benefit from owning a Mac
over a PC. Unfortunately, many of those users simply cannot afford one.
I would like to thank you for further proving my point about lots of
'reasons' without any emperical data. I am glad, however, to also see many
non-biased points-of-view being shared as well. This newsgroup was
practically dead, and I seemed to have been able spark some life [read that
hit-a-nerve]. Mission accomplished.
-Greg
Moonman Mike
"Gregory A. Gonzalez" wrote:
> Many casual and even enthusiast-level users would benefit from owning a Mac
> over a PC. Unfortunately, many of those users simply cannot afford one.
Wrong.
Check the prices at the following;
While it was once true that you had to pay more for a mac, this is no
longer the case.
--
Mike
"Hope? There's always hope, Mr.Farnsworth." -DB
Dave Anderson
>>> I'm sorry - but it does have preemptive multitasking available, and it has
>>> been available since MacOS 7.1.2.
>>
>> Then why doesn't it work?
>
> What makes you think it doesn't work?
> It does work -- very well.
I have at least three applications that take control of my machine for
minutes at a time and do not allow me access to any of my other
applications, even when they are not actively using CPU cycles (two of them
do this while waiting for responses from remote servers). That is a perfect
example of cooperative multitasking, not preemptive.
Helmut P. Einfalt
Don Herring schrieb in Nachricht ...
>in article ccox-ya02408000R...@news.slip.net, Chris Cox at
>cc...@slip.net wrote on 5/20/00 1:23 AM:
>
>
> Without getting to much into the argument of Mac strengths and PC
>weaknesses if you are going to work in a multi-platform environment or
use
>the computer for internet access a Mac is the clear cut winner if you
are
>looking for a workstation that will only be exposed to a LAN the PC is
a
>clear winner.
I normally keep out of Mac vs. PC wars, but I have to butt in, for this
is simply crap.
Obviously the poster doesn't know that you can run several OS's on PCs
as well (with the exception of MacOS which is pretty
hardware-dependent) -- ever heard of Linux, OS/2, BeOS, DOS (plus a
variety of front-ends to it, the most famous of which -- albeit not
necessarily the best -- are some of the Windoze family), WinNT, AIX,
etc.? It seems that too many people think (a) Windows is "THE OS" for
Intel- (resp. AMD, Cyrix)-based PCs and that (2) Windows is *one* OS. In
fact, Win311 is (or rather, was) a front end to DOS, Win95 -- although
advertized as OS by its creators -- as well as its successor Win98 is
sort of a hybrid between a DOS GUI and an OS (there is very much DOS
based stuff still in there), WinNT is something *very* different from
the fomer three, and so forth.
May I ask what kind of definition of "multi-platform environment" the
poster has? How comes that a Mac on a multi-platform environment would
be the clear winner? Against what, if we exclude the obvious losers
(PCs)? And why should internet access on or from the Mac be better (or
worse, for that matter) than from a PC? Under which OS?With which
software? With which hardware?
I agree that a G4 with 56k modem is a lot more responsive than a 386
under Win311 with an internal 24.4 k Modem... but that is about as easy
to state as that a PIII machine under Linux and an active ISDN card
simply blows away any Mac+V34bis combo....
It seems that "PC" is only too frequently used as a synonym for -- or
rather, confused with -- "Win9x", and that won't do.
Stop that nonesense. The differences that there are, are subtle, and the
minimal advantages in one area are well made up by disadvantages in
another, so in the long run it sums up to taste and feeling comfy.
Period.
Helmut
from a multi-platform environment of several PCs, a Mac, connected to
the internet via ISDN and using at least four different OS's ...
T R Pardoe
Don Herring
Without getting to much into the argument of Mac strengths and PC
weaknesses if you are going to work in a multi-platform environment or use
the computer for internet access a Mac is the clear cut winner if you are
looking for a workstation that will only be exposed to a LAN the PC is a
clear winner. As kiddie scripts get more inventive the Windows platform
will prove less useful for internet applications and since there is no way
to run MacOS 9 on a PC but almost any OS will run on a G4 they're great for
multi-platform environments but if you're looking for a cheap workstation
there is no justification of cost to purchase a Mac
> In article <iYnU4.364$%P.1...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>, "Gregory A. Gonzalez"
> <ggon...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Wintel is more affordable, and easier to connect to other platforms. Macs
>> don't play well with others. Therefore, not only is the initial investment
>> less, but the total cost of ownership is less. This is good business sense,
>> and lets face it, kids, business is where computers are made or broken.
>
> You may be new to Macintosh - but you should already know that this is false.
> Macintoshes work very well with Windows machines (networking and disk
> media), while the reverse is only true with additional software. The only
> problem I know of is Macintoshes connecting to NT servers that are not
> running services for Macintosh -- then you may need a third party product
> on the Macintosh (DAVE - which works quite well).
