Macintosh Justification
Pete Krueger
This seems to be an appropriate place to ask for help. If it is not, or
if there is a FAQ I was not able to turn up, please let me know (and
hopefully direct me elsewhere).
I'm requesting a Mac for work. Why, some may ask? There are problems
inherent in both. I'll deal. I just prefer using the Macintosh
interface, and being a web developer, I must develop my sites to be
accessible to all. (Kind of difficult without a testing platform.)
Anyway, I think I have significant justification just requesting it for
testing purposes, but I'd also like to have further reasoning to present
to the purchasers. What advantages do Macintoshes have over PCs,
specifically in the areas of graphic design? I had heard that Macintosh
graphic boards are better equipped to handle graphic intensive programs
like Illustrator and Photoshop. True?
Thanks for all your help,
Pete
Krueger
P.S. I also posted a question in the comp.sys.mac.hardware section, but
I'll also add it in case anyone has insights here (and doesn't read
there). Anyone know why the 15" LCD screen is listed by Apple as not
recommended with the G4? Should I buy an LCD from another vendor?
JTraum76
You're a web developer and your email is from a university and you don't know
the graphical advantages of the Mac? I smell a fish...and i't a rotten one too.
Jared
--------------------------------------
"I believe that Windows NT users are happy with Windows, and that's a very
frightening thing." - Steve Jobs
Groman
site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Sector/9295/joust/win-vs-mac-system.h
tml
and move through the site, via the link at the bottom
some things are better on Mac, but graphics design is not(against the
popular myth)
Peter Ammon
>
> Mac's have very little advantages over PCs, for more info check out this
> site:
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Sector/9295/joust/win-vs-mac-system.h
> tml
> and move through the site, via the link at the bottom
>
> some things are better on Mac, but graphics design is not(against the
> popular myth)
>
That page is truly pathetic, I must say. I could go through it item
by item, but it would really be too easy.
-Peter
--
The Shame Eliminator: http://shameeliminator.cjb.net/
Groman
think?
Peter Ammon
>
> can you elaborate a little? "pathetic" is too general a term, don't you
> think?
>
Sure thing. It is essentially a list of the way that Windows does
things, and then those are declared "the right way" so they are
"advantages." There are a few exceptions, such as spring loaded
folders, but those are rare, and not even really that important (I
almost never use spring loaded folders.)
For example, "multiple instances of programs allowed." I still
haven't heard a single reason why this is desireable, yet it's
called an advantage. "Windows are resizeable..." it's called an
advantage on the Windows side because you can do it from any side of
the window, despite the fact that I've heard people complain that
this makes it awkward to move windows. "Each window has manu" is
another example, where the windows way is considered superior just
by virtue of it being the windows way. It mentions things like
minimizing windows without mentioning windowshading windows, an
analogue on the Mac.
Essentially, it starts with the premise that Windows does things
best, and then uses that to prove that Windows does things best.
That's why I call it pathetic.
Jim Polaski
> Mac's have very little advantages over PCs, for more info check out this
> site:
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Sector/9295/joust/win-vs-mac-system.h
> tml
> and move through the site, via the link at the bottom
>
> some things are better on Mac, but graphics design is not(against the
> popular myth)
=======
Since you are in the what, 11th grade( I think you said) I think we can
forgive your reliance on someone's opinion voiced in this site( perhaps
your own???), a lot of which is, well inaccurate.
Here's a hint. Watch your local news stand. Look for a Magazine called
"Communication Arts". It "covers" the professional graphics world. Watch
for their Annuals-Photography and Illustration. Go look at the winners and
what "platform" they use. Then go look for another Magazine called "HOW"
and do the same thing. Then look for a third Magazine called "DESIGN" from
Canada and do the same. Look at what platform the "Creators" have used.
Then come back a report to us. Here's the second hint. You won't find PC's
being the platform used by the majority of creative artists. You also
don't find PC's in a graphcis workflow situation. Why? To automate
repetative tasks is so far simplier using Appelscript than creating
binaries in the PC....and there is a host of other reasons, like the PC's
inability to produce as clean a "Postscript" output to go to a RIP as
Macs. In fact, often SB's take their PC files over to Macs for output just
because the output is far less troublesome. And this also goes for places
like a Kinkos as well.
IOW, you had better go tell the "Professional Graphics" world that PC 's
are better for graphics. They haven't figured that out yet, because it
isn't.
===========
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: "Groman" <gro...@tfz.net>
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 21:19:06 -0700
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
<re-order awkward, newbie posting style for easier reading>
>
>> Groman wrote:
>>>
>>> Mac's have very little advantages over PCs, for more info check out this
>>> site:
>>>
>>> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Sector/9295/joust/win-vs-mac-system
>>> .html and move through the site, via the link at the bottom some things are
>>> better on Mac, but graphics design is not(against the popular myth)
>>>
>>
>> That page is truly pathetic, I must say. I could go through it item
>> by item, but it would really be too easy.
>>
> can you elaborate a little? "pathetic" is too general a term, don't you
> think?
It is pathetic.
1. Windows 3.1 did not have protected memory
2. Windows 3.11 was not 32-bit, only the TCP/IP stack was allegedly 32-bit
(according to MS).
3. "True" Plug and Play is on the Mac, NOT on any version of windows.
4. The number of instances of an application is limited to the amount of
heap space. Under Windows 3.1, this was 64k, which was exhausted quickly.
Under Win9x, this is improved dramatically, but still very finite.
5. "Control Over File Path: Hidden" on Mac? Nonsense. The file path on a Mac
is, for example "Macintosh HD:Applications:Photoshop:..."
6. "Built in 3D graphic engine:Mac 7.x - none"? Try QD 3D.
7. No multimedia subsystem for Mac? try QuickTime - which MS stole for their
lame Video for Windows.
8. The majority of the "advantages" for windows was pure nonsense, i.e.
adjustable scroll bar thickness? Batch files as a scripting language??? What
a load!
The entire premise for this squids comparison was to promote his own
ridiculous bias, and nothing more. Unfortunately for him, he only managed to
expose his ignorance on virtually every category.
-10/10
--KT
Michael Dawson
Groman wrote:
>
> Mac's have very little advantages over PCs, for more info check out this
> site:
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Sector/9295/joust/win-vs-mac-system.h
> tml
> and move through the site, via the link at the bottom
>
> some things are better on Mac, but graphics design is not(against the
> popular myth)
>
> ((snipped))
How in the world can comparing 3 versions of Windows and only 2 versions
of MacOS be considered fare?
Mike
"An experiment was done on six mice. Three died...three ran away. The
report stated all six mice died.
Oh my god, what the hell is that running up my leg?!?"
Thingfishhhh
> Mac's have very little advantages over PCs, for more info check out this
> site:
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Sector/9295/joust/win-vs-mac-system.h
> tml
> and move through the site, via the link at the bottom
>
> some things are better on Mac, but graphics design is not(against the
> popular myth)
What did I tell you, a Troll in training. He's following the classic form,
citing lame websites as a basis for making unfounded claims. In fact, he's
another Toddler, just two years older.
Granted, he was'nt around for the last attempt by the Trolls to claim that
Windows is "better" for graphics, but he'll learn. Oh yes, he'll learn.
BTW, Groman, I'm a professional graphic designer and illustrator with 12+
years street experience, so don't think I don't know what I'm talking
about, and George Graves and several others have as much experience, if
not more.
Windows is NOT "better" for graphics - in fact, several crucial
technologies like Postcript are poory implemented in Windows, which keeps
it from being used by a majority of designers and pre-press and creative
people.
Christopher Smith
"Thingfishhhh" <Thingf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Thingfishhhh-2...@ppp-206-170-29-121.wnck11.pacbell.net...
I must say that web site he posted is pretty pathetic as well......
Sarek
<ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>It is pathetic.
>
>1. Windows 3.1 did not have protected memory
>2. Windows 3.11 was not 32-bit, only the TCP/IP stack was allegedly 32-bit
>(according to MS).
>3. "True" Plug and Play is on the Mac, NOT on any version of windows.
>4. The number of instances of an application is limited to the amount of
>heap space. Under Windows 3.1, this was 64k, which was exhausted quickly.
>Under Win9x, this is improved dramatically, but still very finite.
>5. "Control Over File Path: Hidden" on Mac? Nonsense. The file path on a Mac
>is, for example "Macintosh HD:Applications:Photoshop:..."
>6. "Built in 3D graphic engine:Mac 7.x - none"? Try QD 3D.
>7. No multimedia subsystem for Mac? try QuickTime - which MS stole for their
>lame Video for Windows.
>8. The majority of the "advantages" for windows was pure nonsense, i.e.
>adjustable scroll bar thickness? Batch files as a scripting language??? What
>a load!
>
>The entire premise for this squids comparison was to promote his own
>ridiculous bias, and nothing more. Unfortunately for him, he only managed to
>expose his ignorance on virtually every category.
And just what did you do here?
Item 3 in particular?
Looks like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: Sarek <sa...@vulcan.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 09:29:35 -0400
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
Perhaps you should get your vision checked.
"True" plug and play would require no interaction from the user, no
installation disks, just plug and, well, play.
Does any version of windows provide for that?
<preemptive message>
Did I say anything about the Mac?
</preemptive message>
--KT
Sarek
<ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>"True" plug and play would require no interaction from the user, no
>installation disks, just plug and, well, play.
>Does any version of windows provide for that?
That usually happens in Win98/Win 2000. If the device comes out after
the OS, pretty hard for that to happen, unless we have clairvoyant or
generic drivers.
>Did I say anything about the Mac?
You said the Mac does, and it does it no better.
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: Sarek <sa...@vulcan.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:47:03 -0400
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
The Mac does it quite a bit better. I've never seen PCI bus contention on
any Mac, nor have I ever witness any type of device conflict on the Mac. I
*have* experienced this on every version of windows, however.
To state that the Mac does not have "true" PnP is like saying that BMW does
not make a "True" M3. They invented it.
--KT
The Lord Of Lemmings
>Hello,
>
>This seems to be an appropriate place to ask for help. If it is not, or
>if there is a FAQ I was not able to turn up, please let me know (and
>hopefully direct me elsewhere).
>
>I'm requesting a Mac for work. Why, some may ask? There are problems
>inherent in both. I'll deal. I just prefer using the Macintosh
>interface, and being a web developer, I must develop my sites to be
>accessible to all. (Kind of difficult without a testing platform.)
>
>Anyway, I think I have significant justification just requesting it for
>testing purposes, but I'd also like to have further reasoning to present
>to the purchasers. What advantages do Macintoshes have over PCs,
>specifically in the areas of graphic design? I had heard that Macintosh
>graphic boards are better equipped to handle graphic intensive programs
>like Illustrator and Photoshop. True?
Photoshop is enhanced for the G4, and according to Adobe itself the Mac
runs Photoshop the fastest. I imagine that Illustrator and other Adobe
products will be updated for the G4 shortly.
The majority of graphic artists swear by Colorsync. Being able to
calibrate colors so that what you see is what you get for printouts, and
to a lesser extent on the Web, is, I'm told a distinct advantage, although
I have not used it extensively myelf, being at best an amateur in that
field.
The graphics card that the G4s come with is very good for 2D graphics.
(Although why they don't offer an upgrade to the 32MB card I have no
idea.)
>
>Thanks for all your help,
>
>Pete
>Krueger
>
>P.S. I also posted a question in the comp.sys.mac.hardware section, but
>I'll also add it in case anyone has insights here (and doesn't read
>there). Anyone know why the 15" LCD screen is listed by Apple as not
>recommended with the G4? Should I buy an LCD from another vendor?
