Originally posted by <dm>:
<STRONG>
I notice that the game-playing focus for those computer makers is fairly pronounced.</STRONG>

I only referenced Alienware, Falcon Northwest, Voodoo, etc, because you seemed to be making the argument that Macs are somehow a higher quality product. On a purely objective basis, dollar by dollar, a PC manufacturer will always give you magnitudes of higher quality and access to newer, better technology than Apple ever could. These three companies are the best examples of companies that do this.

A significant portion of people who want access to high quality and recent technology are gamers. That I will grant. But other significant populations with the exact same needs include digital video enthusiasts, 3D designers, art agencies that work with insanely high resolution images, high-end sound people including DJs, composers and radio personnel, and generally people who have to process large amounts of data quickly and in the highest quality formats. All of them turn to gigahertz+ PCs with Dolby Surround Sound, DDR memory, GeForce3 graphics cards, and other enabling technologies. In conclusion, no, your gaming argument does not hold water at all.

As for the sort of unmeasurable fluff such as excellence, quality of experience of the MacOS, etc, etc, a gigahertz PC can easily emulate a Mac at native speed. So you get to use your Windows and your Linux and your BeOS and your MacOS too if you like, all on the same machine. It's all software emulation and multibooting, so it's not like you pay anything extra out of pocket.

So the PC offers higher quality, more performance, better reliability, more choice, better looks, a larger variety of styles, a larger spectrum of operating systems, a larger selection of software, and practically more of everything.

Just what is it that the Mac offers? I do not understand. Mediocre hardware, smaller spectrum of operating systems, smaller selection of software, at unreasonably high prices. Why would any sane person go for the Mac?

[nana2]

Originally posted by AGE:
<STRONG>Wiggles u r wrong about pc quality though, I have seen alot of pc cases and they are still ugly and cheap and non functional, mac cases are still the best with Armani (pc vendor) being the only pc case thats aluminium and good to upgrade to.</STRONG>

Are you serious? You're saying a case with a single external 5 1/4" drive bay is functional? This is what you get with the Quicksilver towers. Sure you can get an external firewire case but why spend $150 bucks for the frigging thing?

Lian Li sell aluminium PC cases. Costly of course.

[OAW]

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>
P.S. What's STL?</STRONG>

I mean are you from St. Louis? The reason I ask is because I know a guy from STL who goes by the "Wiggles" handle?

OAW

Originally posted by OAW:
<STRONG>

I mean are you from St. Louis? The reason I ask is because I know a guy from STL who goes by the "Wiggles" handle?

OAW</STRONG>

Nope, not from that area.

I imagine that the nickname is not exclusive to myself.

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

PC manufacturers will always give you magnitudes of higher quality and access to newer, better technology than Apple ever could.
--
A significant portion of people who want access to high quality and recent technology are gamers. That I will grant. But other significant populations with the exact same needs include digital video enthusiasts, 3D designers, art agencies that work with insanely high resolution images, high-end sound people including DJs, composers and radio personnel, and generally people who have to process large amounts of data quickly and in the highest quality formats. All of them turn to gigahertz+ PCs with Dolby Surround Sound, DDR memory, GeForce3 graphics cards, and other enabling technologies. In conclusion, no, your gaming argument does not hold water at all.
--
As for the sort of unmeasurable fluff such as excellence, quality of experience of the MacOS, etc, etc, a gigahertz PC can easily emulate a Mac at native speed. So you get to use your Windows and your Linux and your BeOS and your MacOS too if you like, all on the same machine. It's all software emulation and multibooting, so it's not like you pay anything extra out of pocket.
--
So the PC offers higher quality, more performance, better reliability, more choice, better looks, a larger variety of styles, a larger spectrum of operating systems, a larger selection of software, and practically more of everything.
--
Just what is it that the Mac offers? I do not understand. Mediocre hardware, smaller spectrum of operating systems, smaller selection of software, at unreasonably high prices. Why would any sane person go for the Mac?</STRONG>

Wiggles, I'm afraid you're employing some fairly disingenuous reasoning here. Mistruths too, though perhaps not intentionally.