>
>
>> Let's add two more to your list: protected memory and preemptive
>> multitasking. Can you name a Mac OS that will be available for public
>> purchase in this millennium that has either of these?
>
> The Macintosh has had preemptive multitasking for about 5 years now.
> It mostly gets used on MP machines (since it is technically part of the MP
> support). In some applications it's used for conveniece in porting or
> convenience in coding. If you don't disassemble applications or run a lot
> of thread (aka task) monitoring utilities, you'll probably never know it's
> being used.
>
>
> Chris
T R Pardoe
My G4 is fast on the Internet sure enough but it's inability to manage
memory often results in me having to restart IE and sometimes the whole
machine.
The Mac manual memory allocation is quite archaic and should have gone away
years ago.
I even have to use the conveniently raised button on the front of the G4
sometimes. Which might be why Apple made it raised so it would be easy to
find.
> From: Don Herring <dhe...@swbell.net>
> Organization: SBC Internet Services
> Newsgroups:
> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.sys.macintosh,comp.multimedia,comp.os.ms-win
> dows.apps
> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:33:59 -0500
> Subject: Re: A buying quandry (Mac vs. Intel)
>
J. Harder
hp.ei...@t-online.de wrote on 6/26/00 1:29 PM:
>
> Don Herring schrieb in Nachricht ...
>> in article ccox-ya02408000R...@news.slip.net, Chris Cox at
>> cc...@slip.net wrote on 5/20/00 1:23 AM:
>>
>>
>> Without getting to much into the argument of Mac strengths and PC
>> weaknesses if you are going to work in a multi-platform environment or
> use
>> the computer for internet access a Mac is the clear cut winner if you
> are
>> looking for a workstation that will only be exposed to a LAN the PC is
> a
>> clear winner.
>
For ease of use and less crashes, my vote goes to the Mac....It takes ALOT
to really screw up a Mac, enven if you do, the software reinstall is a
breeze. (About 2-3 mouse clicks and sit back and wait about 10 minutes and
you are up and running). I did that recently just for the hell of it. The
only things I had to reload were stuff I put on myself. (Aol, etc)
Jeff
gar...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>For ease of use and less crashes, my vote goes to the Mac....It takes ALOT
>to really screw up a Mac, enven if you do, the software reinstall is a
>breeze. (About 2-3 mouse clicks and sit back and wait about 10 minutes and
>you are up and running). I did that recently just for the hell of it. The
>only things I had to reload were stuff I put on myself. (Aol, etc)
>Jeff
You know, you had a pretty good advocacy post going there... until you
admitted using AOL!
-G
(Signature under permanent construction)
www.g-pix.com
Chris Cox
wrote:
> I disagree on this one.
>
> My G4 is fast on the Internet sure enough but it's inability to manage
> memory often results in me having to restart IE and sometimes the whole
> machine.
No, that's just due to sloppy programming in IE.
It bluescreens me on Windows just as often as it crashes my Macintosh.
> The Mac manual memory allocation is quite archaic and should have gone away
> years ago.
That's true.
Chris
Murray Gregory
After the power came back on, I was getting a flashing question mark
when I booted up the Mac.
I thought I lost everything. I had some backups of my docs, but they
were a couple of months old.
I thought the only thing I could do was re-install Mac OS 9, erasing
everything on the hard drive, just like a Windows re-format and install.
When I restarted my iMac after the clean system install, all my old
programs and documents were still on the hard disk!
The installation just moved the old system files to a different folder
called Previous System Folder.
I was shocked and amazed with how simple and painless this reinstalling
was and to top it off, not to lose anything!
I am new to Macs, but have already found out, Macs rule!
> From: gar...@earthlink.net
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> Newsgroups:
> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.sys.macintosh,comp.multimedia,comp.os.ms-win
> dows.apps
> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:10:17 GMT
> Subject: Re: A buying quandry (Mac vs. Intel)
>
T R Pardoe
Hardly a good advert for Apple.
I used to work on a cruise ship, not the most stable power environment, and
in 15 years never lost the OS on a DOS or Winders PC due to power
fluctuations.
If you only back up your data every 2 months you cannot expect much
sympathy, now can you.