No clue on this one. You should ask for a Cinema Display, though.
(You'll probably get turned down, but oh well.)
--
| Scientia Claus, Lord Of Lemmings <am...@cornell.edu> |
|"The Library is a sphere whose exact center is any one of its hexagons|
| and whose circumference is inaccessible." -- Jorge Luis Borges |
|"One feels as if one is dissolved and merged into nature." -- Einstein|
Brian Richardson
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 08:06:51 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
> >"True" plug and play would require no interaction from the user, no
> >installation disks, just plug and, well, play.
>
> >Does any version of windows provide for that?
>
> That usually happens in Win98/Win 2000. If the device comes out after
> the OS, pretty hard for that to happen, unless we have clairvoyant or
> generic drivers.
>
> >Did I say anything about the Mac?
>
> You said the Mac does, and it does it no better.
That is such an un-credible assertion.....just ridiculous...
The Lord Of Lemmings
>can you elaborate a little? "pathetic" is too general a term, don't you
>think?
Well, among other things you've made no mention of MacOS 9, which was
launched today, nd would be bundled on almost any new mac that this guy
would be getting.
>> Groman wrote:
>> >
>> > Mac's have very little advantages over PCs, for more info check out this
>> > site:
>> >
>http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Sector/9295/joust/win-vs-mac-system.h
>> > tml
>> > and move through the site, via the link at the bottom
>> >
>> > some things are better on Mac, but graphics design is not(against the
>> > popular myth)
>> >
>>
>> That page is truly pathetic, I must say. I could go through it item
>> by item, but it would really be too easy.
>>
>> -Peter
>>
>> --
>> The Shame Eliminator: http://shameeliminator.cjb.net/
--
Groman
That website is pathetic, but I heard a note in this thread of "multiple
instances? who would ever need them?"
well, I need them if an application is SDI, I need several.
I reresearched my info on mac, and now only three things bother me:
Price, Static Memory Allocation, Cooperative Multitasking(this one is
especially annoying for a
win32 user)
now, can somebody help me remove these concerns, and I would agree that
MacOS is somewhat
better than win95/98(not NT, though)
tinman
be that you could run VPC and use it to test web pages on both Macs and
PCs.
I would also suggest that the mac still holds the lead in 2d artwork and
layout software. Photoshop is a must have for your work, and it is both
fast and stable under MacOS. In particular, if you are designing any work
for printout, a mac is much better--printing shops have many fewer
problems IME taking output from a mac to produce accurate color print
jobs. And IME it's easier to merge data from mulitple programs under MacOS
than under windows.
Finally, if you prefer a mac, and this workstation is for your use, you'll
be a happier more prouductive worker using MacOS than Windows (but I'm
sure you know this already).
In article <3810D014...@umuc.edu>, Pete Krueger <pkru...@umuc.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This seems to be an appropriate place to ask for help. If it is not, or
> if there is a FAQ I was not able to turn up, please let me know (and
> hopefully direct me elsewhere).
>
> I'm requesting a Mac for work. Why, some may ask? There are problems
> inherent in both. I'll deal. I just prefer using the Macintosh
> interface, and being a web developer, I must develop my sites to be
> accessible to all. (Kind of difficult without a testing platform.)
>
> Anyway, I think I have significant justification just requesting it for
> testing purposes, but I'd also like to have further reasoning to present
> to the purchasers. What advantages do Macintoshes have over PCs,
> specifically in the areas of graphic design? I had heard that Macintosh
> graphic boards are better equipped to handle graphic intensive programs
> like Illustrator and Photoshop. True?
>
>
> Thanks for all your help,
>
> Pete
> Krueger
>
> P.S. I also posted a question in the comp.sys.mac.hardware section, but
> I'll also add it in case anyone has insights here (and doesn't read
> there). Anyone know why the 15" LCD screen is listed by Apple as not
> recommended with the G4? Should I buy an LCD from another vendor?
--
______
tinman
Pascal Haakmat
>Ok, people you got me...
>That website is pathetic, but I heard a note in this thread of "multiple
>instances? who would ever need them?"
>well, I need them if an application is SDI, I need several.
That's a problem with SDI, of course. Not to say that there is never a valid
reason to start multiple instances of the same application, but on the Mac
it is simply a bit of a non-issue. Often (on Unix for example) you run
multiple instances of one application to edit multiple documents. Because
almost every Mac application can open multiple documents, there is no need
to be running multiple instances of the same application.
There may be some fringe cases where the Mac's approach breaks down; perhaps
when you want to track several e-mail accounts or news accounts. But every
OS has fringe cases where the OS design "gets in your way".
>I reresearched my info on mac, and now only three things bother me:
>Price, Static Memory Allocation, Cooperative Multitasking(this one is
>especially annoying for a win32 user)
All three valid complaints. But endlessly rehashed. As for price, Apple is
bringing prices down slowly, although there will always be an "Apple premium".
>now, can somebody help me remove these concerns, and I would agree that
>MacOS is somewhat better than win95/98(not NT, though)
Better without context is meaningless. If I want to play Descent II, a PC
running Win95 is my best option. If I want to do "traditional" graphics, a
G4 running OS 8 is my best option. If I want flexibility, Linux is my best
option. If I need to run Office and Internet applications, then Windows NT
is probably my best option.
So every operating system covers different bases, and there is a lot of
overlap between them. You could argue that Windows covers more bases that
any other operating system, though, and that would be probably just about
right. But that is not an observation that necessarily leads to the best
system for any particular job. Some jobs are better done with good PostScript
output than with preemptive multitasking.
--
see you in 2017
Thingfishhhh
<sa...@vulcan.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 08:06:51 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >"True" plug and play would require no interaction from the user, no
> >installation disks, just plug and, well, play.
>
>
> >Does any version of windows provide for that?
>
> That usually happens in Win98/Win 2000. If the device comes out after
> the OS, pretty hard for that to happen, unless we have clairvoyant or
> generic drivers.
>
> >Did I say anything about the Mac?
>
> You said the Mac does, and it does it no better.
Utterly preposterous, Sarek.
While it's true that not all peripherals attach and work with a Mac simply
by plugging it in - scanners being the prime example, they all need
drivers installed - the experience on a Mac is FAR easier. Windows HAS
gotten *better*, but I see no parity between the two platforms. All one
has to do is go into any Windows support NG, and one can pick countless
examples of the hair-pulling hoops people jump through to get devices to
work.
There's good reason for the better PnP on a Mac - Apple requires certain
things in devices to make them "Mac" comapatible, and MS is dealing with a
huge market of third party devices that may or may not follow design (PnP)
guidelines. That's not good or bad - that's reality, and it makes PnP more
problematic in Windows than it does with a Mac.
To be perfectly honest, the whole PnP issue is a silly one, anyway, and is
simply a marketing tool MS bludgeons people with, and Trolls use to "win"
obscure points with.
Groman
but a price of a PC is going down much faster than Mac prices.
right now I can build a very decent PC for $450 at home.
(not some cyrix) Celeron based, 128 RAM, 17 inch monitor etc.
so apple better make something up fast if it wants to stay in the race...
Tim Mayer
> In article <29cRONV37c6xhR...@4ax.com>, Sarek
> <sa...@vulcan.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 08:06:51 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> > <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >"True" plug and play would require no interaction from the user, no
> > >installation disks, just plug and, well, play.
> >
> >
> > >Does any version of windows provide for that?
> >
> > That usually happens in Win98/Win 2000. If the device comes out after
> > the OS, pretty hard for that to happen, unless we have clairvoyant or
> > generic drivers.
> >
> > >Did I say anything about the Mac?
> >
> > You said the Mac does, and it does it no better.
>
> Utterly preposterous, Sarek.
>
> While it's true that not all peripherals attach and work with a Mac simply
> by plugging it in - scanners being the prime example, they all need
> drivers installed - the experience on a Mac is FAR easier. Windows HAS
> gotten *better*, but I see no parity between the two platforms. All one
> has to do is go into any Windows support NG, and one can pick countless
> examples of the hair-pulling hoops people jump through to get devices to
> work.
This is true, however doesn't this also mean that Mac user's are going
encounter more PnP problems as they adopt more and more industry standards
peripherals.
> There's good reason for the better PnP on a Mac - Apple requires certain
> things in devices to make them "Mac" comapatible, and MS is dealing with a
> huge market of third party devices that may or may not follow design (PnP)
> guidelines. That's not good or bad - that's reality, and it makes PnP more
> problematic in Windows than it does with a Mac.
>
> To be perfectly honest, the whole PnP issue is a silly one, anyway, and is
> simply a marketing tool MS bludgeons people with, and Trolls use to "win"
> obscure points with.
Surely you jest, Thingfishhhh. Conceptually, PnP is a big requirement of any
device in a consumer market. I cannot imagine very many computer owners,
trying to determine why their scanner doesn't do anything when they press
the "Scan" button. It really should be as simple as "Plug it in", otherwise
it will be useless for a majority of the market. Isn't that the way every
other device in the house works when you plug it in right?
Tim
Bryant Brandon
@can you elaborate a little? "pathetic" is too general a term, don't you
@think?
Tooltips, windows: no, yes, yes; mac: yes, yes. The icon on the far
right is a wondows icon, saying windows is "better." There are other
examples of this, look for them.
Integrated Browser: this is a rather hotly contested topic, (not just
whether it's integrated, but also if its any good) why does the author
feel he can decide the issue for everybody?
ActiveX?
What does "Internet Connection Software" mean? I've been accessing the
internet from my mac since sys 7.5.
Whole damn customization page: What? Never seen ResEdit? Can windows
select wallpaper from a text file? That's what the page implies.
If windows 95 gets credit for DOS batch files, then why doesn't mac OS
get credit for MPW scripts?
Mac files have archive dates, but they aren't used by anybody.
Why are filename extensions seen as superior to 4 char type and creator
codes? I'm not saying either is better, but this one is just a matter of
opinion as far as I can tell, yet windows is labeled the winner.
At best the "scoring system" is inconsistant, at worst it's biased.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://web2.airmail.net/dbrandon
I post infrequently; please email me if you want me to see a reply.
Charles Bouldin
>absolutely agree!
>
>but a price of a PC is going down much faster than Mac prices.
>
>right now I can build a very decent PC for $450 at home.
>(not some cyrix) Celeron based, 128 RAM, 17 inch monitor etc.
I believe this likely to be one of the compuserve (or similar) "rebate"
deals. You can get an iMac for about, what is is, $500 if you sign up with
compuserver or some such. The Wa. Post did an analysis of the real cost of
these things and it's no bargain.
Michael Dawson
Groman wrote:
>
> absolutely agree!
>
> but a price of a PC is going down much faster than Mac prices.
>
> right now I can build a very decent PC for $450 at home.
> (not some cyrix) Celeron based, 128 RAM, 17 inch monitor etc.
>
> so apple better make something up fast if it wants to stay in the race...
>
((snipped))
Well, I could build a car from parts gathered from here and there, but I
would have a hell of a time building my own Jaguar or BMW.
So, whats your point? You do fine without Apple. Apple is doing fine
without you.
Mike
Groman
floppy, cdrom, monitor, video/audio/USB
cards, RAM, and such
and assemble it... last time i did that for my friend it took about 35
minutes to assemble, and 1 and a half
hours to configure, install and troubleshoot... works like a charm....if you
read the manuals of course...