To wit: "PC manufacturers will always give you magnitudes of higher quality "

Large scale PC manufacturers are doing nothing of the sort. Despite small market share, Apple _is_ a large scale manufacturer that does this. Is it an easy thing, at present, for the average PC user to walk into a store and decide that they would like to author their own DVDs? Is it easy for a Mac user? Can you face up to the honest answer to this question? Joe Consumer, mind you, not Joe PC tinkerer. Complete system, off the shelf, not adding a PCI card. Do you get the picture?

"digital video enthusiasts, 3D designers, art agencies that work with insanely high resolution images, high-end sound people including DJs, composers and radio personnel, and generally people who have to process large amounts of data quickly and in the highest quality formats. All of them turn to gigahertz+ PCs"

No, not all of them do. You're presenting something as fact that is clearly, utterly, not. Digital video enthusiasts? How many of them are getting FireWire as stadard on PCs to pursue their digital video enthusiasm? Virtually none, friend. Art agencies? Are you serious? The Mac is the de facto standard at art agencies and in publishing. That's common knowledge and I'm surprised someone who's given these issues as much thought as you have doesn't realize it..?.. As for "high-end sound people", Macs are in project and professional studios the world round. Composers work in those environments. So do radio personnel. And Macs process large amounts of data quickly in the highest quality formats. I evidently don't grasp the distinction you're attempting to illustrate in this regard. I would greatly appreciate it if you could clarify how Macs are incapable of these endeavors or show proof of their abandonment by some of the very people who've kept and continue to keep the platform strong in the creative arena.

"a gigahertz PC can easily emulate a Mac at native speed"

A ridiculous statement. The Mac can run every OS you mention, including all flavors of Windows, all on the same machine, just as you wrote for your beloved PC. It cannot run Windows as fast as a WinTel box and I assure you, the WinTel box cannot run Mac emulation as fast as genuine Apple hardware. If you think either one can equal the other in software emulation, you're laboring under some SERIOUS delusions. Notice how I'm sticking to the *facts* of what is and isn't possible rather than passing off opinions or generalizations as facts? No needless slagging or blind denials of what WinTel hardware is capable of, no baseless claims of what people are buying en masse for a particular industry.

"So the PC offers higher quality, more performance, better reliability"

For the average PC versus the average Mac, at retail, today, this statement is erroneous. By the time you pay to add the things that will make it the super-PC you envision, the money that's "too much" for a Mac will have been spent.

"a larger variety of styles,"

This is an advantage, depending on your tastes. As previously stated, my personal opinion is that Apple's industrial design is far preferable to most PC designs, hence the emulations of Apple's design team high and low, past and present, by PC manufacturers, large and small.

"a larger spectrum of operating systems,"

False. Unless you want to include OS2 or some odd AmigaDOS. Feel free, as the larger point still stands.

"a larger selection of software,"

True. But, tellingly, does the Mac lack software in any area that most need to pursue? A resounding no.

"As for the sort of unmeasurable fluff such as excellence, quality of experience of the MacOS"

I assume by unmeasurable you mean to convey that it's a matter of opinion or personal preference. That said, you've answered your own question as to why someone would choose a Mac. If it's a more pleasurable experience, why on earth would you run it in emulation? You wouldn't. You'd buy a Mac.

[GK]

"better looking"

you're right. the beige pc boxes will better match the style you have in your trailer.

Besides, paying $399 for a 5 gig 2.5'' drive is just stupid.

So you want to carry a 5.25" drive in your pocket ?

Just what is it that the Mac offers? I do not understand.

can't find understanding under a rock

Mediocre hardware, smaller spectrum of operating systems, smaller selection of software, at unreasonably high prices. Why would any sane person go for the Mac?

Blah, blaah, blah... blah, blah, blah, blah.....oink, oink,oink....

[IFLY2HIGH]

I myself am not rich, but the average working joe. I spent 1700$ on my G4-450 Sawtooth and I love it. People always want the fastest and the best. I couldn't afford the best so I stuck out with a base model. The price stands as what apple wants for it.