> From: Murray Gregory <murray....@sk.sympatico.ca>
> Newsgroups:
> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.sys.macintosh,comp.multimedia,comp.os.ms-win
> dows.apps
> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 03:39:14 GMT
> Subject: Re: A buying quandry (Mac vs. Intel)
>
T R Pardoe
floppy and doing a "Sys C:"
woost_...@my-deja.com
Don Herring <dhe...@swbell.net> wrote:
> in article ccox-ya02408000R...@news.slip.net, Chris Cox
at
> cc...@slip.net wrote on 5/20/00 1:23 AM:
>
> Without getting to much into the argument of Mac strengths and PC
> weaknesses if you are going to work in a multi-platform environment
or use
> the computer for internet access a Mac is the clear cut winner if you
are
> looking for a workstation that will only be exposed to a LAN the PC
is a
I've had Macs since 1984( had 4 machines and several operating systems)
and used PC's since before then. In the 16 or so years on the Mac I
have NEVER had to reinstall an operating system. System crashes have
been rare. The continuity from MacOS to MacOS is startling. Can't say
that about WinTel machines.
With that said I would take the chance and buy a WINTEL machine for the
simple reason of the pervasivness and lower price of softeware.
Woost
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
aapl_guy
screen of death) the whole thing collapses. The Mac is like a deck of
cards. Remove one thing, shuffle 'em around and you still have a deck
of cards.
Sure there is more and yes cheaper software for the Windows OS, but
look at what it is. It's garbage and cheap boring games. There's
nothing you would ever need for your computer that isn't available for
the Mac.
One last thing. I'll tell what " is quite archaic and should have
gone away years ago". Having letters asigned to your disk drives. First
the C drive than the D drive. Move an application from C drive to D
drive and see if it still works properly. Try copying an application
from one Wintel machine to another and see if runs. Missing a .dll or
two?
David C. Barber
much simpler to install from your licensed install disc the single copy that
you purchased for legal use.
*David Barber*
"aapl_guy" <aapl...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:160820001838505282%aapl...@excite.com...
T R Pardoe
> screen of death) the whole thing collapses. The Mac is like a deck of
> cards. Remove one thing, shuffle 'em around and you still have a deck
> of cards.
Not true - like any OS (or any other bit of Technology) you have to follow
the rules to use it properly. As to shuffling things around on a MAC, try
shuffling your "extensions" (more properly called essentials) to another
location and see what happens.
> Try copying an application from one Wintel machine to another and see if
> runs. Missing a .dll or two?
I am surprised that the software industry has tolerated the MAC's ability to
let you copy most applications willy-nilly just by dumping the installed
folder onto a CD-R or Iomega disk and copying it to another MAC. Maybe this
is why the number of apps available for MAC is dramatically less than those
available for Winders and perhaps is one of the reasons for the MAC user
getting charged so much more.
> Sure there is more and yes cheaper software for the Windows OS, but
> look at what it is. It's garbage and cheap boring games. There's
> nothing you would ever need for your computer that isn't available for
> the Mac.
Like built in Drive Utilities that actually mean you don't have to buy a
copy of Norton's?
Like free Virus Scanners (Inoculan Personal Edition) which detect old & new
viruses whereas purchased MAC scanners (Virex) fail to detect three year old
Word Macro viruses even with this month's update.
> One last thing. I'll tell what " is quite archaic and should have
> gone away years ago". Having letters asigned to your disk drives. First
> the C drive than the D drive. Move an application from C drive to D
> drive and see if it still works properly.
At least you have 26 options. How many drives are you trying to connect ?
Have you ever owned/used/maintained a
'Wintel box" ?
When the MAC OS has finally, belatedly, acquired Memory Management I might
start to think nice things about it. Will OSX -ever- come out ?
You should read Macworld 09.2000 page 29, for a potted history of Apple's
failures trying to develop a decent operating system. Makes you wonder why
Mr. Jobs is always wearing that idiot grin.
T R Pardoe
I still cannot fathom the logic in selling a consumer computer (iMac) which
has no means of backup and restore. They could have at least made the CD-ROM
a CD-RW or, better still, found a gap for a Zipdrive like in the G4s. But
then they would have had compatability too and that would never do.
The hardware add-on industry must love 'em.
> From: T R Pardoe <ukex...@cs.com>
> Organization: New York University
> Newsgroups:
> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.sys.macintosh,comp.multimedia,comp.os.ms-win
> dows.apps
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:29:39 -0400
> Subject: Re: A buying quandry (Mac vs. Intel)
>
T R Pardoe
> From: T R Pardoe <ukex...@cs.com>
> Organization: New York University
> Newsgroups:
> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.sys.macintosh,comp.multimedia,comp.os.ms-win
> dows.apps
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:36:56 -0400
> Subject: Re: A buying quandry (Mac vs. Intel)
>
> Oh and whilst I am in the mood -
>
> I still cannot fathom the logic in selling a consumer computer (iMac) which
> has no means of backup and restore. They could have at least made the CD-ROM
> a CD-RW or, better still, found a gap for a Zipdrive like in the G4s. But
> then they would have had compatability too and that would never do.
>
> The hardware add-on industry must love 'em.