> In article <s142m6...@news.supernews.com>, "Groman" <gro...@tfz.net>
wrote:
>
> >absolutely agree!
> >
> >but a price of a PC is going down much faster than Mac prices.
> >
> >right now I can build a very decent PC for $450 at home.
> >(not some cyrix) Celeron based, 128 RAM, 17 inch monitor etc.
>
Sarek
<ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>To state that the Mac does not have "true" PnP is like saying that BMW does
>not make a "True" M3. They invented it.
Then why do you need to install drivers so often?
Sarek
(Thingfishhhh) wrote:
>
>Utterly preposterous, Sarek.
>
>While it's true that not all peripherals attach and work with a Mac simply
>by plugging it in - scanners being the prime example, they all need
>drivers installed - the experience on a Mac is FAR easier.
Actually, I've had scanners picked up using Win98.
There's been a dramatic improvement from 95 to 98/2000. In 95,
calling it "Plug and Pray" seemed hype. A large majority of items get
picked up with no problem.
>Windows HAS
>gotten *better*, but I see no parity between the two platforms. All one
>has to do is go into any Windows support NG, and one can pick countless
>examples of the hair-pulling hoops people jump through to get devices to
>work.
Mr. Taggart described "true" Plug-and-Play as ""True" plug and play
would require no interaction from the user, no installation disks,
just plug and, well, play." The Mac does not meet that criteria
anymore than 98/2000, and that is what I said. I wasn't addressing
which handled the job better.
Sarek
wrote:
>That is such an un-credible assertion.....just ridiculous...
Why?
Does the Mac do just what Mr. Taggart said? Even Thingfishhh admits
it doesn't.
I was just saying the Mac didn't meet Mr. Taggart's description,
either.
>
Sarek
Lemmings) wrote:
>>I'm requesting a Mac for work. Why, some may ask? There are problems
>>inherent in both. I'll deal. I just prefer using the Macintosh
>>interface, and being a web developer, I must develop my sites to be
>>accessible to all. (Kind of difficult without a testing platform.)
I think this article addresses the issue pretty well and impartially:
http://www.publish.com/features/9908/mixnmatch/mixnmatch.html
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: Sarek <sa...@vulcan.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 20:07:56 -0400
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
In my BMW? I don't.
In my Mac? I don't.
--KT
Edwin
Pete Krueger <pkru...@umuc.edu> wrote in message
news:3810D014...@umuc.edu...
> Hello,
>
> This seems to be an appropriate place to ask for help. If it is not, or
> if there is a FAQ I was not able to turn up, please let me know (and
> hopefully direct me elsewhere).
>
> inherent in both. I'll deal. I just prefer using the Macintosh
> interface, and being a web developer, I must develop my sites to be
> accessible to all. (Kind of difficult without a testing platform.)
This is your justification. We use Macs where I work for this very reason.
> Anyway, I think I have significant justification just requesting it for
> testing purposes, but I'd also like to have further reasoning to present
> to the purchasers. What advantages do Macintoshes have over PCs,
> specifically in the areas of graphic design? I had heard that Macintosh
> graphic boards are better equipped to handle graphic intensive programs
> like Illustrator and Photoshop. True?
That's not what you need for Web development. Either a Mac or a PC is good
enough for that. Stick with your first argument, the second one is
nonsense.
>
> Thanks for all your help,
>
> Pete
> Krueger
>
> P.S. I also posted a question in the comp.sys.mac.hardware section, but
> I'll also add it in case anyone has insights here (and doesn't read
> there). Anyone know why the 15" LCD screen is listed by Apple as not
> recommended with the G4? Should I buy an LCD from another vendor?
I wouldn't go against Apple's recommendation, but I would ask them the
question directly.
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: David Corn <dc...@pdq.net>
> Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:10:18 -0500
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:08:59 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>>>> To state that the Mac does not have "true" PnP is like saying that BMW does
>>>> not make a "True" M3. They invented it.
>>>
>>> Then why do you need to install drivers so often?
>>
>> In my BMW? I don't.
>>
>> In my Mac? I don't.
>
> Install a V3 2000 card into your Mac, and use it for OpenGL (or RAVE)
> Q2 (or OpenGL Q3) without adding new drivers.
Why? Is this a right of manhood in the PC world?
If so, you may want to get a refund.
--KT
LP
Peter Ammon <pa...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:381139E9...@cornell.edu...
> Groman wrote:
> >
> > can you elaborate a little? "pathetic" is too general a term, don't you
> >
>
> Sure thing. It is essentially a list of the way that Windows does
> things, and then those are declared "the right way" so they are
> "advantages." There are a few exceptions, such as spring loaded
> folders, but those are rare, and not even really that important (I
> almost never use spring loaded folders.)
>
> For example, "multiple instances of programs allowed."
Plenty of reasons actually. Take for example, if you wished to be reading
two different newsgroups simultaneously. Not many newsgroup readers will
allow that. You can only look at one group at a time. So, open up two
newsreaders.
Or say, you wish to view webpage code in the same viewer, but with different
options on concurrently. E.g. to compare your code in IE4.02 with and
without Java enabled.
Or, what I do all the time.. I read my work related boards, with cookies set
on.. yet I do all my otherbrowsers set wtih cookies off. That way, I can
> called an advantage. "Windows are resizeable..." it's called an
> advantage on the Windows side because you can do it from any side of
> the window, despite the fact that I've heard people complain that
> this makes it awkward to move windows.
VERY important when you are running massive windows.
"Each window has manu" is
> another example, where the windows way is considered superior just
> by virtue of it being the windows way. It mentions things like
> minimizing windows without mentioning windowshading windows, an
> analogue on the Mac.
Not quite. You still have the annoying bar blocking view.
Here are some *MAJOR* improvements that I wish they'll copy from windows.
they may have done some on OS9.. I havn't seen it yet )
"Finder" or "program bar" that shows not only open applications, but open
folders.
Bar-icon or quick key to "hide all" open windows, "hide all" open
applications, or vice versa.
Bar-icon to switch between multiple documents within an application.
Keyboard access to all pull down menu'es. I know most of the quick keys in
the apps I use alot.. but don't memorize all the keys in all the apps. This
is especially annoying with either cryptic quickkey.. or when there is no
quickkey at all!
No standard 2 button, wheel scroll mouse.
LP
Kevin M. Taggart <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:B4371D1B.1C5D%ktag...@easystreet.com...
> > Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
> >
> installation disks, just plug and, well, play.
>
Yes/No. Win98 or Win95OSR2.1 offers it for virtually all major devices that
were available when the code was written.
Obviously, if a new device is developed AFTER the OS is written.. there is
no way that the OS programmers could provice drivers for it!
LP
>
>
> > From: Sarek <sa...@vulcan.com>
> > Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:47:03 -0400
> > Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
> >
> > <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> "True" plug and play would require no interaction from the user, no
> >> installation disks, just plug and, well, play.
> >
> >
> >> Does any version of windows provide for that?
> >
> > the OS, pretty hard for that to happen, unless we have clairvoyant or
> > generic drivers.
> >
> >> Did I say anything about the Mac?
> >
> > You said the Mac does, and it does it no better.
>
> any Mac, nor have I ever witness any type of device conflict on the Mac. I
> *have* experienced this on every version of windows, however.
If "true" plug and play requires no installation disks.. then how come so
many G3/G4 owners ( me included ) have had to download updated drivers from
ATI... especially to correct problems, and improve Rave performance?
Edwin
>
>
> > From: David Corn <dc...@pdq.net>
> > Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions -
http://bCandid.com
> > Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:10:18 -0500
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:08:59 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> > <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> To state that the Mac does not have "true" PnP is like saying that
BMW does
> >>>> not make a "True" M3. They invented it.
> >>>
> >>> Then why do you need to install drivers so often?
> >>
> >> In my BMW? I don't.
> >>
> >> In my Mac? I don't.
> >
> > Install a V3 2000 card into your Mac, and use it for OpenGL (or RAVE)
> > Q2 (or OpenGL Q3) without adding new drivers.
>
> Why? Is this a right of manhood in the PC world?
Mac advocates often boast of adding new hardware without needing drivers.
When you're shown this works for a PC, but not a Mac, you seek to dismiss
it.
> If so, you may want to get a refund.
You may want to consider working on a real rebuttal.
>
> --KT
>
Pascal Haakmat
>absolutely agree!
>
>but a price of a PC is going down much faster than Mac prices.
>
>right now I can build a very decent PC for $450 at home.
>(not some cyrix) Celeron based, 128 RAM, 17 inch monitor etc.
Care to list the parts?
>so apple better make something up fast if it wants to stay in the race...
Apple is not in that race. What warranty do you offer on your $450 machine?
Would a company let you install 10 of them? 50? 200? If it takes you 2 hours
to setup one machine, is that cost-effective when compared to a $999 Apple?
Michael J. Stango
<dc...@pdq.net> wrote:
> Install a V3 2000 card into your Mac, and use it for OpenGL (or RAVE)
> Q2 (or OpenGL Q3) without adding new drivers.
Well, that won't work.
Install the video-card-of-the-month into your PC, and use it and a
resolution greater than 640 x 480 and at a 16 or 32-bit color depth without
adding new drivers first. Oops, you can't.
The Mac only needs drivers for the bell and whistle features on a video
card, you don't need drivers if you don't want to use them. If you DO want
to use them you're not limited to a dinky display on your 17" monitor until
you install them and reboot.
~Philly
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Michael J. Stango --who is known as 'mjstango' at his ISP, 'home.com'
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing division
of Microsoft as 'a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be first against
the wall when the revolution comes.'" -- Apologies to Douglas Adams
C Lund
> Mac's have very little advantages over PCs, for more info check out this
> site:
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Sector/9295/joust/win-vs-mac-system.h
> tml
> and move through the site, via the link at the bottom
Done. And was I convinced? Nope. For one thing, who the hell says the
"windows" way is supiriour? And there are a bunch of things I don't quite
agree with on that list:
---
-Crash recovery. What is this?
-Number of instances of programs allowed. I don't *want* n versions of
Photoshop running at a time. 1 is all I need. Hint: on the mac, most apps
can handle multiple documents.
-Automatically removes unnessary files (win98). Actually, it doesn't.
.dlls, anybody?
-Automatically updates itself via the Internet. Is this necessarily a good
thing? I want to know what goes on in my computer. Not have it download a
bunch of stuff on it's own. Sadly, I believe OS 9.0 does this too. B(
-File Drag indicators. Who says Windows is better here?
-Classification of files. Yeah, sure. File name extensions are better.
Sure. Not.
-Maximum filename length. Problem is, the WinX filename includes the path name.
-Can right drag files for a full option menu. This is supiriour because..?
-Automatically organizes files when transported between machines. Eh?
-Windows are resizable. And Windows is supiriour because...?
-Number of mouse buttons supported by OS. This should have been "number of
mouse buttons *needed* by OS. And the Mac would have won.
-Pop-up (contextual) menus. I don't like these and I don't think I ever will.
-Right-click for contextual menus. Having menus scattered all over the
window is *not* an advantage. Option-click for contextual menu in the menu
bar. Mac wins big time.
-Each Window has menu. Advantage because...?
-Tool tips. And Windows is better because...?
-View computer as web page. This is a good thing???
-Integrated browser. This is a good thing???
-Supports ActiveX technology. So? Who cares?
-CUSTOMIZATION PAGE: Never heard of ResEdit, bub?