If you REALLY REALLY WANT it, then cough up the cash. Otherwise shutup! I was more than happy to pay that price, because the stability, reliability, and supreme power compared to my "fast pc" could not be compared. I'm a happy mac owner now, and I'll pay for the sleak designs and functionallity of any mac before going back to the pc side...

"Come to the dark side, and you'll see the light"

Originally posted by IFLY2HIGH:
<STRONG>I spent 1700$ on my G4-450 Sawtooth and I love it.</STRONG>

You got ripped. 450 Megahertz PC systems, including 15'' monitor, cost less than $500 and offer faster specs than their Mac counterparts in objective industry benchmarks.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to find someplace selling new 450 Megahertz PC systems at the moment. The PC world has moved on. Almost all new PC systems being sold right now are above 1 Ghz. In stark contrast to this, Apple does not have a single 1 Ghz system available yet.

Do you need further proof that Apple has hopelessly been left behind in the technology race?

I can't believe how so many people can be conned into forking out $1200 extra just to have a translucent case with a fruit sketched on it.

[IFLY2HIGH]

Originally posted by &lt;PC Guy&gt;:
<STRONG>

You got ripped. 450 Megahertz PC systems, including 15'' monitor, cost less than $500 and offer faster specs than their Mac counterparts in objective industry benchmarks.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to find someplace selling new 450 Megahertz PC systems at the moment. The PC world has moved on. Almost all new PC systems being sold right now are above 1 Ghz. In stark contrast to this, Apple does not have a single 1 Ghz system available yet.

Do you need further proof that Apple has hopelessly been left behind in the technology race?

I can't believe how so many people can be conned into forking out $1200 extra just to have a translucent case with a fruit sketched on it.</STRONG>

I built my 450 pc for 1000$, no **** that the pc world has moved on man, where have you been. If that's all you want is mhz go right ahead and keep on using your pc and windoze. My G4 was faster than my pc and it was only a year old. It's also funny how many other companies including pc's, have copyied or come out with there own translucent colors. Apple stated that trend and everyone else followed. One day apple may just burst your bubble and tripple you mhz crap and then we can wath you pissin in your pants. Go HOME!

[zac4mac]

ochrist who let that banana slug &lt;wiggles&gt; in here...
Jeez dude, get a life and get out of my face. At least register so I can send hate mail to your mailbox... dickhead.

Macs cost more because of a small notion, unheard of in the PC world. R and D
R&D has no immediate returns and the cost has to be balanced in the projects that survive.

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: zac4mac ]

[zac4mac]

ooops DP

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: zac4mac ]

Originally posted by IFLY2HIGH:
<STRONG>

One day apple may just burst your bubble and tripple you mhz crap</STRONG>

In your dreams.

Apple doesn't even make its own CPUs. (Motorola does) They have no idea what they're doing. They only know how to make fruity cases and to overcharge for them.

Which part of objective industry benchmark did you not understand? I'm not talking about the number of megahertz here, I'm talking about a scientific measurement of how much work the computer gets done. Frames per second, or calculations per second, or similar. In these solid, relevant contexts, PCs always come out on top. PCs get far more work done than Macs for much less cost. This is scientifically proven. Which part of that do you not understand?

[ihxo]

Originally posted by &lt;PC guy&gt;:
<STRONG>

In your dreams.

Apple doesn't even make its own CPUs. (Motorola does) They have no idea what they're doing. They only know how to make fruity cases and to overcharge for them.

Which part of objective industry benchmark did you not understand? I'm not talking about the number of megahertz here, I'm talking about a scientific measurement of how much work the computer gets done. Frames per second, or calculations per second, or similar. In these solid, relevant contexts, PCs always come out on top. PCs get far more work done than Macs for much less cost. This is scientifically proven. Which part of that do you not understand?</STRONG>

Apple doesn't "Make" it's own CPUs, true, but apple "Does" design it's own CPUs, They have much more idea than Dell or any PC makers what they are doing.

well lets just say apple doesn't do anything but develop the OS, wtf .. they are still doing a better job than Microsoft and the whole linux community.... suck it

Which Scientific research facility proved Mac is less productive than PC ?? Post the list of name please, I'd love to know. or is it just PCmagazine or zdnet ??