>
>> From: T R Pardoe <ukex...@cs.com>
>> Organization: New York University
>> Newsgroups:
>>
Eric J. Klooster
> I still cannot fathom the logic in selling a consumer computer (iMac) which
> has no means of backup and restore. They could have at least made the CD-ROM
> a CD-RW or, better still, found a gap for a Zipdrive like in the G4s. But
> then they would have had compatability too and that would never do.
>
> The hardware add-on industry must love 'em.
1) K.I.S.S.
2) You think that CD-RW and/or Zip drives are standard for Wintels?
Geez, like it makes a difference whether the add-on is internal or
external. If I have a Zip drive, Iomega gets money either way.
T R Pardoe
essential parts ?
It's not a matter of internal or external. It's a matter of not at all.
Judging by their latest TV adverts, the only things that matter to the
Management of Apple are nicely coloured plastic boxes and mice with the
(necessary but unsightly) cable removed.
> From: "Eric J. Klooster" <eric_k...@nospam.yahoo.com>
> Organization: Smiths Industries
> Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.sys.macintosh,comp.multimedia
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:35:10 -0400
> Subject: Re: A buying quandry (Mac vs. Intel)
>
Eric J. Klooster
To you, a Zip drive or CD-RW are essential. So much so that you would
like it that you couldn't buy a computer without it. I say that they are
not essential, and Apple agrees with me (so do many PC manufacturers, in
fact). I say it should definitely be an option, and the iMac provides
that option with USB ports. Why should I pay an extra $100 for a
computer with a zip drive when I don't want one.
The fact is, the option is easily available, it's just not available
internally.
Dave Anderson
> Why should I pay an extra $100 for a computer with a zip drive when I don't
> want one.
Many of us view Zip drives with contempt, for that matter, having already
experienced the Click of Death.
I consider the onboard NIC (and modem) more essential than a removable-media
drive any day. The iMac certainly did not skimp on connectivity.
T R Pardoe
That aside, I find your logic that connectivity is more important than
backup to be a bit dubious to say the least.
For the average home user, to whom the iMac is marketed, a NIC is useless.
Are you suggesting that John Doe back up his Data, let alone his
installation, to some Xdrive through a 56k modem?
> From: Dave Anderson <joea...@texas.net>
> Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
> Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.sys.macintosh,comp.multimedia
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:35:27 GMT
> Subject: Re: A buying quandry (Mac vs. Intel)
>
T R Pardoe
> From: "Eric J. Klooster" <eric_k...@nospam.yahoo.com>
> Organization: Not Much
> Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.sys.macintosh,comp.multimedia
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:09:50 -0400
> Subject: Re: A buying quandry (Mac vs. Intel)
>
> (so do many PC manufacturers, in fact)
It might be small but at least the PC manufacturers give you a floppy. You
have to go really down market to get a PC without CD-R or Zip nowadays.
Dave Anderson
> I find your logic that connectivity is more important than backup to be a bit
> dubious to say the least.
A Zip drive is a poor backup device. But if you really want one, they're
easily connected to an iMac through one of the USB ports. Need a CD writer?
FireWire is faster than SCSI, and the iMac has it.
Please explain why connectivity doesn't lead directly to the ability to
backup your data.
> For the average home user, to whom the iMac is marketed, a NIC is useless.
Don't be obtuse. The iMac is a great thin-client machine, and is very well
suited for computer labs, among other things. It is certainly not just a
home computer.
Is the NIC useless? Define useless. For those of us who ARE home users, a
NIC is *required* to connect a Mac to a cable modem or DSL modem -- and is
required to connect a PC to one in most cases -- not to mention connecting
to a hub. I am adding an iMac to my home network, and the NIC makes it
possible.
> Are you suggesting that John Doe back up his Data, let alone his installation,
> to some Xdrive through a 56k modem?
I back up data with my modem all of the time. It is much easier to put my
files on a server than port media around with me.
As for installations, there aren't many that can be backed up to Zip or CD,
but if you insist on doing so, the iMac will not prevent it.
Eric J. Klooster
>
> > (so do many PC manufacturers, in fact)
>
> It might be small but at least the PC manufacturers give you a floppy. You
> have to go really down market to get a PC without CD-R or Zip nowadays.
WTF are you talking about? A floppy is suitable for backup? All PC
manufacturers are fine to offer entry-level computers without backup,
but apple cannot?
If you own an iMac and want zip, jaz or CD-RW, you can easily buy one
and plug it in! Just because it doesn't have it out-of-the-box doesn't
mean it's impossible. You think that computer companies have to force
backup media on its customers? You think that someone who knows enough
about computers to be able to burn a CD isn't smart enough to know how
to connect a USB cable?
Your argument makes no sense, but I have no expectation that you will be
able to realize it.