-Built-in 3d Graphics Engine. So Windows wins because it have ActiveX? Why
is that?
-Multimedia subsystem. And Windows wins because...?
---
Was I impressed by this page? Nope. What are the chances Toddler has a
link to this page on his pathetic wbsite?
--
The Lord Of Lemmings
>Groman wrote:
>
>>absolutely agree!
>>
>>but a price of a PC is going down much faster than Mac prices.
>>
>>right now I can build a very decent PC for $450 at home.
>>(not some cyrix) Celeron based, 128 RAM, 17 inch monitor etc.
>
>Care to list the parts?
Seriously. A decently fast celeron, 128 MB RAM and a decent 17" monitor
alone total about $450.
Suzanne Archibald
wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 07:24:56 GMT, lo...@my.sig (Michael J. Stango)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <mJQSOOBjYKBTZH6IP5cSUyNI=2...@4ax.com>, David Corn
> ><dc...@pdq.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Install a V3 2000 card into your Mac, and use it for OpenGL (or RAVE)
> >> Q2 (or OpenGL Q3) without adding new drivers.
> >
> >Well, that won't work.
> >
> >Install the video-card-of-the-month into your PC, and use it and a
> >resolution greater than 640 x 480 and at a 16 or 32-bit color depth without
> >adding new drivers first. Oops, you can't.
>
> The point was that Kevin was wrong.
>
> In this case, however, if it is a new card, made after the
> introduction of Windows, you'll need to add new drivers. If it's an
> older card, you won't.
>
Unfortunatly, this isn't always true. MS only seem to include 'major'
vendors of chipsets, and often you will find that they still don't
include, or auto-detect drivers for some of the more obscure brands,
even if drivers exist on the 'Windows Update Site' and the OS is only a
week or two old.
Yes, I know the justification for this is that there is after all a
limited space on the CDROM, and to include ALL known drivers would take
an amount of disk space probably larger than even a DVD-ROM. But still,
it can't be said that if your card is older than the version of
windows, then it 'will always' detect and auto-install drivers for the
card.
As an example of this, Win98SE failed to detect and install drivers for
the sound card and voodoo2 in one of our PC's, even though the sound
card is a good 2 years old, and the voodoo2 certainly predates Win98SE.
The CDROM's extra drivers folder did contain v2 drivers, but they were
NOT auto-installed, as for the sound card, drivers are on the Windows
Update site, but not on the CD, understandable given that its an
obscure chipset, but still, it proves that the above assertation of an
older card ALWAYS having drivers on the windows CD is false.
> >The Mac only needs drivers for the bell and whistle features on a video
> >card, you don't need drivers if you don't want to use them. If you DO want
> >to use them you're not limited to a dinky display on your 17" monitor until
> >you install them and reboot.
>
> "Bell and whistle" features being RAVE and OpenGL, among other things?
>
> DC
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 03:47:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> Kevin M. Taggart <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
> news:B437F105.1DC4%ktag...@easystreet.com...
>>
>>> From: David Corn <dc...@pdq.net>
>>> Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions -
>>> http://bCandid.com
>>> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:10:18 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:08:59 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
>>> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> To state that the Mac does not have "true" PnP is like saying that
>>>>>> BMW does not make a "True" M3. They invented it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why do you need to install drivers so often?
>>>>
>>>> In my BMW? I don't.
>>>>
>>>> In my Mac? I don't.
>>>
>>> Install a V3 2000 card into your Mac, and use it for OpenGL (or RAVE)
>>> Q2 (or OpenGL Q3) without adding new drivers.
>>
>> Why? Is this a right of manhood in the PC world?
>
> Mac advocates often boast of adding new hardware without needing drivers.
> When you're shown this works for a PC, but not a Mac, you seek to dismiss
> it.
EdWierd,
I do not need a new video card. Why should I run out and purchase this card?
So a few windroids can say, "Aha! You need a driver!"
Sorry, I am not in the business of stroking windroid egos, however small
they might be.
I must admit, to my own embarrassment, that I find the windroid psyche (if
you could call it that) to be extremely fascinating. What makes you little
boys behave the way you do? Is it the complete lack of reason?
Is it the challenge of swimming with the stream that makes posting bile in
this group so much fun? The thrill of finally being a part of a larger whole
- something that has eluded you thus far in your pathetic, miserable life?
To finally gain some acceptance, no matter how tainted and repulsive, into a
gruesome brotherhood of matching petulance?
Or is it just another opportunity to reveal your pusillanimous behavior to
the small, captive world of those who will take notice?
(Note to EdWierd: I am not speaking directly to you (well, I am) in this
last bit, but more to the cult of windroidism in general. You may answer,
however, if you can.)
>> If so, you may want to get a refund.
>
> You may want to consider working on a real rebuttal.
Rebuttal to what? That I do not want to buy this video card?
Or is it more than that, EdWierd? Have I offended your remarkably fragile
sense of who/what you are?
Do you find chest-thumping gratification from installing new hardware in
your gawd-awful little gateway, and then run, spanking-off like a 13 year
old to the bathroom before you lose you small load, in a masterbatory pique
of triumph, shouting "I AM a man! I AM a man!" once you get it working?
Is that it?
Well please, exclude me from your little spunk-parties, and proceed with
your miserable life, already in decline.
And please, respond with one of your more interesting personalities, the one
you used for this message is dreadfully dull and contrite.
--KT
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: DC <dc...@pdq.net>
> Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:59:44 -0500
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 23:11:02 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> From: David Corn <dc...@pdq.net>
>>> Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions -
>>> http://bCandid.com
>>> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:10:18 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:08:59 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
>>> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> To state that the Mac does not have "true" PnP is like saying that BMW
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> not make a "True" M3. They invented it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why do you need to install drivers so often?
>>>>
>>>> In my BMW? I don't.
>>>>
>>>> In my Mac? I don't.
>>>
>>> Install a V3 2000 card into your Mac, and use it for OpenGL (or RAVE)
>>> Q2 (or OpenGL Q3) without adding new drivers.
>>
>> Why? Is this a right of manhood in the PC world?
>>
>> If so, you may want to get a refund.
>
> No, it simply proves your statement false - when you add something
> non-standard to your Mac, you must add new drivers.
I don't recall saying I wouldn't need a driver for some new piece of
equipment. What I said, is that I do not "need to install drivers so often"
as was clumsily offered up-thread.
> Similarly, when you add something non-standard to the PC, _sometimes_
> (but increasingly not) you must add new drivers.
You always have to install a driver for a new gadget on any computer. If
that driver is included with the OS, one doesn't have to resort to the
installation diskette, that's all.
As I am not in the habit of continually replacing/adding peripherals to my
Mac's/PC's/Workstatons (real ones, not PC's), this is not an issue.
--KT
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: DC <dc...@pdq.net>
> Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:00:41 -0500
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 07:24:56 GMT, lo...@my.sig (Michael J. Stango)
> wrote:
>
>> In article <mJQSOOBjYKBTZH6IP5cSUyNI=2...@4ax.com>, David Corn
>> <dc...@pdq.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Install a V3 2000 card into your Mac, and use it for OpenGL (or RAVE)
>>> Q2 (or OpenGL Q3) without adding new drivers.
>>
>> Well, that won't work.
>>
>> Install the video-card-of-the-month into your PC, and use it and a
>> resolution greater than 640 x 480 and at a 16 or 32-bit color depth without
>> adding new drivers first. Oops, you can't.
>
> The point was that Kevin was wrong.
The point is, you supposed a scenario that made your point but ignored the
simple fact that I have not added any new devices to my system that required
the installation of any new drivers. Therefore, my statement that I do not
"install drivers so often" is, in this specific case (which I was providing
a specific answer) is correct.
If you would like to further your agenda by adding conditions to my point -
in an attempt to "prove" I am wrong, then go right ahead. Yes, David, were I
to run out and buy a bunch of peripherals that I do not want, and install
them in, near, or around my Mac, I may have to install the odd driver or
two.
<s>
--KT
Peter Ammon
>
> -Automatically updates itself via the Internet. Is this necessarily a good
> thing? I want to know what goes on in my computer. Not have it download a
> bunch of stuff on it's own. Sadly, I believe OS 9.0 does this too. B(
I think that way that the Mac OS handles it is that you have a
choice of whether it checks for new updates automatically or when
you tell it to, and you have control over whether it downloads and
installs it...it never does anything without you knowing, and it
won't do anything you don't give it permission to.
I don't know how Windows does it, but I doubt that it will install
things without your knowledge.
Except for "installing" some personal information into Word
documents. And wasn't there some fiasco about Microsoft building a
database of numbers about your computer or something? And the Intel
chip "serial number..." (been resolved, I know). But I digress.
-Peter
--
The Shame Eliminator: http://shameeliminator.cjb.net/
Peter Ammon
>
>
> No, it simply proves your statement false - when you add something
> non-standard to your Mac, you must add new drivers.
>
> (but increasingly not) you must add new drivers.
>
It's not the adding new drivers that's troubled me, it's getting the
drivers and the card to work that's so bothersome. I HAVE been in
DLL hell, with a knowledgeable techie standing right beside me, as
we tried to get a sound card to work with the networking card. It
was extremely ugly and bizarrely unintuitive. Windows would only
allow for certain combinations of DLLs and IRQs assigned to each
device, and there was no rhyme or reason as to which it would
accept. Eventually, the techie got it working a few days later
after typing in supplications and for all I know sacrificing a goat
to some dark god. Windows has undoubtably gotten better in this
respect, but it's too little, too late for me.
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: DC <dc...@pdq.net>
> Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:23:23 -0500
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:16:55 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't recall saying I wouldn't need a driver for some new piece of
>> equipment. What I said, is that I do not "need to install drivers so often"
>> as was clumsily offered up-thread.
>
> Of course not - if you use standard hardware. And if you buy from a
> major vendor (Dell, PB, Compaq, etc.) they'll ship with a system
> restore disk which will contain all the 'right' drivers, and you'll
> never need to install anything. So I fail to see any differences in
> the two platforms.
You are failing to see quite a bit, and unfortunately, seeing more than what
I wrote.
--KT
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: DC <dc...@pdq.net>
> Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:24:04 -0500
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:22:02 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>> The point is, you supposed a scenario that made your point but ignored the
>> simple fact that I have not added any new devices to my system that required
>> the installation of any new drivers. Therefore, my statement that I do not
>> "install drivers so often" is, in this specific case (which I was providing
>> a specific answer) is correct.
>
> And a similar PC (for which an owner doesn't add hardware) doesn't
> require new drivers either. What kind of "point" is that, Kevin?
Sarek asked why I need to install drivers so often. I replied that I did
not.
Get the point yet?
--KT
Bryant Brandon
<LPNO...@iroadrunner.net> wrote:
@"Finder" or "program bar" that shows not only open applications, but open
@folders.
@Bar-icon or quick key to "hide all" open windows, "hide all" open
@applications, or vice versa.
@Bar-icon to switch between multiple documents within an application.
Look for a thingy called "Other Menu." It can help here.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://web2.airmail.net/dbrandon
I post infrequently; please email me if you want me to see a reply.
Edwin
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:44:34 -0500, SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> wrote:
>
> >You haven't used the AmigaOS in too long, a crashed app doesn't
> take out
> >the whole system, just itself. This still isn't true memory
> protection
> >though, because the app remains frozen in memory.
>
> This is false. Sometimes the OS will go down, sometimes it won't,
> but it's -always- risky and -always- dangerous to run new and
> unproven applications on the Amiga.