Let's say My game runs in 50 fps and yours runs in 5000 fps does that mean your are 1000 times more productive than me?? and u can finish the game 1000 times faster than me ??

[nana2]

There is no way your can win an argument based on 3D render times, the power of the Athlon FPU units are too strong. Stick to your usability comments, for render farms the Mac's are too costly and underproductive.

Originally posted by ihxo:
<STRONG>

Let's say My game runs in 50 fps and yours runs in 5000 fps does that mean your are 1000 times more productive than me?? and u can finish the game 1000 times faster than me ??</STRONG>

If your 3D modelling application renders 50 fps and if my 3D modelling application renders 5000 fps, then yes, my rendering job will finish 100 times quicker than yours, and yes, I am 100 times more productive than you.

Same thing with matlab, Photoshop, Excel, or even Dreamweaver, your web browser, wordprocessor, or anything that has to crunch numbers to produce results.

The gaming example is not a valid example because the bottleneck there is human reaction time.

On another note, 5000 = 50 x 100 and 500 != 50 x 1000.

Then again, it's a stretch to expect a Mac user to be able to master simple math. These are the very same people who pay $1200 extra for a fruity case with a fruit on it. You can't expect much from them.

[ihxo]

Originally posted by &lt;PC guy&gt;:
<STRONG>

If your 3D modelling application renders 50 fps and if my 3D modelling application renders 5000 fps, then yes, my rendering job will finish 100 times quicker than yours, and yes, I am 100 times more productive than you.

Same thing with matlab, Photoshop, Excel, or even Dreamweaver, your web browser, wordprocessor, or anything that has to crunch numbers to produce results.

The gaming example is not a valid example because the bottleneck there is human reaction time.

On another note, 5000 = 50 x 100 and 500 != 50 x 1000.

Then again, it's a stretch to expect a Mac user to be able to master simple math. These are the very same people who pay $1200 extra for a fruity case with a fruit on it. You can't expect much from them.</STRONG>

LOL stupid you, the 50fps and 5000fps example was a question. it's good you know 50*100 = 5000 but that doesnt mean I was wrong either.

but in the end you still don't have any prove that PC is faster in 3D rendering or number crunching.
if you want to find out go get a copy of bryce for mac and a bryce for PC, start rendering a movie clip with dynamix, shadow .. (stuff like that) see which one is faster. (well you might even wanna get maya too, don't get photoshop COZ u'll think it's Mac biased)

I know the result though.

Originally posted by &lt;PC guy&gt;:
<STRONG>
Then again, it's a stretch to expect a Mac user to be able to master simple math. These are the very same people who pay $1200 extra for a fruity case with a fruit on it. You can't expect much from them.</STRONG>

Yeah, yeah, cupcake, we get it.

blahblahblahblahblahFRUITblahblahblahblahFRUITYbla hblahFRUITYFRUITFRUITFRUITblahblah. Thanks for the incisive look at computing. If you don't like it, change the channel and we'll expect NOTHING of you.

[zjokke]

This is really getting ridiculous. If you're buying a computer, there are many reasons why you would go for this or that system. I myself could assemble my own PC if I'd want to. I could learn more about programming and create my own OS. I could make my own casing, because I really have good ideas and know how to handle plastics and other materials. Why not make my own CPU and memory-chip and harddrive, and.... Well maybe I don't want to. I'm a graphics and multimedia and 3D 'artist'. I'd rather spend my time on creating these on my computer, than creating a computer. It's a choice I've made, like any of us makes his choice. Every machine you buy is overpiced, every company that builds computers is trying to gain money. But than if you don't want them to, build your own stuff (with what pieces? you'll have to buy them too you know). In the end, if I look at the job Apple did, I really like their product. They build that nice machine, invested many $ and I can buy it for only this little price? Great! My G4 does all it has to.

Sure, I chose for the MacOS in the first place. If I have to chose between buying Windows (an os build by a company so full of itself it doesn't bother selling an os that crashes millions of users everyday, just because it thinks it's got a monopoly) or Linux (I'd just have to spend a few weeks learning how to install that one and then I would have to find the right software... no thanks), I'd rather go MacOS, a nice operating system, not too difficult, that does the job like it should, that doesn't crash too often, which can run the soft I need.