>
> The AmigaOS has not significantly changed since the early 1990s.
> Workbench 3.1 was the last official C= - blessed-and-made upgrade
> (although 3.5's supposed to be here now, isn't it, Steve? No memory
> protection added, naturally...)
>
> It's still as unstable as ever with new and unproven applications
> and libraries.
>
> DC
>
I'm running AmigaOS 3.1 on my Amiga emulator, and so far I've had
installers freeze it solid, and I've got the red software failure
screen while running Newscoaster. It's just like my real Amiga was.
Ah, the memories...
Sarek
<ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>I do not need a new video card. Why should I run out and purchase this card?
>So a few windroids can say, "Aha! You need a driver!"
Well, that does defeat your point, now doesn't it?
>(long personal attack)
Completely irrelevant and meant just to divert attention from an
inability to answer the point.
Sarek
<suz...@crysalis.com> wrote:
>Unfortunatly, this isn't always true. . . .
This is true. I think what we are trying to say is that Plug-and-Play
now usually works in 98/2000, when as in Win95, it truly was a joke.
Sarek
<ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>The point is, you supposed a scenario that made your point but ignored the
>simple fact that I have not added any new devices to my system that required
>the installation of any new drivers. Therefore, my statement that I do not
>"install drivers so often" is, in this specific case (which I was providing
>a specific answer) is correct.
Well, sir, you were the one talking about the Mac having "true
Plug-and-Play," not Kevin's Mac. Perhaps you should think twice about
extrapolating your experiences to all.
Sarek
wrote:
>Windows would only
>allow for certain combinations of DLLs and IRQs assigned to each
>device, and there was no rhyme or reason as to which it would
>accept.
I could think of a few, but then I don't know your configuration. The
task can be much more difficult with older equipment.
>Eventually, the techie got it working a few days later
>after typing in supplications and for all I know sacrificing a goat
>to some dark god.
No, no, no. You sacrifice goats to get MODEMS to work!!! It's newborn
lambs for network cards!! They don't train techies like they used to.
:)
>Windows has undoubtably gotten better in this
>respect, but it's too little, too late for me.
Out of curiosity, what was the soundcard/network card/motherboard?
Sarek
wrote:
>
>Install the video-card-of-the-month into your PC, and use it and a
>resolution greater than 640 x 480 and at a 16 or 32-bit color depth without
>adding new drivers first. Oops, you can't.
Not necessarily.
I have a Riva TNT card.
Win98: 640 X480, 16-bit, need driver for more.
Win2000 RC2: 640 X 480, do not need drivers to set to proper
resolutions.
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: Sarek <sa...@vulcan.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:10:46 -0400
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
Yes, I said the Mac does have true PnP. I also said, to your rather foolish
assertion, that I do not "always install new drivers". Where you came up
with that little gem is beyond my interest.
So, if *you* would like to make the extrapolation that I included all
Macintosh computers in my statement, "I don't [always install new drivers]",
feel free.
You would be in gross error, but that shouldn't stop you.
--KT
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: Sarek <sa...@vulcan.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 16:59:42 -0400
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:11:14 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I do not need a new video card. Why should I run out and purchase this card?
>> So a few windroids can say, "Aha! You need a driver!"
>
> Well, that does defeat your point, now doesn't it?
No. You asked why I am always installing drivers. I replied that I didn't.
Edwin's "argument" hardly reversed that.
>> (long personal attack)
>
> Completely irrelevant and meant just to divert attention from an
> inability to answer the point.
No, I have not tried to divert anything. You windroids, on the other hand,
are trying to extrapolate a simple statement into the basis for some broad
argument.
Now, if you would like to argue that you know more about what I do with my
system, please continue. If you are smart enough to concede that I know more
about my system than you, and do not "always install new drivers", then do
so.
It's the only intelligent thing to do.
I recommend you take this course.
--KT
LP
Kevin M. Taggart <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:B437AA3B.1D42%ktag...@easystreet.com...
>
>
> > From: Sarek <sa...@vulcan.com>
> > Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 20:07:56 -0400
> > Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
> >
> > <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> To state that the Mac does not have "true" PnP is like saying that BMW
does
> >> not make a "True" M3. They invented it.
> >
> > Then why do you need to install drivers so often?
>
> In my BMW? I don't.
>
> In my Mac? I don't.
Must not care about 3D acceleration features/performance..
I forgot how many times I have had to download from ATI's site...
LP
Michael J. Stango <lo...@my.sig> wrote in message
news:look-ya02408000R2410990952140001@news...
> In article <mJQSOOBjYKBTZH6IP5cSUyNI=2...@4ax.com>, David Corn
> <dc...@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> > Install a V3 2000 card into your Mac, and use it for OpenGL (or RAVE)
> > Q2 (or OpenGL Q3) without adding new drivers.
>
> Well, that won't work.
>
> resolution greater than 640 x 480 and at a 16 or 32-bit color depth
without
> adding new drivers first. Oops, you can't.
I did. When I upgraded from a TNT to a TNT2-Ultra.. I did not have to
install a single driver.
In fact, I didn't even have to tell the computer anything about it, it
auto-recognized it.
I did, however.. run powerstrip to overclock the ultra.. ;-)
LP
DC <dc...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:9ywTOM2S3LW8O9...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 07:24:56 GMT, lo...@my.sig (Michael J. Stango)
> wrote:
>
> ><dc...@pdq.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Install a V3 2000 card into your Mac, and use it for OpenGL (or RAVE)
> >> Q2 (or OpenGL Q3) without adding new drivers.
> >
> >Well, that won't work.
> >
> >Install the video-card-of-the-month into your PC, and use it and a
> >resolution greater than 640 x 480 and at a 16 or 32-bit color depth
without
> >adding new drivers first. Oops, you can't.
>
>
> introduction of Windows, you'll need to add new drivers. If it's an
> older card, you won't.
That just makes common sense. If a card is written after the OS is written..
the OS's built in driver may not work as well
as using the manufacture's driver. That is true with both the Mac and the
PC.
> >The Mac only needs drivers for the bell and whistle features on a video
> >card, you don't need drivers if you don't want to use them. If you DO
want
> >to use them you're not limited to a dinky display on your 17" monitor
until
> >you install them and reboot.
>
> "Bell and whistle" features being RAVE and OpenGL, among other things?
I find it highly enlightening that he considers basic 3D functionality to be
a "bell and whistle".
OpenGL has been a main-stay for professional graphics for quite some time
now.
Bryant Brandon
@sacrificing a goat
@to some dark god.
Aww man...
Peter Ammon
>
>
> I don't know anything about DLL conflicts that you speak of, but an
> IRQ conflict with old ISA non-PNP devices is certainly a possibility.
>
> What Windows (since you acknowledge it's gotten better) did this
> happen on?
>
> DC
Windows 95, not sure which revision.
Peter Ammon
>
>
> >Windows has undoubtably gotten better in this
> >respect, but it's too little, too late for me.
>
> Out of curiosity, what was the soundcard/network card/motherboard?
The sound card was ISA; I think it's a SoundBlaster Pro something or
other. I don't know what the network card was, but I suspect that
it was ISA, given the time at which the computers were installed.
The computer was a Pentium 133. This was a school computer, and I
don't know what the motherboard maker was. I believe the brand was Acer.
The Lord Of Lemmings
>On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 12:56:54 -0400, am...@cornell.edu (The Lord Of
>Lemmings) wrote:
>
>>In article <slrn8160...@awacs.dhs.org>, ahaa...@cable.a2000.nl wrote:
>>
>>>Groman wrote:
>>>
>>>>absolutely agree!
>>>>
>>>>but a price of a PC is going down much faster than Mac prices.
>>>>
>>>>right now I can build a very decent PC for $450 at home.
>>>>(not some cyrix) Celeron based, 128 RAM, 17 inch monitor etc.
>>>
>>>Care to list the parts?
>>
>>Seriously. A decently fast celeron, 128 MB RAM and a decent 17" monitor
>>alone total about $450.
>
>True enough. An all-in-one el-cheapo MB is $100 with LAN, modem,
>video, & sound. A C433 or C466 is $100. 128MB is at least $150.
>That's $350. Add $100 for the HD, so $450. Add $50 for
>key/mouse/flop, so that's $500. Add $200 for the monitor, that's
>$700. Call it $750 for incidentals.
>
>Or just buy an e-machines C400 setup for $350-ish after ValueAmerica's
>rebates, and get a monitor on your own for $200-ish, still totaling
>$550.
>
>Or spend $179 and get a full eMachines setup - w/only a 15" monitor
>and a color printer - but pay $20 every month to your ISP.
>
>Or spend $1000+ on a Dell.
>
>Or spend $750 or so on the computer alone with really nice hardware,
>and then spend $400 on an NEC 19" monitor.
>
>The PC industry gives you -choices-. This is a good thing.
>
>DC
I never said it wasn't. And one of those choices is to buy a Mac.
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: "LP" <L...@iroadrunner.net>
> Reply-To: "LP" <LPNO...@iroadrunner.net>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:00:09 -0400
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
>
> Kevin M. Taggart <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
> news:B437AA3B.1D42%ktag...@easystreet.com...
>>
>>
>>> From: Sarek <sa...@vulcan.com>
>>> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>>> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 20:07:56 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 09:03:54 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
>>> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> To state that the Mac does not have "true" PnP is like saying that BMW
>>>> does not make a "True" M3. They invented it.
>>>
>>> Then why do you need to install drivers so often?
>>
>> In my BMW? I don't.
>>
>> In my Mac? I don't.
>
> Must not care about 3D acceleration features/performance..
Correct.
> I forgot how many times I have had to download from ATI's site...
When you remember, please post it here. That little factoid may be the most
interesting thing you'll ever post.
--KT
Sarek
wrote:
>Sarek wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Windows has undoubtably gotten better in this
>> >respect, but it's too little, too late for me.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what was the soundcard/network card/motherboard?
>
>The sound card was ISA; I think it's a SoundBlaster Pro something or
>other. I don't know what the network card was, but I suspect that
>it was ISA, given the time at which the computers were installed.
>The computer was a Pentium 133. This was a school computer, and I
>don't know what the motherboard maker was. I believe the brand was Acer.
If this is Win95 on an old system, I'm not at all surprised by your
problems. Those were commonplace. Pre-PNP equivalent often did not
bend when it came to IRQs, and setting aside IRQs was more difficult
back then.
Sarek
>>
>> Well, sir, you were the one talking about the Mac having "true
>> Plug-and-Play," not Kevin's Mac. Perhaps you should think twice about
>> extrapolating your experiences to all.
>
>Yes, I said the Mac does have true PnP. I also said, to your rather foolish
>assertion, that I do not "always install new drivers". Where you came up
>with that little gem is beyond my interest.
>
>So, if *you* would like to make the extrapolation that I included all
>feel free.
No, sir, you said the Mac had true PnP, not Kevin's Mac.
>You would be in gross error, but that shouldn't stop you.
Straw horse.
>
>--KT
Sarek
<ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
to download from ATI's site...
>
>When you remember, please post it here. That little factoid may be the most
>interesting thing you'll ever post.
I would strongly suggest that when you want somebody to do you a
little favor, you don't simulataneously insult him. It makes it much
less likely he will do so.
I thought you didn't need things like drivers on Kevin's machine.
Kevin M. Taggart
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
>>> Plug-and-Play," not Kevin's Mac. Perhaps you should think twice about
>>> extrapolating your experiences to all.
>>
>> Yes, I said the Mac does have true PnP. I also said, to your rather foolish
>> assertion, that I do not "always install new drivers". Where you came up
>> with that little gem is beyond my interest.
>>
>> So, if *you* would like to make the extrapolation that I included all
>> Macintosh computers in my statement, "I don't [always install new drivers]",
>> feel free.
>
> No, sir, you said the Mac had true PnP, not Kevin's Mac.
Both do.
You seem to be have a rather hard time distinguishing between two sentences.
I can only guess this is intentional, and only for the sake of continuing
your rather tedious argument.
Now, it is obvious that I made the statement, "Macs have true PnP", yes?
Understanding that, and also understanding that MY Mac is a member of that
larger set, then MY Mac has true PnP.
Are you with me so far?
Here's is the tricky part (the part which you keep ignoring): You asked me a
specific question, "why do you install drivers so often?"
Generally, when one poses a question that is a direct query of another's
personal experience (using the word "you"), it is appropriate (but not
necessary) to answer that query in a direct response, hence my answer, "I
don't."
Here is where you should refer back to the little poser concerning MY Mac
versus all Mac's, and will sort out this odd bit of confusion concerning the
difference between an answer I provide concerning ALL Mac's and MY Mac -
which were, in fact, two different questions.
If you would like me to analyze my original, direct response to your simple,
direct question, I would be happy to perform a painstaking and lengthy
discourse on the two words (one being a contraction) "I don't."
I hope at this point that will be unnecessary.
>> You would be in gross error, but that shouldn't stop you.
>
> Straw horse.
Trojan man?
--KT
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: Sarek <sa...@vulcan.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 06:57:07 -0400
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:01:26 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
> to download from ATI's site...
>>
>> When you remember, please post it here. That little factoid may be the most
>> interesting thing you'll ever post.
>
> I would strongly suggest that when you want somebody to do you a
> little favor, you don't simulataneously insult him. It makes it much
> less likely he will do so.
You fail to see what I want him to do. It is a common failing with you,
apparently.
> I thought you didn't need things like drivers on Kevin's machine.
Thinking is not your strong suit, perhaps you should try another tack?
Why do I say this? Because despite many explanations as to what I did or did
not say, you continue on your dark quest of posing ridiculous scenarios and
equally ridiculous accusations.
If you thought "Kevin's Mac" doesn't need drivers, you failed to think at
all. I would love for you to dig up a post in which I said "Kevin's Mac"
does not require any drivers whatsoever.
While you're at it, you can also re-read the post where you asked me why I
"always install drivers so often?", in which I replied, "I don't". This, of
course being the root of all your confusion over "Kevin's Mac" and your
desire to argue about what I said, versus your own imagined idea of what I
said.
If you need further assistance sorting this all out, please let me know. I
would love to spend some time teaching you remedial English.
--KT
Rob Barris
<sa...@vulcan.com> wrote:
This is the sort of thing we were hearing when Win95 came out, with
respect to Win 3.1. "Oh yeah, now that this is here, that thing we sold
you before, that was awful." Ditto Win95 vs Win98.
With this in mind I think I'll wait for a few unbiased reports on Win2K
before I put it on my PII-333. The deja vu is just too strong this time.
Rob
Sarek
wrote:
>> This is true. I think what we are trying to say is that Plug-and-Play
>> now usually works in 98/2000, when as in Win95, it truly was a joke.
>
>
> This is the sort of thing we were hearing when Win95 came out, with
>respect to Win 3.1. "Oh yeah, now that this is here, that thing we sold
>you before, that was awful." Ditto Win95 vs Win98.
>
> With this in mind I think I'll wait for a few unbiased reports on Win2K
>before I put it on my PII-333. The deja vu is just too strong this time.
I'm not Microsoft.
Just who is capable of an "unbiased" report?
If you don't want to believe me, fine. Your loss. Didn't say it was
perfect, just much better.
LP
Sarek <sa...@vulcan.com> wrote in message
news:mHQTOO2ZbSjNy7...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 07:24:56 GMT, lo...@my.sig (Michael J. Stango)
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Install the video-card-of-the-month into your PC, and use it and a
> >resolution greater than 640 x 480 and at a 16 or 32-bit color depth
without
> >adding new drivers first. Oops, you can't.
>
>
> I have a Riva TNT card.
>
> Win98: 640 X480, 16-bit, need driver for more.
> Win2000 RC2: 640 X 480, do not need drivers to set to proper
> resolutions.
When I upgraded a OEM TNT to a TNT2-Ultra.. I did not have to reinstall the
driver.
Of course, it helps that NVIDIA has one driver for the TNT to GeForce line
of cards!!!
LP
Kevin M. Taggart <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:B4394E55.208F%ktag...@easystreet.com...
>
>
> > From: "LP" <L...@iroadrunner.net>
> > Reply-To: "LP" <LPNO...@iroadrunner.net>
> > Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> > Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
> >
> >
> > news:B437AA3B.1D42%ktag...@easystreet.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: Sarek <sa...@vulcan.com>
> >>> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> >>> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 20:07:56 -0400
> >>> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
> >>>
> >>> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> To state that the Mac does not have "true" PnP is like saying that
BMW
> >>>> does not make a "True" M3. They invented it.
> >>>
> >>> Then why do you need to install drivers so often?
> >>
> >> In my BMW? I don't.
> >>
> >> In my Mac? I don't.
> >
> > Must not care about 3D acceleration features/performance..
>
> Correct.
Okay. So you work in in a fluff graphical enviroment. No wonder why you
don't care about speed.
> > I forgot how many times I have had to download from ATI's site...
>
> When you remember, please post it here. That little factoid may be the
most
> interesting thing you'll ever post.
Why would I wish to remember trivial bits of information? I can't tell you
how many times i've logged onto weather.com to check the ride home.. my
browser's history is set to a week.
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: "LP" <L...@iroadrunner.net>
> Reply-To: "LP" <LPNO...@iroadrunner.net>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:41:15 -0400
What, by your definition is a "fluff graphical environment"? Would it be
less "fluffy" If I bought a 3Dfx card?
>>> I forgot how many times I have had to download from ATI's site...
>>
>> When you remember, please post it here. That little factoid may be the
>> most interesting thing you'll ever post.
>
> Why would I wish to remember trivial bits of information? I can't tell you
> how many times i've logged onto weather.com to check the ride home.. my
> browser's history is set to a week.
I stand corrected. THAT was the most interesting thing you will ever post in
this NG.
--KT
Joe Ragosta
<sa...@vulcan.com> wrote:
This is the typical Wintel mantra:
1994: 'Who needs PnP?'
1995: 'Win95 has PnP and it works great'
1998: 'Win95's PnP wasn't very good, but now we have Win98 and PnP works'
1999: 'PnP will work great on Win2000'
The same thing happened with USB and with protected memory (someone just
sent me an e-mail with a MS site saying Win95 doesn't have protected
memory (see below). So, all these years of hearing about how Macs suck
because they don't have protected memory while Win95 had that and all the
other buzzwords was an outright lie, I guess.
If Windows worked half as well as its advocates pretend, I'd switch in a minute.
Proof from Microsoft web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/HK/WIN98TEST/COMPARE/CHOOSEOSBUS.ASP
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/Docs/ntinfo/how2choose.htm
LP
The V3-3500TV appears to be great for games.. but not for 3D applications.
May I suggest the 3Dlabs Oxygen, or the Intense3D Wildcat 4000?
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: "LP" <L...@iroadrunner.net>
> Reply-To: "LP" <LPNO...@iroadrunner.net>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:03:52 -0400
So then your earlier statement concerning the "fluff graphical environment"
was just more bullshit designed to somehow boost your ego. How windroidian
of you.
As I do not require anything like the cards you snottily recommend, why
would I buy one?
Please, consider your reply carefully, and tell me why I need either one of
those cards - or more to the point, why I need to upgrade to *any* other
card than the one that I have now, and am quite happy with?
--KT
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate)
> Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:38:06 GMT
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:03:52 -0400, "LP" <L...@iroadrunner.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Kevin M. Taggart <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote in message
>> news:B43A9E33.2606%ktag...@easystreet.com...
>
>>> What, by your definition is a "fluff graphical environment"? Would it be
>>> less "fluffy" If I bought a 3Dfx card?
>>
>> The V3-3500TV appears to be great for games.. but not for 3D applications.
>>
>> May I suggest the 3Dlabs Oxygen, or the Intense3D Wildcat 4000?
>
>
> Mac morons like taggot don't have a clue what a real OpenGL card is
> because the 3d world sees the mac for the joke it is. Nobody would
> bother designing a real OpenGL card for the mac because the OS itself
> can't handle the strain of more than a few hundred thousand faces.
Nor can you handle the strain of more that a few dozen brain cells.
Try and think, if at all possible. Scratch that. Try and imagine a world
outside of your own little windroidian programming, and juggle the strange
concepts such as: not everyone needs an OpenGL wunderkard, nor do many
people even want them.
Perhaps a video card like that might help you though. Anything that would
help you create something other than those gawd-awful, not "heavy-duty 3D,
animation, video, and 2d graphics" of yours would be roundly applauded by
all those who have suffered viewing your abysmally untalented not-so-3D
bowel movements.
Now, please back up your little claim that you require such an unholy
machine as the dreaded dual PII-300 to do that "heavy-duty 3D, animation,
video, and 2d graphics" that you not-so-convincingly claim to have made.
Can you at least point to *one* "heavy-duty" 3D-anything?
How about *one* "heavy-duty" animation?
A "heavy-duty" video?
This should be easy enough for a twin-braincelled ubermench such as
yourself: a single, solitary, "heavy-duty" 2D graphic that absolutely
requires more raw power than could ever be mustered by any other machine
apart from your amateur-hour PC and that two-cent education of yours.
--KT
Nate
Sarek
wrote:
>This is the typical Wintel mantra:
>
>1994: 'Who needs PnP?'
>
>1995: 'Win95 has PnP and it works great'
>
>1998: 'Win95's PnP wasn't very good, but now we have Win98 and PnP works'
>
>1999: 'PnP will work great on Win2000'
Well, I said no such things in 1994 and 1995, and you would have had a
tough time keeping up with me denouncing item 2, but 98 and 2000 are
much better based on my personal experience covering a number of
machines. Then again, I do put in good, modern brand-name equipment
into the boxes, so if someone is not in that situation, I could
believe those folks having more problems than me.
Nate
<ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>> Mac morons like taggot don't have a clue what a real OpenGL card is
>> because the 3d world sees the mac for the joke it is. Nobody would
>> bother designing a real OpenGL card for the mac because the OS itself
>> can't handle the strain of more than a few hundred thousand faces.
>concepts such as: not everyone needs an OpenGL wunderkard, nor do many
>people even want them.
Macs certainly don't as the OS barfs before it can parse 3d of any
scale to the card.
Nate
<ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Must not care about 3D acceleration features/performance..
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. So you work in in a fluff graphical enviroment. No wonder why you
>>>> don't care about speed.
>>>
>>> What, by your definition is a "fluff graphical environment"? Would it be
>>> less "fluffy" If I bought a 3Dfx card?
>>
>> The V3-3500TV appears to be great for games.. but not for 3D applications.
>>
>> May I suggest the 3Dlabs Oxygen, or the Intense3D Wildcat 4000?
>
>So then your earlier statement concerning the "fluff graphical environment"
>was just more bullshit designed to somehow boost your ego. How windroidian
>of you.