Those of you who think the human interaction with the computer isn't that important, should just find yourself the best black box you could find (or build), don't bother buying a screen or keyboard, just borrow one to get the machine started, later on it does all it has to itself. If you have to work on your computer every day, buy yourself what you need and don't bother people who happen to use a Mac for their everydays job, just because it always has been the most productive tool for them.

Originally posted by zjokke:
<STRONG>Why not make my own CPU and memory-chip and harddrive, and.... Well maybe I don't want to. I'm a graphics and multimedia and 3D 'artist'. I'd rather spend my time on creating these on my computer, than creating a computer.</STRONG>

You don't have to create your own computer. Just call a critically acclaimed systems integrator, tell him what your job is (multimedia artist, etc) and your budget ($1000 or whatever) and tell him to fax you back a quote for the ideal system for your needs using the best available components within your price range.

He will do so. It is his job to figure out what works with what. It is his job to figure out which components best serve which careers or users. He will even throw in a case in a fruity color to make it easy for you to migrate from Mac to PC.

There are zillions of system integrators. My recommendation would be Alienware, but do a little research and pick what you like best. Do not pick Dell, Gateway, IBM, etc, because these companies also overprice and build underperforming systems, though not half as much as Apple.

Apple is the ultimate example of a company that overprices underperforming systems.

P.S. Windows XP, which just came out, is just as fruity as Mac OS X. It has all those glimmering, shimmering, flickering stupid widgets that endear Mac OS X to you Macheads. It has a jewel-like look with lots of alpha transparency. It's just the ticket.

I cannot imagine a single respect in which a Mac can trump a similarly priced PC built by someone who knows what he is doing. (And no, Dell doesn't count.)

I can- Ease of Use.

No matter how well built a PC is, there is still a heckuva learning curve. Even after many years of computer use it still took better part of a year before I was truly comfortable with my old PC.

With my iMac it only took a couple of weeks!

Even after a year I'm still amazed at how easy this little beauty makes things, but that's one of Apple's strength's it seems, designing products that are a pleasure to use and can even make peoples lives a little bit easier, rather than adding extra hassle.

The way the iPod & iTunes2 work together is a good example of this I'd say.

The ease of use factor may be unimportant to some, but to others it's worth paying a little extra for.

Cheers!

Inkfinger

What is so hard about using a PC?

Most popular apps (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Internet Explorer) are virtually identical across multiple operating systems.

Are the two mouse buttons confusing you?

[zac4mac]

Hey dickhead, I mean &lt;wiggles&gt; -

Most of us here either have used PC's or have one or more in conjunction with our Mac(s). Go preach your crap elsewhere.

I have a P-III 500 at work, but only use it when I have to, preferring an extremely "upgraded" PM8500 for most tasks.

Something I have noticed about wintel is, with the huge selection of software comes a huge pile of substandard quality. Wintel folk accept crappy software with a shrug of the shoulders like no Mac user I know. If an app has a crappy GUI, I notice it. The wintel sheeple don't.

Sure I could get to work in a Yugo - uncomfortable, ugly, slow.
But why? Life's too short.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by &lt;PC guy&gt;:
<STRONG>


Apple doesn't even make its own CPUs. (Motorola does) They have no idea what they're doing. They only know how to make fruity cases and to overcharge for them.
</STRONG>

Actually, not entirely correct.

Moto and IBM both design and manufacture PowerPC processors that are used in Apple machines. These are the same PPC processors that are used in high end server machines like the IBM RS/6000. They are based on the same architecture used in even higher end machines like the AS/400 (iSeries) and System 390 (zSeries) machines. x86 will never scale to the level of an RS/6000, much less the other, higher end machines.

[PixelPimpzNYC]

Okay, let me tell you what I know from living in New York City and working in web development and advertising at small shops to large agencies for the past 6 years:

ALL CREATIVE IS DONE ON MACS

MOST, BUT NOT ALL BUSINESS AND BACKEND DEVELOPEMENT IS DONE ON PC

My audio engineer friend works on Pro Tools on a G4 Tower, my DJ / MC friend (who is on tour in Australia and Japan) uses his PowerBook G4 to do all his recording on the road and in the studio. None of my friends who do design, music or video for a living would even consider a PC. One friend is now switching to Mac OS X and doing all the backend web developement and testing with UNIX on his new PowerBook G4.

Macs still dominate the creative field with exception of 3D modeling and animation.

What is so hard about using a PC?

Windows. In particular, Windows 95. Quite a culture shock compared to the Amiga i had been used to.

The main thing that bugged me at first about Windows is that there seemed to be several different ways to do everything. I suppose some bright spark at Microsoft thought that would make things easier, but to me it just meant it took twice as long to learn!

For instance when Starting an app, you can either
(A) Put a shortcut on the Desktop & use that.

(B) Navigate the Start /Programs menu & use the shortcut that's probably in there somewhere(But not in any particular order).

(C) Click on My Computer, then your hard drive & folders till you find the Program it'self & Click on that.

(D) Fire up Windows Explorer from the Start/Programs and use that to find the Program & click on it!

Overkill or what?

Most popular apps (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Internet Explorer) are virtually identical across multiple operating systems.

Yes, I was impressed with how well Microsoft seemed to have copied the features of my old Amiga word processor when they made Word! Made it really easy to adapt to I suppose.

Are the two mouse buttons confusing you?

Why should they? I've been using them for over four years! (Not to mention six prior years with an Amiga & Atari , both of which used two Button Mice!)

Heck, I even find my iMac's little "hockey puck" easy to get along with!

Cheers!

Inkfinger

[Spliffdaddy]

SONY's name is ranked #1 in 'quality' in every survey I've ever seen.

There are worse companies to imitate, that's for sure.

The key word is 'imitate'.

SONY innovates - Apple imitates.

The TRS-80 was innovative - the iMac imitated.

Originally posted by &lt;Inkfinger&gt;:
<STRONG>

The main thing that bugged me at first about Windows is that there seemed to be several different ways to do everything. I suppose some bright spark at Microsoft thought that would make things easier, but to me it just meant it took twice as long to learn!

</STRONG>

You don't have to learn every way to do everything.

Just learn one method to achieve a specific task, and you're all set.

What's difficult about that?

[Spliffdaddy]

OK, I can sum-up all the previous posts in 2 sentences:

If 'ease of use' is more important than performance and value - then buy a Mac.

If you want performance and value and 'ease of use' - buy a PC.

and no, Apple doesn't make anything as fast as my current homebuilt PC....which isn't nearly as fast as some of my friend's PCs.

You don't have to learn every way to do everything.

Just learn one method to achieve a specific task, and you're all set.

What's difficult about that?

I guess nothing if you're starting from scratch, but coming as I did from a different platform, Windows took some ajusting to.

OK, I can sum-up all the previous posts in 2 sentences:

If 'ease of use' is more important than performance and value - then buy a Mac.

If you want performance and value and 'ease of use' - buy a PC.

Depends how you define performance & value I guess.

Performance is about more than speed, after all, what's the use of having the fastest car in the race if it breaks down half way through?

As for value, well I was lucky enough to get my iMac in a sale, where it's price/features/ performance ratio stood up very well against the opposition.
In addition, there is the hidden value, such as NOT having to waste as much valuable free time on tedious troubleshooting tasks, like spending several weekends per year doing the old reformat the hard drive & restore the OS routine!


Cheers!

Inkfinger

[dn15]

I think some people here need to cool off...

Macs and PCs both have their place. People who prefer PCs are not stupid, nor are those who like Macs.

Those who say that Macs are a rip-off need to realize that it's not all about specs. I will take a "slower" Mac over a "faster" Windows-based PC any day not because I worship Steve Jobs, but because I am much more comfortable with the Mac OS.

On the same note, people who buy PCs are not all drones. Did any of you stop to think that some PC users might actually like Windows?

It's fine if people use what they like, but what really bothers me is when people (on either side) say that they absolutely hate the opposition when many of them have probably not had enough experience with the other, and what little experience they had was clouded by preconceptions that they picked up from other overly-biased users.