>
>As I do not require anything like the cards you snottily recommend, why
>would I buy one?
>
Sour grapes. You can buy one, but it won't work in that toy you call
a mac.
>Please, consider your reply carefully, and tell me why I need either one of
>those cards - or more to the point, why I need to upgrade to *any* other
>card than the one that I have now, and am quite happy with?
You deserve ATI. Lucky for you. You can't choose anything better
even if you wanted to.
Kevin M. Taggart
17BEBADFDAA04A38.7D974803...@lp.airnews.net, Nate at
nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote on 10/27/99 10:47 AM:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:07:49 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Mac morons like taggot don't have a clue what a real OpenGL card is
>>> because the 3d world sees the mac for the joke it is. Nobody would
>>> bother designing a real OpenGL card for the mac because the OS itself
>>> can't handle the strain of more than a few hundred thousand faces.
>
>> concepts such as: not everyone needs an OpenGL wunderkard, nor do many
>> people even want them.
>
> Macs certainly don't as the OS barfs before it can parse 3d of any
> scale to the card.
Barf is exactly the output that comes from your maleficent dual PII, eh
nate?
When are you going to post a link to your "heavy-duty 3D, animation, video,
CAD, and 2d graphics" that you keep bragging about? As you are the only
self-described "heavy-duty" graphics god in this NG, you should be able to
produce an endless variety of examples of your "heavy-duty" work, no?
Too bad you are saddled with that wannabe PC and wannabe OS, otherwise you
might have a chance at actually creating something worth bragging about.
Unfortunately, you are nothing more that an untalented hack who has to find
gratification from the misery of others (those who have experienced your
"work") than from actually creating anything close to "heavy-duty 3D,
animation, video, CAD and 2d graphics."
Doesn't it bother you that none of the PC advocates in the NG acknowledge
you as anything more than a mindless idiot? Or how about the fact that few
(if any) of your fellow windroids and trolls cozy up to you as one of their
own (except for chris black, who has more personal desires for you than
"professional"). In fact, the only people who acknowledge your existence at
all are the Mac advocates, who relish the opportunity to tee-off on your
ever increasing entertainment value as the groups dim-witted mascot and
whipping boy.
As you are unable to think for yourself, this little tidbit of information
will serve only to make you more vocal, less intelligent, and of heightened
entertainment value around here.
Your mama always said you'd find your place in this world - despite what you
father said, and by-gum she was finally right!
Now, start preparing your one-dimensional response post-haste, and don't let
your personal shortcomings get in the way of our entertainment.
--KT
Kevin M. Taggart
B1FE5FCF67A26AC2.3CCBF769...@lp.airnews.net, Nate at
nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote on 10/27/99 10:49 AM:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:47:05 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>> Must not care about 3D acceleration features/performance..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay. So you work in in a fluff graphical enviroment. No wonder why you
>>>>> don't care about speed.
>>>>
>>>> What, by your definition is a "fluff graphical environment"? Would it be
>>>> less "fluffy" If I bought a 3Dfx card?
>>>
>>> The V3-3500TV appears to be great for games.. but not for 3D applications.
>>>
>>> May I suggest the 3Dlabs Oxygen, or the Intense3D Wildcat 4000?
>>
>> So then your earlier statement concerning the "fluff graphical environment"
>> was just more bullshit designed to somehow boost your ego. How windroidian
>> of you.
>>
>> As I do not require anything like the cards you snottily recommend, why
>> would I buy one?
>
> Sour grapes. You can buy one, but it won't work in that toy you call
> a mac.
Precisely. That's why I won't buy one for my dual PII-350, nor for my
PIII-500. Sour Grapes.
Don't let the fact that I (like you) am not in a graphics-related field of
work (you are not in any field of work) dissuade your continued ignorance on
the subject.
Which, conveniently, brings us back to your omission of any link to your
imaginary "heavy-duty 3D, animation, video, CAD, and 2d graphics" that you
mistakenly have tried to take credit for understanding (a remarkable feat in
itself) let alone, creating.
Where is it?
>> Please, consider your reply carefully, and tell me why I need either one of
>> those cards - or more to the point, why I need to upgrade to *any* other
>> card than the one that I have now, and am quite happy with?
>
>
> You deserve ATI. Lucky for you. You can't choose anything better
> even if you wanted to.
Nor can you choose to be anything other than an inbred, untalented,
misogynistic, missing-link-quadrupedal-genetic-left-over of a feces-munching
closet-case-mama's-boy, who will never be employed outside the
village-limits of Nowhere, Kansas, unless it is to design new dresses for
the Ku Klux Klan, of which you are no-doubt a leather-panty-wearing member.
--KT
Joe Ragosta
<B1FE5FCF67A26AC2.3CCBF769...@lp.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:47:05 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>> Must not care about 3D acceleration features/performance..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay. So you work in in a fluff graphical enviroment. No wonder why you
> >>>> don't care about speed.
> >>>
> >>> What, by your definition is a "fluff graphical environment"? Would it be
> >>> less "fluffy" If I bought a 3Dfx card?
> >>
> >> The V3-3500TV appears to be great for games.. but not for 3D applications.
> >>
> >> May I suggest the 3Dlabs Oxygen, or the Intense3D Wildcat 4000?
> >
> >So then your earlier statement concerning the "fluff graphical environment"
> >was just more bullshit designed to somehow boost your ego. How windroidian
> >of you.
>
> >
> >As I do not require anything like the cards you snottily recommend, why
> >would I buy one?
> >
>
> Sour grapes. You can buy one, but it won't work in that toy you call
> a mac.
>
>
>
> >Please, consider your reply carefully, and tell me why I need either one of
> >those cards - or more to the point, why I need to upgrade to *any* other
> >card than the one that I have now, and am quite happy with?
>
>
> You deserve ATI. Lucky for you. You can't choose anything better
> even if you wanted to.
Wrong. I could install a Voodoo3 card in my Mac--if game performance was
important to me.
Nate
<ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>Don't let the fact that I (like you) am not in a graphics-related field of
>work (you are not in any field of work) dissuade your continued ignorance on
>the subject.
That coming from someone who doesn't even know what an OpenGL card is.
You need to get out more.
>
>Which, conveniently, brings us back to your omission of any link to your
>imaginary "heavy-duty 3D, animation, video, CAD, and 2d graphics" that you
Right now I have 4 million plus face model with 10 lights rendering a
preview at 1500X1200 in the background. Your mac would puke on a
model of less than 1/4 that size. Just because you can't do such
things on your mac doesn't make it imaginary.
>mistakenly have tried to take credit for understanding (a remarkable feat in
>itself) let alone, creating.
>
>Where is it?
They are on my system.
>
>>> Please, consider your reply carefully, and tell me why I need either one of
>>> those cards - or more to the point, why I need to upgrade to *any* other
>>> card than the one that I have now, and am quite happy with?
>>
>>
>> You deserve ATI. Lucky for you. You can't choose anything better
>> even if you wanted to.
>
>Nor can you choose to be anything other than an inbred, untalented,
Haha. Sorry, I'm not stooping to your level any more.
>misogynistic, missing-link-quadrupedal-genetic-left-over of a feces-munching
>closet-case-mama's-boy, who will never be employed outside the
>village-limits of Nowhere, Kansas, unless it is to design new dresses for
>the Ku Klux Klan, of which you are no-doubt a leather-panty-wearing member.
You're breaking down aren't you. Just admit that your mac can't
handle anything complex and go back to writing your cade.
Nate
wrote:
>In article
><B1FE5FCF67A26AC2.3CCBF769...@lp.airnews.net>,
>nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:47:05 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
>> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>>>>> Must not care about 3D acceleration features/performance..
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Correct.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Okay. So you work in in a fluff graphical enviroment. No wonder why you
>> >>>> don't care about speed.
>> >>>
>> >>> What, by your definition is a "fluff graphical environment"? Would it be
>> >>> less "fluffy" If I bought a 3Dfx card?
>> >>
>> >> The V3-3500TV appears to be great for games.. but not for 3D applications.
>> >>
>> >> May I suggest the 3Dlabs Oxygen, or the Intense3D Wildcat 4000?
>> >
>> >So then your earlier statement concerning the "fluff graphical environment"
>> >was just more bullshit designed to somehow boost your ego. How windroidian
>> >of you.
>>
>> >
>> >As I do not require anything like the cards you snottily recommend, why
>> >would I buy one?
>> >
>>
>> Sour grapes. You can buy one, but it won't work in that toy you call
>> a mac.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Please, consider your reply carefully, and tell me why I need either one of
>> >those cards - or more to the point, why I need to upgrade to *any* other
>> >card than the one that I have now, and am quite happy with?
>>
>>
>> You deserve ATI. Lucky for you. You can't choose anything better
>> even if you wanted to.
>
>Wrong. I could install a Voodoo3 card in my Mac--if game performance was
>important to me.
Damn Joe, you are as clueless as taggart. Voodoo 3 is a game card,
not an OpenGL card Try getting 3d acceleration out your voodooX card
inside a 3d editing application. Hint, you can't. They don't make
such cards for macs because macs are considered a joke by the 3d
community.
Like taggart, you need to get out more.
Nate
<ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>in article
>17BEBADFDAA04A38.7D974803...@lp.airnews.net, Nate at
>nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote on 10/27/99 10:47 AM:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:07:49 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
>> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Mac morons like taggot don't have a clue what a real OpenGL card is
>>>> because the 3d world sees the mac for the joke it is. Nobody would
>>>> bother designing a real OpenGL card for the mac because the OS itself
>>>> can't handle the strain of more than a few hundred thousand faces.
>>
>>> concepts such as: not everyone needs an OpenGL wunderkard, nor do many
>>> people even want them.
>>
>> Macs certainly don't as the OS barfs before it can parse 3d of any
>> scale to the card.
>
>Barf is exactly the output that comes from your maleficent dual PII, eh
>nate?
Barfs as in freezes up solid, requiring a reboot. In all the little
experiment of opening a 600,000 face DXF in C4D on a BW G3 wasted a
half hour of time. That's what mac users call productivity.
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate)
> Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:25:35 GMT
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:34:35 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Don't let the fact that I (like you) am not in a graphics-related field of
>> work (you are not in any field of work) dissuade your continued ignorance on
>> the subject.
>
> That coming from someone who doesn't even know what an OpenGL card is.
> You need to get out more.
That has nothing to do with the fact that you are an untalented hack with a
wannabe PC and a wannabe OS. In fact, nothing will ever change that.
>> Which, conveniently, brings us back to your omission of any link to your
>> imaginary "heavy-duty 3D, animation, video, CAD, and 2d graphics" that you
>
> Right now I have 4 million plus face model with 10 lights rendering a
> preview at 1500X1200 in the background. Your mac would puke on a
> model of less than 1/4 that size. Just because you can't do such
> things on your mac doesn't make it imaginary.
Light-duty, and assuredly amateurish. When you get to the real "heavy-duty"
stuff post a link.
>> mistakenly have tried to take credit for understanding (a remarkable feat in
>> itself) let alone, creating.
>>
>> Where is it?
>
> They are on my system.
Post a link.
>>>> Please, consider your reply carefully, and tell me why I need either one of
>>>> those cards - or more to the point, why I need to upgrade to *any* other
>>>> card than the one that I have now, and am quite happy with?
>>>
>>> You deserve ATI. Lucky for you. You can't choose anything better
>>> even if you wanted to.