Finally, Macs are not for elitest rich people. Sure, it take a good chunk of cash to buy some of the upper end Macs but an iMac can be had for $799 or an iBook for $1299 and both will easily handle any everyday task you throw at them. They don't have 80 GB hard drives standard or 1.5 GHz processors but they're still great for most stuff.

The worst thing any of you can do for your argument is make a big fuss and get mad. That's not the way you have civilized discussions.

[ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: dn15 ]

Originally posted by &lt;Inkfinger&gt;:
<STRONG>

I guess nothing if you're starting from scratch, but coming as I did from a different platform, Windows took some ajusting to.</STRONG>

That's not a problem with Windows, that's a problem with you.

You're a slow migrator.

It wouldn't matter if you migrated from Mac OS, or BeOS, or Linux, or anything else, to Windows. Since you take a long time to migrate, you would have taken a long time to "adjust" in any of those circumstances.

That's the price you pay if you want to work with an architecture that offers the best price to performance ratio in the industry.

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>That's the price you pay if you want to work with an architecture that offers the best price to performance ratio in the industry.</STRONG>

price to performance ratio depends heavily on what you do.

For server application Linux got the best price/performance ratio
For Graphics Mac got the best price/performance ratio
For Privated Software Windows got the best price/performance ratio

PS: as Mr Wiggles' didn't try to get legit examples to support his argument, guess it's ok for me to not do that too, coz I got a life, and I don't have 18 hours a day to wasting on an internet forum flaming ppl.

Originally posted by &lt;ihxo&gt;:
<STRONG>

For Graphics Mac got the best price/performance ratio
</STRONG>

This makes no sense.

Every major Mac graphics package has a Windows counterpart of the exact same graphics package. These programs are virtually identical in interface.

Thousands of Windows graphics packages have no Mac counterpart.

It therefore logically follows that Windows is much better for graphics productivity.

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

This makes no sense.

Every major Mac graphics package has a Windows counterpart of the exact same graphics package. These programs are virtually identical in interface.

Thousands of Windows graphics packages have no Mac counterpart.

It therefore logically follows that Windows is much better for graphics productivity.</STRONG>

LOL you mean that crappy paintshop pro ??
more not equal to better (does the word CRAP WARE means anything to you?)
it's the quality that counts.
it's been proven over and over and over and over again that Mac is faster in doing photoshop, and that's like the industry standard.

good god, 11 already .. gotta slp.

[godzappa]

why is it that so many people who believe Macs are terrible value for money and are completely inferior to PC's, hang out in Mac forums?

I never got to windows forums, I like Macs for my own reasons and have no interest in hanging around PC or Windows forums.

Whats the deal guys? I would really like to know what your motivations are

That's not a problem with Windows, that's a problem with you.

Sorry, but it was Windows as much as me. I didn't make it crash half way through every other game of Quake & I didn't botch IE4 so that it screwed up the OS after it was installed.
(Just two examples of what I had to put up with in those early months!)
If I hadn't had to try and troubleshoot such problems maybe I would have had more time to learn other stuff!

[/QUOTE]

You're a slow migrator.

It wouldn't matter if you migrated from Mac OS, or BeOS, or Linux, or anything else, to Windows. Since you take a long time to migrate, you would have taken a long time to "adjust" in any of those circumstances.
[/QUOTE]

Then how come I ajusted from Windows to Mac OS in a couple of WEEKS?

(As I said in my earlier post if you'd bothered to read it properly!)

Also I don't seem t o have any problem skipping back & forth between Windows 95/NT at work & the Mac at home.

Anyway. as I said in another post my free time is precious & I haven't any more to waste on this subject.

Cheers!

Inkfinger

Originally posted by &lt;Inkfinger&gt;:
<STRONG>

Then how come I ajusted from Windows to Mac OS in a couple of WEEKS? </STRONG>

You were already a Mac user before you even migrated to Windows!

So migrating back to MacOS is no migration at all! You simply went back to what you already knew!

What an idiot.

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>

You were already a Mac user before you even migrated to Windows!

So migrating back to MacOS is no migration at all! You simply went back to what you already knew!

What an idiot.</STRONG>

Grab a mirror.

[Spliffdaddy]

got you one, too, buddy - seems you do nothing but whine and call people names. Looks like you're losing an argument to me. Try harder.

I have seen a lot of talk on this forum about how macs are worth the extra price. No, they are NOT! It is not a matter of being cheap, but informed. Apple hardware sucks for the price. The G4 tower's "design" is not worth what you guys are willing to pay. Someone already mentioned some of the facts about this and I agree. I bet you guys are the same ones buying BMWs so you can get girls. Pathetic if you asked me. I am sick and tired of this whole mac scene. I bought one earlier this year and have been nothing but disappointed. OS x.1 sucks. It was running fine until the 10.1 upgrade. I hate this piece of garbage. If you guys want to keep buying crap at 3x's the price, go ahead. You will only perpetuate the poor quality that apple has been come to be known for in its hardware...MHz myth my ***.

[KeyLimePi]

(uh, I think &lt;pcmacguru&gt; has 'issues').

What can you do in Mac OS that you cannot do with Win XP or Mandrake Linux?

[inkfinger]

.

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:

You were already a Mac user before you even migrated to Windows!

So migrating back to MacOS is no migration at all! You simply went back to what you already knew!

Did I?

Strange, I thought my iMac was my first Mac, but you would know better I'm sure.

Or perhaps the idea of someone with years of Windows experience migrating to the Mac is so unfathomable to you, that you misunderstood my earlier posts?

Inkfinger

Originally posted by inkfinger:
<STRONG>
Or perhaps the idea of someone with years of Windows experience migrating to the Mac is so unfathomable to you, that you misunderstood my earlier posts?
</STRONG>

Let's assume that I misunderstood. Let's assume that things are as you say.

The comparison is still not scientific.

You migrated to the Mac with the benefit of years of Windows-based GUI experience.

Obviously you would have been more proficient than when you had just started with Windows. It wouldn't matter which GUI you moved to. All 2 dimensional GUI based OS'es share similar paradigms. The more time you spend learning one, the more proficient you will be across all GUI based OS'es.

Here's a similar example. Let's say I state that lifting 5 pound weights is more difficult than lifting 10 pound weights. I make this statement based on the following: I spend a year lifting 5 pound weights, and then I migrate to 10 pound weights, and in a couple of weeks after that, I find that I can easily lift 10 pound weights. So OBVIOUSLY 10 pound weights are easier to lift!

What a concept!

[inkfinger]

.

Let's assume that I misunderstood. Let's assume that things are as you say.

The comparison is still not scientific.

Ah, but then I'm not a very scientific person! In fact the main reason I prefer the Mac in general & the iMac in particular, is that I like computers with a bit of , I suppose you could say, personality or even soul.

However you try to quantify it, my old Amiga had it, My iMac has it, but my PC and indeed any PC that I've had anything to do with does not.

Here endeth the lesson!

Inkfinger

It therefore logically follows that Windows is much better for graphics productivity.

wiggles dude

Stop talking out of your a**. Your conclusions are on the intellectual level of a 1 year old chimpanzee.

BTW, have you ever thought about it WHY you have such a lowlife job where you can sit all day long in front of your PC and fart around message boards ? Duh

AND everybody KNOWS that Ferrarri is top of the line.

Do people know that Apple is top of the line?
Nope.

Why?
Because they Apple isn't top of the line.

You analogy is incredibly lame.

WIGGLES DIDNT I TELL YOU GO GOTO BED!!!!!! well while you're awake you can suck my dick for awhile while your dad isnt home. Remember not to tell HER that you're giving me a blow job too.

mmhhmmm

[Nebagakid]

this guy probably hasnt got a real life, He probably is a skater punk kid who is a poser that has stupid cargo pants that are so ****ing baggy that he trips over them all the time, does so much weed that he is so ****ed up that he is just a dick-head. Try to make friends the good way, reintroduce yourself on these forums and being polite. We can take critisim from people, but not from some closed minded punk.

jeez