>>
>> Nor can you choose to be anything other than an inbred, untalented,
>
> Haha. Sorry, I'm not stooping to your level any more.
Nor will you rise to it. Ever.
>> misogynistic, missing-link-quadrupedal-genetic-left-over of a feces-munching
>> closet-case-mama's-boy, who will never be employed outside the
>> village-limits of Nowhere, Kansas, unless it is to design new dresses for
>> the Ku Klux Klan, of which you are no-doubt a leather-panty-wearing member.
>
> You're breaking down aren't you. Just admit that your mac can't
> handle anything complex and go back to writing your cade.
How so? Because you are nothing more than an inbred, untalented,
misogynistic, missing-link-quadrupedal-genetic-left-over of a feces-munching
closet-case-mama's-boy, who will never be employed outside the
village-limits of Nowhere, Kansas, unless it is to design new dresses for
the Ku Klux Klan, of which you are no-doubt a leather-panty-wearing member?
There is no correlation.
--KT
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate)
> Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:28:28 GMT
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:13:43 -0500, joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta)
> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <B1FE5FCF67A26AC2.3CCBF769...@lp.airnews.net>,
>> nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:47:05 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
>>> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Must not care about 3D acceleration features/performance..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay. So you work in in a fluff graphical enviroment. No wonder why you
>>>>>>> don't care about speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What, by your definition is a "fluff graphical environment"? Would it be
>>>>>> less "fluffy" If I bought a 3Dfx card?
>>>>>
>>>>> The V3-3500TV appears to be great for games.. but not for 3D applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> May I suggest the 3Dlabs Oxygen, or the Intense3D Wildcat 4000?
>>>>
>>>> So then your earlier statement concerning the "fluff graphical environment"
>>>> was just more bullshit designed to somehow boost your ego. How windroidian
>>>> of you.
>>>>
>>>> As I do not require anything like the cards you snottily recommend, why
>>>> would I buy one?
>>>
>>> Sour grapes. You can buy one, but it won't work in that toy you call
>>> a mac.
>>>>
>>>> Please, consider your reply carefully, and tell me why I need either one of
>>>> those cards - or more to the point, why I need to upgrade to *any* other
>>>> card than the one that I have now, and am quite happy with?
>>>
>>> You deserve ATI. Lucky for you. You can't choose anything better
>>> even if you wanted to.
>>
>> Wrong. I could install a Voodoo3 card in my Mac--if game performance was
>> important to me.
>
> Damn Joe, you are as clueless as taggart. Voodoo 3 is a game card,
> not an OpenGL card Try getting 3d acceleration out your voodooX card
> inside a 3d editing application. Hint, you can't. They don't make
> such cards for macs because macs are considered a joke by the 3d
> community.
That would be why he wrote "if game performance was important to me." But an
under-brain-powered troglodyte such as you would have been to busy spunking
all over yourself in your premature dash to spit more bile about subjects
you know nothing about, to notice a trivial matter like that. Or the simple
fact that you posed the rather nateish statement that only ATI cards are
available for the Mac, to which you were once again refuted.
Don't let these simple, tedious bits of reality get in the way of your
less-than-impressive attempts at public windroidism. Your cohorts may begin
to distance themselves from you even further than they already have.
But as you have once again spasm-ed forth one of your dreadfully
self-serving, mouth full of shit non-sequiturs, what high-end OpenGL card do
you have? Whatever it is, return it for a refund. It isn't helping your
pathetic, amateur attempts at "heavy-duty 3D, animation, video, CAD, and 2d
graphics" at all.
Or, are you just spouting out more of your nonsense about OpenGL cards that
you don't have? That would be typical nathan hughes SOP - brag about
something you have no direct experience with, like "heavy-duty" 3D,
animation, video, CAD, and 2d graphics.
> Like taggart, you need to get out more.
This from someone who lives in Nowhere, Kansas?
--KT
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate)
> Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:45:16 GMT
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:19:33 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>> in article
>> 17BEBADFDAA04A38.7D974803...@lp.airnews.net, Nate at
>> nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote on 10/27/99 10:47 AM:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:07:49 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
>>> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Mac morons like taggot don't have a clue what a real OpenGL card is
>>>>> because the 3d world sees the mac for the joke it is. Nobody would
>>>>> bother designing a real OpenGL card for the mac because the OS itself
>>>>> can't handle the strain of more than a few hundred thousand faces.
>>>
>>>> concepts such as: not everyone needs an OpenGL wunderkard, nor do many
>>>> people even want them.
>>>
>>> Macs certainly don't as the OS barfs before it can parse 3d of any
>>> scale to the card.
>>
>> Barf is exactly the output that comes from your maleficent dual PII, eh
>> nate?
>
> Barfs as in freezes up solid, requiring a reboot.
Okay, your PC freezes up solid, requiring a reboot every time you try to
render on of your amateur-hour designs. Your definition is acceptable.
> In all the little experiment of opening a 600,000 face DXF in C4D on a BW G3
> wasted a half hour of time. That's what mac users call productivity.
Anything you do on *any* platform is a complete waste of time. A discussion
a while back with davexl revealed the very same weakness that you attribute
to C4D on the Mac is common with DXF file imports in your beloved MAX.
Apparently neither application is very good at importing DXF files.
It is also apparent that you couldn't create a good 3D *anything* if your
life depended on it.
--KT
Nate
<ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> From: nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate)
>> Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America
>> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:25:35 GMT
>> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:34:35 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
>> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Don't let the fact that I (like you) am not in a graphics-related field of
>>> work (you are not in any field of work) dissuade your continued ignorance on
>>> the subject.
>>
>> That coming from someone who doesn't even know what an OpenGL card is.
>> You need to get out more.
>
>That has nothing to do with
It has everything to do with showing just how clueless you are about
computer graphics.
Kevin M. Taggart
> From: nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate)
> Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:45:22 GMT
> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:53:14 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>>> From: nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate)
>>> Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America
>>> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>>> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:25:35 GMT
>>> Subject: Re: Macintosh Justification
>>>
>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:34:35 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
>>> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't let the fact that I (like you) am not in a graphics-related field of
>>>> work (you are not in any field of work) dissuade your continued ignorance
>>>> on the subject.
>>>
>>> That coming from someone who doesn't even know what an OpenGL card is.
>>> You need to get out more.
>>
>> That has nothing to do with the fact that you are an untalented hack with a
>> wannabe PC and a wannabe OS. In fact, nothing will ever change that.
>
> It has everything to do with showing just how clueless you are about
> computer graphics.
Really? Because you are an untalented hack with a wannabe PC and a wannabe
OS? Interesting. Is it also true that because you are an untalented hack
with a wannabe life and a wannabe partial education that couldn't make
anything 3D on your wannabe computer, that you some how have a clue about
computer graphics?
No.
So where is this magical-mystery "heavy-duty" 3D, animation, video, CAD, and
2d graphics you profess to "having a clue" about? You say you "do" it all
the time, but the only evidence of you "doing" anything is your infrequent
mention of your 9 year old sister/fiancée. Were you in any part of the US
(or any other part of the modern word) instead of Kansas, you would be
arrested immediately on obscenity charges. Referring to your work of course,
that bit about your sister/fiancée is pure speculation.
>>>> Which, conveniently, brings us back to your omission of any link to your
>>>> imaginary "heavy-duty 3D, animation, video, CAD, and 2d graphics" that you
>>>
>>> Right now I have 4 million plus face model with 10 lights rendering a
>>> preview at 1500X1200 in the background. Your mac would puke on a
>>> model of less than 1/4 that size. Just because you can't do such
>>> things on your mac doesn't make it imaginary.
>>
>> Light-duty, and assuredly amateurish. When you get to the real "heavy-duty" >
>> stuff post a link.
Where's the link Natalie?
>>>> mistakenly have tried to take credit for understanding (a remarkable feat
>>>> in itself) let alone, creating.
>>>>
>>>> Where is it?
>>>
>>> They are on my system.
>>
>> Post a link.
Where's the link Natalie?
>>>>>> Please, consider your reply carefully, and tell me why I need either one
>>>>>> of those cards - or more to the point, why I need to upgrade to *any*
>>>>>> other card than the one that I have now, and am quite happy with?
>>>>>
>>>>> You deserve ATI. Lucky for you. You can't choose anything better
>>>>> even if you wanted to.
>>>>
Joe Ragosta
<88221B29E51796D3.9F738CF1...@lp.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:34:35 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
> >Which, conveniently, brings us back to your omission of any link to your
> >imaginary "heavy-duty 3D, animation, video, CAD, and 2d graphics" that you
>
> Right now I have 4 million plus face model with 10 lights rendering a
> preview at 1500X1200 in the background. Your mac would puke on a
> model of less than 1/4 that size. Just because you can't do such
> things on your mac doesn't make it imaginary.
>
>
And we now see that Nate's view of art is the same as his view of computer
advocacy. You merely add up the numbers and if you've used enough pixels
and lights, it must be good.
Of course, with that limited a veiwpoint of what constitutes art, it's not
surprising that he can't see the difference between Macs and PCs.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Joe Ragosta
<5F0145ABE064FFC3.763CB8A8...@lp.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:19:33 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
> >in article
> >17BEBADFDAA04A38.7D974803...@lp.airnews.net, Nate at
> >nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote on 10/27/99 10:47 AM:
> >
> >> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:07:49 -0700, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> >> <ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Mac morons like taggot don't have a clue what a real OpenGL card is
> >>>> because the 3d world sees the mac for the joke it is. Nobody would
> >>>> bother designing a real OpenGL card for the mac because the OS itself
> >>>> can't handle the strain of more than a few hundred thousand faces.
> >>
> >>> concepts such as: not everyone needs an OpenGL wunderkard, nor do many
> >>> people even want them.
> >>
> >> Macs certainly don't as the OS barfs before it can parse 3d of any
> >> scale to the card.
> >
> >Barf is exactly the output that comes from your maleficent dual PII, eh
> >nate?
>
>
> Barfs as in freezes up solid, requiring a reboot. In all the little
> experiment of opening a 600,000 face DXF in C4D on a BW G3 wasted a
> half hour of time. That's what mac users call productivity.
I'll tell you what. Why don't you put that DXF file on your web page where
we can get it and I'm willing to bet my Mac opens it without difficulty.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Joe Ragosta
<ABCE87792DC281AB.FE704E66...@lp.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:13:43 -0500, joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta)
> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><B1FE5FCF67A26AC2.3CCBF769...@lp.airnews.net>,
> >nhu...@scenedesign.com (Nate) wrote:
> >
> >> You deserve ATI. Lucky for you. You can't choose anything better
> >> even if you wanted to.
> >
> >Wrong. I could install a Voodoo3 card in my Mac--if game performance was
> >important to me.
>
> Damn Joe, you are as clueless as taggart. Voodoo 3 is a game card,
> not an OpenGL card Try getting 3d acceleration out your voodooX card
> inside a 3d editing application. Hint, you can't. They don't make
> such cards for macs because macs are considered a joke by the 3d
> community.
Let's see. You stated that there was nothing better on Macs than the ATI
cards. Since all the Wintrolls seem to believe that nothing matters except
UnrealQuakeDoomMyst performance, I gave an example of a card that was
better for those games.
I don't know about professional graphics cards--nor did I claim I do. But
I know enough to debunk the crap you post around here--as in the above.
>
> Like taggart, you need to get out more.
Or perhaps you need to learn to read.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta