Photoshop on Mac or PC?

CB
Posted By
Colonel Blip
Jan 12, 2006
Views
1166
Replies
60
Status
Closed
Hello, All!

Please, I’m not looking to create a thread of flames regarding which of these is a better general platform, most innovative, part of the evil empire, good, etc. What I would like to find out is how PS CS2 performs differently on each of these platforms. I currently use a PC; someday in the future I may consider moving to a Mac. Is there any real difference in ease of use, speed (recognize hw will have a lot to do with this), unique tricks possible with one vs. the other, etc.? Or are they functionally equivalent for running CS2?

Thanks,
Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

C
Clyde
Jan 12, 2006
Colonel Blip wrote:
Hello, All!

Please, I’m not looking to create a thread of flames regarding which of these is a better general platform, most innovative, part of the evil empire, good, etc. What I would like to find out is how PS CS2 performs differently on each of these platforms. I currently use a PC; someday in the future I may consider moving to a Mac. Is there any real difference in ease of use, speed (recognize hw will have a lot to do with this), unique tricks possible with one vs. the other, etc.? Or are they functionally equivalent for running CS2?

Thanks,
Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

Well, you are going to start a flame war anyway. It always happens.

The short answer is that Photoshop works exactly the same on either platform. The only difference is the documentation that tells you shortcut key combinations that use different names. On the PC it is <Ctrl>, etc. and on the Mac it’s <Cmd>, etc.

I used to use a Mac and loved it; OS X is a very nice OS. I switched to all Windows due to required Windows only apps for one of my jobs. It had nothing to do with Photoshop and it shouldn’t. Photoshop runs the same on both systems.

The speed will be dependent on the speed of the hardware. If you pay for top end speed in either system, you will get fast Photoshop. Anything less will be slower. There a plenty of testers out there that use Photoshop in their speed testing. So there are plenty of numbers, if you really need them. ("MaximumPC" magazine uses Photoshop in its testing.) However, the real question is, how fast do you need Photoshop to go? You can probably make it go as fast as you need with either denomination of hardware.

Clyde
CW
C Wright
Jan 12, 2006
On 1/12/06 10:07 AM, in article
, "Clyde"
wrote:

Colonel Blip wrote:
Hello, All!

Please, I’m not looking to create a thread of flames regarding which of these is a better general platform, most innovative, part of the evil empire, good, etc. What I would like to find out is how PS CS2 performs differently on each of these platforms. I currently use a PC; someday in the future I may consider moving to a Mac. Is there any real difference in ease of use, speed (recognize hw will have a lot to do with this), unique tricks possible with one vs. the other, etc.? Or are they functionally equivalent for running CS2?

Thanks,
Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

Well, you are going to start a flame war anyway. It always happens.
The short answer is that Photoshop works exactly the same on either platform. The only difference is the documentation that tells you shortcut key combinations that use different names. On the PC it is <Ctrl>, etc. and on the Mac it’s <Cmd>, etc.
I used to use a Mac and loved it; OS X is a very nice OS. I switched to all Windows due to required Windows only apps for one of my jobs. It had nothing to do with Photoshop and it shouldn’t. Photoshop runs the same on both systems.

The speed will be dependent on the speed of the hardware. If you pay for top end speed in either system, you will get fast Photoshop. Anything less will be slower. There a plenty of testers out there that use Photoshop in their speed testing. So there are plenty of numbers, if you really need them. ("MaximumPC" magazine uses Photoshop in its testing.) However, the real question is, how fast do you need Photoshop to go? You can probably make it go as fast as you need with either denomination of hardware.

Clyde

Clyde, I think, has pretty well covered it! As far as Photoshop is concerned one platform is no better or worse than the other. It really boils down to which OS will run all of the other applications that you regularly use and which OS ‘experience’ you like better. I will say that Apple’s built in display profiling / calibration utility is very nice compared to what is available in Windows. But, if the user is really serious about this a puck or spider will probably be employed for profiling anyway.
Chuck
P
PacMan
Jan 13, 2006
Photoshop works the same on both platforms until you get five viruses per day hacking at your windows system…
then you need norton’s antivirus to keep things reasonably safe.. that alone hogs the memory at an insane level.
Oh and finally the less than stable windows longhorn soon to arrive 🙂

You’d never drag me aways from OS Tiger on a G5 and put me back into the death trap of windows.
I’ve used both platforms to test web sites since 95 using photoshop, dreamweaver on both and I’ll tell you it’s not photoshop that kills it’s the viruses and blue screen on the PC that drives you nuts!

If you want tons of games get a PC…
if you want a serious machine with the most stable app and no virus issues… get a Mac.
enough said!

On 2006-01-12 14:34:09 -0400, C Wright said:

On 1/12/06 10:07 AM, in article
, "Clyde"
wrote:

Colonel Blip wrote:
Hello, All!

Please, I’m not looking to create a thread of flames regarding which of these is a better general platform, most innovative, part of the evil empire, good, etc. What I would like to find out is how PS CS2 performs differently on each of these platforms. I currently use a PC; someday in the future I may consider moving to a Mac. Is there any real difference in ease of use, speed (recognize hw will have a lot to do with this), unique tricks possible with one vs. the other, etc.? Or are they functionally equivalent for running CS2?

Thanks,
Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

Well, you are going to start a flame war anyway. It always happens.
The short answer is that Photoshop works exactly the same on either platform. The only difference is the documentation that tells you shortcut key combinations that use different names. On the PC it is <Ctrl>, etc. and on the Mac it’s <Cmd>, etc.
I used to use a Mac and loved it; OS X is a very nice OS. I switched to all Windows due to required Windows only apps for one of my jobs. It had nothing to do with Photoshop and it shouldn’t. Photoshop runs the same on both systems.

The speed will be dependent on the speed of the hardware. If you pay for top end speed in either system, you will get fast Photoshop. Anything less will be slower. There a plenty of testers out there that use Photoshop in their speed testing. So there are plenty of numbers, if you really need them. ("MaximumPC" magazine uses Photoshop in its testing.) However, the real question is, how fast do you need Photoshop to go? You can probably make it go as fast as you need with either denomination of hardware.

Clyde

Clyde, I think, has pretty well covered it! As far as Photoshop is concerned one platform is no better or worse than the other. It really boils down to which OS will run all of the other applications that you regularly use and which OS ‘experience’ you like better. I will say that Apple’s built in display profiling / calibration utility is very nice compared to what is available in Windows. But, if the user is really serious about this a puck or spider will probably be employed for profiling anyway.
Chuck


Cheers
PacMan

http://homepage.mac.com/brown.joey/portfolio/
T
Tacit
Jan 13, 2006
In article ,
"Colonel Blip" wrote:

Please, I’m not looking to create a thread of flames regarding which of these is a better general platform, most innovative, part of the evil empire, good, etc. What I would like to find out is how PS CS2 performs differently on each of these platforms. I currently use a PC; someday in the future I may consider moving to a Mac. Is there any real difference in ease of use, speed (recognize hw will have a lot to do with this), unique tricks possible with one vs. the other, etc.? Or are they functionally equivalent for running CS2?

Photoshop is essentially identical on both Mac and PC, with the same shortcuts, the same command keys, and the same commands.

There are only two differences you are likely to find:

1. The Mac supports loading and saving one image format (PICT Resource) the PC version does not; and

2. With large brushes in Brush Size cursor mode, the performance of the brushes is better on Mac than PC, as Adobe had to implement their own cursor handing in the PC version to overcome a technical limitation in Windows.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
DH
Dr Hackenbush
Jan 13, 2006
Absolute crap from an ill-informed asshole !

"PacMan" wrote in message
Photoshop works the same on both platforms until you get five viruses per day hacking at your windows system…
then you need norton’s antivirus to keep things reasonably safe.. that alone hogs the memory at an insane level.
Oh and finally the less than stable windows longhorn soon to arrive 🙂
You’d never drag me aways from OS Tiger on a G5 and put me back into the death trap of windows.
I’ve used both platforms to test web sites since 95 using photoshop, dreamweaver on both and I’ll tell you it’s not photoshop that kills it’s the viruses and blue screen on the PC that drives you nuts!
If you want tons of games get a PC…
if you want a serious machine with the most stable app and no virus issues… get a Mac.
enough said!

On 2006-01-12 14:34:09 -0400, C Wright
said:

On 1/12/06 10:07 AM, in article
, "Clyde"

wrote:

Colonel Blip wrote:
Hello, All!

Please, I’m not looking to create a thread of flames regarding which of these is a better general platform, most innovative, part of the evil empire, good, etc. What I would like to find out is how PS CS2 performs differently on each of these platforms. I currently use a PC; someday in the
future I may consider moving to a Mac. Is there any real difference in ease
of use, speed (recognize hw will have a lot to do with this), unique tricks
possible with one vs. the other, etc.? Or are they functionally equivalent
for running CS2?

Thanks,
Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

Well, you are going to start a flame war anyway. It always happens.
The short answer is that Photoshop works exactly the same on either platform. The only difference is the documentation that tells you shortcut key combinations that use different names. On the PC it is <Ctrl>, etc. and on the Mac it’s <Cmd>, etc.
I used to use a Mac and loved it; OS X is a very nice OS. I switched to all Windows due to required Windows only apps for one of my jobs. It had nothing to do with Photoshop and it shouldn’t. Photoshop runs the same on both systems.

The speed will be dependent on the speed of the hardware. If you pay for top end speed in either system, you will get fast Photoshop. Anything less will be slower. There a plenty of testers out there that use Photoshop in their speed testing. So there are plenty of numbers, if you really need them. ("MaximumPC" magazine uses Photoshop in its testing.) However, the real question is, how fast do you need Photoshop to go? You can probably make it go as fast as you need with either denomination of hardware.

Clyde

Clyde, I think, has pretty well covered it! As far as Photoshop is concerned one platform is no better or worse than the other. It really boils down to which OS will run all of the other applications that you regularly use and which OS ‘experience’ you like better. I will say that Apple’s built in display profiling / calibration utility is
very nice compared to what is available in Windows. But, if the user is really serious about this a puck or spider will probably be employed for profiling anyway.
Chuck


Cheers
PacMan

http://homepage.mac.com/brown.joey/portfolio/
RW
Roger Whitehead
Jan 13, 2006
In article <RyKxf.38984$>, Dr Hackenbush
wrote:
Absolute crap from an ill-informed asshole !

Would you prefer that it came from a well-informed arsehole?



Roger
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 13, 2006
"PacMan" wrote in message
Photoshop works the same on both platforms until you get five viruses per day hacking at your windows system…

I have my server and workstation permanantly connected to the net – I don’t run ANY anti-virus software, and I’ve never had a virus. Explain that for me please?

What I DO do it keep updates up to date, sit behind a firewall, and don’t go visiting sex sites.

then you need norton’s antivirus to keep things reasonably safe.. that alone hogs the memory at an insane level.

Norton Anti-Virus is the dog of dogs these days – my suggestion (as someone who’d been in the industry since before there was even a PC industry) is to keep as far away for Norton as you can possibly get. EZAnti-Virus doesn’t tax a system in any noticeable manner these days.

Oh and finally the less than stable windows longhorn soon to arrive 🙂

I’ve NEVER had a stability issue with ANY Microsoft BUSINESS OS (NT-4 / Win2K / WinXP) – the trick is to install it on WHQL certified hardware, and resist the temptation to download/install every piece of free software you see on the net. We often send PCs to sea for 6 week tours of duty – sometimes they even do two tours before we get around to restarting them – The Macs I used to know would be lucky to make it through a day without a restart, although hopefully they’ve improved.

If you want tons of games get a PC…
if you want a serious machine with the most stable app and no virus issues… get a Mac.
enough said!

You’d better get it quick – I’ve watched their market share go from a peak of around 12 % to 10 to 8 to 5 to 3 to 2.7 where it is now – few more years and it should be gone altogether – the lower and lower the market share gets, the less and less return a developer gets developing for it’s platform. When development costs are the same, what right-minded person develops for a 2.7% market when he can get a much greater return from a 90%+ one?

…. and right now their market share is somewhere around the margin of error.
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 13, 2006
"C J Southern" wrote in message

You’d better get it quick – I’ve watched their market share go from a peak of around 12 % to 10 to 8 to 5 to 3 to 2.7 where it is now.

I must apologise – I didn’t update my facts first.

As of October last year Apple’s PC market share (worldwide) was 1.8%, and not 2.7% as I mentioned above – my apologies for the error.

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/29.6.shtml
CB
Colonel Blip
Jan 13, 2006
Hello, Colonel!
You wrote to All on Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:16:56 -0600:

Well, Clyde was right – flaming started only a couple of messages later! Thanks for the responses on the question. I guessed there was little difference, if any, from tutorials but nothing like having it from experienced users.

Thanks again.

Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

CB> Hello, All!

CB> Please, I’m not looking to create a thread of flames regarding which of CB> these is a better general platform, most innovative, part of the evil CB> empire, good, etc. What I would like to find out is how PS CS2 performs CB> differently on each of these platforms. I currently use a PC; someday CB> in the future I may consider moving to a Mac. Is there any real CB> difference in ease of use, speed (recognize hw will have a lot to do CB> with this), unique tricks possible with one vs. the other, etc.? Or are CB> they functionally equivalent for running CS2?

CB> Thanks,
CB> Colonel Blip.
CB> E-mail:

CB> —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet CB> News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the CB> World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
CB> —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption CB> =—-

—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-
C
Clyde
Jan 13, 2006
PacMan wrote:
Photoshop works the same on both platforms until you get five viruses per day hacking at your windows system…
then you need norton’s antivirus to keep things reasonably safe.. that alone hogs the memory at an insane level.
Oh and finally the less than stable windows longhorn soon to arrive 🙂
You’d never drag me aways from OS Tiger on a G5 and put me back into the death trap of windows.
I’ve used both platforms to test web sites since 95 using photoshop, dreamweaver on both and I’ll tell you it’s not photoshop that kills it’s the viruses and blue screen on the PC that drives you nuts!
If you want tons of games get a PC…
if you want a serious machine with the most stable app and no virus issues… get a Mac.
enough said!

One of the beauties of the Windows environment is that you don’t have to use just one application to do something. No one said you have to use Norton Anti-Virus and I don’t. I use something better, smaller, faster, easier, less obnoxious, and less expensive than Norton.

BTW, I have been working on Windows since 2.0 and Mac since a pre-production of the very first Mac. I have never had a virus infect any computer that I used. It isn’t that hard to protect your computer against virii.

On a Mac you do have fewer choices in any application category. That may or may not be an issue. It depends on if there is a Mac app that does what you want to do or not.

I think OS X is an excellent OS. It isn’t perfect though. It crashed on me more often than I would have liked, but it wasn’t crippling. Actually I have had fewer crashes since I go rid of my Mac. That isn’t really proof of anything (any more than your narrow-minded rant).

Apple goes through a lot more trouble to control the hardware, OS, and software on their computers. Mostly they keep the combinations under pretty good control. The geek has fewer choice and options in working on the detail. However, that is its biggest advantages; Macs are designed to be for the people who want the computer as a tool for doing something. If you don’t want to play WITH the computer, but would rather play ON the computer the Mac has been designed for you.

Windows has a more open and evolutionary history because it has to be everything to everyone in every situation. That leaves a lot more room for variation. Variation opens the door to possible conflicts; witness humankind. However, Windows gives the geek more ways to control his own system. If you like to understand and play WITH you computer, a Windows system works very well.

I used to make a living with computers and know how to make Windows run very well, very smooth, very fast, very cheap, and very secure. Windows is getting much better at doing that automatically. OS X has pushed them that way. This is good.

From my point of view, Windows XP vs. OS X is pretty much a toss up. They run, look, act, and do pretty much the same thing in the same way. Each has its own idiosyncrasies, but they are minor in real day-to-day usage. They both can be made secure and you can find some application that does what you need it to do.

So, I agree with someone here… Buy the application that you really need, buy the OS that it runs on, then buy the hardware that it runs on. Then shut up and get some work done.

Clyde
LI
Lorem Ipsum
Jan 13, 2006
"Clyde" wrote in message
I think OS X is an excellent OS. It isn’t perfect though.

Last week I let OS X update the OS automatically. It wouldn’t boot back up. No way. I had to call the medics who reinstalled the OS. Then they took the same option and it wouldn’t boot again. There is/was something wrong with the updater. In the one hand, it might know that an update failed, but it forgot to remove the new boot instructions that went to LaLa Land.

From my point of view, Windows XP vs. OS X is pretty much a toss up.

I really do like the OS X shells. Nothing like it in WindoZe.
MR
Mike Russell
Jan 14, 2006
Clyde has summed up the issues remarkably well.

If you are focussing on the OS, and not the work you need to get done, you’re probably not going to give the best advice on what system to buy. —

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
CB
Colonel Blip
Jan 14, 2006
Hello, Mike!
You wrote on Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:25:04 GMT:

MR> Clyde has summed up the issues remarkably well.

Agree wholeheartedly!

Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-
P
PacMan
Jan 14, 2006
Is that your rebudle? weak…

On 2006-01-13 05:38:57 -0400, "Dr Hackenbush" said:

Absolute crap from an ill-informed asshole !

"PacMan" wrote in message
Photoshop works the same on both platforms until you get five viruses per day hacking at your windows system…
then you need norton’s antivirus to keep things reasonably safe.. that alone hogs the memory at an insane level.
Oh and finally the less than stable windows longhorn soon to arrive 🙂
You’d never drag me aways from OS Tiger on a G5 and put me back into the death trap of windows.
I’ve used both platforms to test web sites since 95 using photoshop, dreamweaver on both and I’ll tell you it’s not photoshop that kills it’s the viruses and blue screen on the PC that drives you nuts!
If you want tons of games get a PC…
if you want a serious machine with the most stable app and no virus issues… get a Mac.
enough said!

On 2006-01-12 14:34:09 -0400, C Wright said:

On 1/12/06 10:07 AM, in article
, "Clyde"
wrote:

Colonel Blip wrote:
Hello, All!

Please, I’m not looking to create a thread of flames regarding which of these is a better general platform, most innovative, part of the evil empire, good, etc. What I would like to find out is how PS CS2 performs differently on each of these platforms. I currently use a PC; someday in the future I may consider moving to a Mac. Is there any real difference in ease of use, speed (recognize hw will have a lot to do with this), unique tricks possible with one vs. the other, etc.? Or are they functionally equivalent for running CS2?

Thanks,
Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

Well, you are going to start a flame war anyway. It always happens.
The short answer is that Photoshop works exactly the same on either platform. The only difference is the documentation that tells you shortcut key combinations that use different names. On the PC it is <Ctrl>, etc. and on the Mac it’s <Cmd>, etc.
I used to use a Mac and loved it; OS X is a very nice OS. I switched to all Windows due to required Windows only apps for one of my jobs. It had nothing to do with Photoshop and it shouldn’t. Photoshop runs the same on both systems.

The speed will be dependent on the speed of the hardware. If you pay for top end speed in either system, you will get fast Photoshop. Anything less will be slower. There a plenty of testers out there that use Photoshop in their speed testing. So there are plenty of numbers, if you really need them. ("MaximumPC" magazine uses Photoshop in its testing.) However, the real question is, how fast do you need Photoshop to go? You can probably make it go as fast as you need with either denomination of hardware.

Clyde

Clyde, I think, has pretty well covered it! As far as Photoshop is concerned one platform is no better or worse than the other. It really boils down to which OS will run all of the other applications that you regularly use and which OS ‘experience’ you like better. I will say that Apple’s built in display profiling / calibration utility is very nice compared to what is available in Windows. But, if the user is really serious about this a puck or spider will probably be employed for profiling anyway.
Chuck


Cheers
PacMan

http://homepage.mac.com/brown.joey/portfolio/


Cheers
PacMan

http://homepage.mac.com/brown.joey/portfolio/
P
PacMan
Jan 14, 2006
comparing the amount of windows OS machines out there to the MAC OS systems isn’t about quality it’s about quantity.
Please, don’t confuse the monopoly of microsoft with quality.

I started with basic code on commodore -64’s , vic-20’s then tandy 3000’s after windows 3.1. debut and finally I was happy with windows 95 and dos. but that’s when i started seeing issues with drivers. Once windows 98 came out I loved it, but soon after windows 98, viruses started hitting hard. Not the little ones, the one that get into your boot disk and even re-formating doesn’t kill it. Then the famous blue screen when windows gets confused. I’ve spend well over 10+ years on a PC.

A few years ago, I jumped to macs but still kept my PC’s to test web sites at home. Suddenly I noticed that Macs don’t have as many apps and games as a PC.and it took a long time for file-sharing software to come out. What’s with this Mac? It’s not for everyone of course. After a few years upgrading to a few Mac OS, I’ve noticed what a Mac has that Windows never did. Simplicity and a small group of users along with quality.

what does that mean?

it means I don’t get tons of programmers that microsoft pissed off throwing.exe viruses and trojans on the net every day with passion… all for windows only. Just for you! aren’t you special! I don’t get any problems updating software on a mac…. There’s a update software utility built right into the core of OS X that checks all my software and hardware, gives me a list and updates them on the fly, while I’m doing other work. very fast too. the apple servers aren’t getting a million downloads a day. Crashing a Mac is rare trust me. It does happen but it’s to the rare few that bugged it by moving system folders where they shouldn’t have, or running demo’s of cheap apps. Serious newbis can wreck anything…even a mac. But reformating a Mac is much much easier than a PC. My god… it’s a hundred times easier. there’s even a reformat that lets you keep your files. It just reformats the OS. hehe awesome.

Of course you can get stability on a windows machine… I do, and you can learn the proper ways to protect yourself from viruses. But this takes a long learning curve and you need to understand how windows works, the guts of it. Windows is an amazing monster of file hierachy and code that will get you into amazing places… but can also wreak havoc. there the problem. Too much problamtics because of the mere unlimited amount of places to go. I guarantee after the first two years that you’ve used windows, you’ll still be a newbie at this. Of course the guys that have played with windows for years and years say it’s bullshit. Don’t listen to them, they’ve already forgotten how many times they fucked up their registry, .ini folder or screwed up their port settings and had to re-format their hard drive to get things running smoothly again. These issues are no-existant on a mac. On a Mac, right when you boot your computer you don’t need to know any of this techo stuff and you’re safe already. Hell, don’t even install an anti-virus and jump on the net with an ethernet card and you’re still safe. Say that for windows..Haha yeah right guys that would be a sacrifice to a virus for certain. Maybe certain death if you get the right one. also, if you want warex software, on a PC you’ll get 50-70% of warez software that contain viruses of different levels. On a Mac I’ve downloaded at least 100+ popular apps and not a single one had a virus! Not one. Holy Cow!

It boils down to , if you want to spend two years minimum to learn your OS software to get it protected and running 100% get a windows. if you want a system that doesn’t need protection, and is 100% smooth, get a Mac with Panther or Tiger.

In the end, I hope it stays this way, if more people buy macs… that means more of the trouble. I love the way it is right now. I’ve had both worlds, they both come with pros and cons, but I’ll tell you, I know which one wins with me in the end for various reasons. Most of you would prefer a PC, macs are for serious professionals with serious applications that want to get it done without playing with gadgets. Especially in the world of advertising and music, macs win hands down.

But if you don’t know what you like yet, you like to download lots of games, tons of different applications but mainly to try once or twice and move on to the next. Or if you’d like to learn how to make hacks and viruses and protect yourself from them, and learn how to fix them if one gets through, or if you would like to learn how to FIX PC’s and protected them for businesses… buy a windows machine and you’ll be happy. Lots of people need help with PC’s and the guys that stuck it out and learned the millions of pitfalls that come with windows, can make money off it. Alot of my buddy’s do. good for them, nothing wrong with that. they get lots of calls from PC users and none from mac users. none.They’ll never get one from me. Mac OS Tiger will never need them.

Let’s see how Longhorne fairs when it come out. How many bugs do you think Microsoft will have to fix. how many viruses will hit the new MS. I don’t think anyone that knows the Microsoft Windows history will be surprised at the amount… LOTS!~

Cheers
PacMan
RW
Roger Whitehead
Jan 14, 2006
In article , PacMan wrote:
Is that your rebudle?

What’s a rebudle? Come to that, what’s a budle?



Roger
S
Shawn
Jan 14, 2006
Let the facts show that on 1/14/06 11:23 AM, PacMan at
wrote:

Is that your rebudle? weak…

Is that your own spelling of "rebuttal"…? Oh, I’m sorry. You were saying something about weak?

I’m a pragmatic man. If something IS a way or ISN’T a way, it’s a fact. Macs have anti-virus software that deals almost exclusively with finding Office-based programs (you can get Office for Mac) that could scupper a PC (leaving the Mac completely untouched). Thanks to ActiveX, and the fact that PCs ship natively with all their ports in Open status, Windows PCs are a big bullseye for hackers and identity thieves.

Identity theft, the reprted stuff anyway, costs people $3 billion a year in the US alone. Macs make up 4% of computer users in the States, but 4% of three billion is $120 million. If there was a way to get keystroke software onto iMacs, PowerMacs, iBooks and PowerBooks …well, I guess various criminal syndicates would love to be able to get a piece of that untapped market.

But nobody has. A potential goldmine, untapped because Macs are stealthed on the net and you have to enter your password to load new programs (so no chance of having malware sneaking on your Mac).

That’s a fact. There ISN’T a single reported case of a Mac OS X virus. Not one. And the new Dual Core processor should sway things even further in terms of speed. mac OS X has less lines of code and the computers have smaller chip architecture. So things run faster. It’s a physical law of the Universe. More distance to run, longer time ran. More info to look through, longer time taken to look.

Mac OS 9 and X, running DreamWeaver MX and PhotoShop 7. Love it.

?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø ,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø
Shawn. http://myspace.verizon.net/shawngbr
This signature set seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we can defeat the email search bots.

"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them." (Isaac Asimov.) ?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø ,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø
S
Shawn
Jan 14, 2006
Let the facts show that on 1/14/06 1:18 PM, Shawn at
wrote:

Let the facts show that on 1/14/06 11:23 AM, PacMan at
wrote:

Is that your rebudle? weak…

Is that your own spelling of "rebuttal"…? Oh, I’m sorry. You were saying something about weak?

I forgot teh smiley on the end of my sentence (but I guess you knew something was missing based on the rest of the message).

Here’s the smiley.

=)

?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø ,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø
Shawn. http://myspace.verizon.net/shawngbr
This signature set seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we can defeat the email search bots.

"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them." (Isaac Asimov.) ?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø ,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø?°`°?ø,¸¸ø?°`°?ø,¸¸,ø
S
Shawn
Jan 14, 2006
Let the facts show that on 1/14/06 1:42 PM, Shawn at
wrote:

Let the facts show that on 1/14/06 1:18 PM, Shawn at
wrote:

Let the facts show that on 1/14/06 11:23 AM, PacMan at
wrote:

Is that your rebudle? weak…

Is that your own spelling of "rebuttal"…? Oh, I’m sorry. You were saying something about weak?

I forgot teh smiley

….and I can’t spell "the" either. Oh pride, why do you preceed my falls?!
K
KatWoman
Jan 14, 2006
"PacMan" wrote in message
Photoshop works the same on both platforms until you get five viruses per day hacking at your windows system…
then you need norton’s antivirus to keep things reasonably safe.. that alone hogs the memory at an insane level.
Oh and finally the less than stable windows longhorn soon to arrive 🙂
You’d never drag me aways from OS Tiger on a G5 and put me back into the death trap of windows.
I’ve used both platforms to test web sites since 95 using photoshop, dreamweaver on both and I’ll tell you it’s not photoshop that kills it’s the viruses and blue screen on the PC that drives you nuts!
If you want tons of games get a PC…
if you want a serious machine with the most stable app and no virus issues… get a Mac.
enough said!

On 2006-01-12 14:34:09 -0400, C Wright
said:

On 1/12/06 10:07 AM, in article
, "Clyde"

wrote:

Colonel Blip wrote:
Hello, All!

Please, I’m not looking to create a thread of flames regarding which of these is a better general platform, most innovative, part of the evil empire, good, etc. What I would like to find out is how PS CS2 performs differently on each of these platforms. I currently use a PC; someday in the
future I may consider moving to a Mac. Is there any real difference in ease
of use, speed (recognize hw will have a lot to do with this), unique tricks
possible with one vs. the other, etc.? Or are they functionally equivalent
for running CS2?

Thanks,
Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

Well, you are going to start a flame war anyway. It always happens.
The short answer is that Photoshop works exactly the same on either platform. The only difference is the documentation that tells you shortcut key combinations that use different names. On the PC it is <Ctrl>, etc. and on the Mac it’s <Cmd>, etc.
I used to use a Mac and loved it; OS X is a very nice OS. I switched to all Windows due to required Windows only apps for one of my jobs. It had nothing to do with Photoshop and it shouldn’t. Photoshop runs the same on both systems.

The speed will be dependent on the speed of the hardware. If you pay for top end speed in either system, you will get fast Photoshop. Anything less will be slower. There a plenty of testers out there that use Photoshop in their speed testing. So there are plenty of numbers, if you really need them. ("MaximumPC" magazine uses Photoshop in its testing.) However, the real question is, how fast do you need Photoshop to go? You can probably make it go as fast as you need with either denomination of hardware.

Clyde

Clyde, I think, has pretty well covered it! As far as Photoshop is concerned one platform is no better or worse than the other. It really boils down to which OS will run all of the other applications that you regularly use and which OS ‘experience’ you like better. I will say that Apple’s built in display profiling / calibration utility is
very nice compared to what is available in Windows. But, if the user is really serious about this a puck or spider will probably be employed for profiling anyway.
Chuck


Cheers
PacMan

http://homepage.mac.com/brown.joey/portfolio/

who uses that clunker Norton anymore??
get ESET NOD
K
KatWoman
Jan 14, 2006

2. With large brushes in Brush Size cursor mode, the performance of the
brushes is better on Mac than PC, as Adobe had to implement their own cursor handing in the PC version to overcome a technical limitation in Windows.

add to that the cursor does not change color on a PC like it does on the Mac, (making it hard to retouch studio gray backgrounds)

I use a PC,
I like gaming (intense net based 3-D FPS)
I can get more free and more variety of software
not a novice win user, know my way around windows
most of my customers are win based, I can advise them how to use it more easily
everything for Mac is more $
I have no virus problems, Windows will also update itself automatically if you set it to do that, XP has firewalls built in, popup control is on by default, there are wizards for photos and music, it is more and more similar to a Mac everyday and vice versa.
XP is a very noob friendly environment, (not at all like old versions)

Apples look nicer other than that I don’t use one and don’t know the merits. I hated not having the left clicker (I hear the newest OS supports it)

I think everyone just likes what they are used to using.

"tacit" wrote in message
In article ,
"Colonel Blip" wrote:

Please, I’m not looking to create a thread of flames regarding which of these is a better general platform, most innovative, part of the evil empire, good, etc. What I would like to find out is how PS CS2 performs differently on each of these platforms. I currently use a PC; someday in the
future I may consider moving to a Mac. Is there any real difference in ease
of use, speed (recognize hw will have a lot to do with this), unique tricks
possible with one vs. the other, etc.? Or are they functionally equivalent
for running CS2?

Photoshop is essentially identical on both Mac and PC, with the same shortcuts, the same command keys, and the same commands.
There are only two differences you are likely to find:

1. The Mac supports loading and saving one image format (PICT Resource) the PC version does not; and

2. With large brushes in Brush Size cursor mode, the performance of the brushes is better on Mac than PC, as Adobe had to implement their own cursor handing in the PC version to overcome a technical limitation in Windows.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
SG
Scott Glasgow
Jan 15, 2006
KatWoman wrote:
2. With large brushes in Brush Size cursor mode, the performance of the
brushes is better on Mac than PC, as Adobe had to implement their own cursor handing in the PC version to overcome a technical limitation in Windows.

add to that the cursor does not change color on a PC like it does on the Mac, (making it hard to retouch studio gray backgrounds)
<<::SNIP::>>

There’s a way to set that so that you get a contrasting brush cursor. I don’t recall where in Preferences, but look for Color Picker and change it from Adobe to Windows (or vice versa; it’s been a while 😉 and you will get the contrasting cursor.

Apples look nicer other than that I don’t use one and don’t know the merits. I hated not having the left clicker (I hear the newest OS supports it)

Yeah, I’ve always wondered about that. After 5-6 years (and ten years prior with a 2 or 3 button mouse) I’m so used to my wheel mouse , effectively 3-button + wheel, giving me so many options for control that I can’t quite conceive what it would be like to have only one button. Why have they waited so long to adopt multiple buttons? Sheer NIH syndrome?

Apples do look nice, though. 😉

I think everyone just likes what they are used to using.
<<::SNIP::>>

I think you’re right.

Cheers,
Scott
S
shawngbr
Jan 15, 2006
Scott Glasgow wrote:
KatWoman wrote:
2. With large brushes in Brush Size cursor mode, the performance of the
brushes is better on Mac than PC, as Adobe had to implement their own cursor handing in the PC version to overcome a technical limitation in Windows.

add to that the cursor does not change color on a PC like it does on the Mac, (making it hard to retouch studio gray backgrounds)
<<::SNIP::>>

There’s a way to set that so that you get a contrasting brush cursor. I don’t recall where in Preferences, but look for Color Picker and change it from Adobe to Windows (or vice versa; it’s been a while 😉 and you will get the contrasting cursor.

Apples look nicer other than that I don’t use one and don’t know the merits. I hated not having the left clicker (I hear the newest OS supports it)

Yeah, I’ve always wondered about that. After 5-6 years (and ten years prior with a 2 or 3 button mouse) I’m so used to my wheel mouse , effectively 3-button + wheel, giving me so many options for control that I can’t quite conceive what it would be like to have only one button. Why have they waited so long to adopt multiple buttons? Sheer NIH syndrome?

Apples have supported multi-button mice since at least OS 9. They just decided to ship with single-clickers (and the ones that looked like clams with the first iMacs were awful) because they pushed themselves as being easier to use.

I have an old PowerPC Beige Mac with a Firewire/USB card in a PCI slot and it runs with a Logitech USB mouse. I downloaded a program called USBOverDrive because it worked better than the Logitech drivers (it lets me configure the buttons to do whatever I like and lets me emulate the keyboard on my game pad so I can play Flash games and any emulation games using a proper controller). The new Mighty Mouse looks nice, and it now ships as standard with all new Macs.

Apples do look nice, though. 😉
T
Tacit
Jan 15, 2006
In article <4760c$43c9cbfa$453de9fb$>,
"Scott Glasgow" wrote:

2. With large brushes in Brush Size cursor mode, the performance of the
brushes is better on Mac than PC, as Adobe had to implement their own cursor handing in the PC version to overcome a technical limitation in Windows.

add to that the cursor does not change color on a PC like it does on the Mac, (making it hard to retouch studio gray backgrounds)
<<::SNIP::>>

There’s a way to set that so that you get a contrasting brush cursor. I don’t recall where in Preferences, but look for Color Picker and change it from Adobe to Windows (or vice versa; it’s been a while 😉 and you will get the contrasting cursor.

In PS CS2, that is true. In CS and earlier, it is not.

The contrasting color is what slows down the brush display on Windows.

On the Mac, every version of Photoshop from 1.0 on had a contrasting cursor; the precise and brush size cursors are always visible, even over a 50% gray background. On Windows, all versions prior to and including CS did not offer this; precise and brush size cursors disappear over a 50% gray background.

The reason for this is that Mac OS offers a cursor mode, called "xover," that allows a cursor to change over a 50% gray background. Windows does not offer an "xover" cursor overlay mode.

In Photoshop CS2, the Adobe engineers wrote their own cursor handling routines; they do not use the Windows cursor handing routines. They implemented the Mac xover cursor overlay mode within Photoshop itself.

The advantage is that the cursor is always visible in CS2, even over a 50% gray background. The disadvantage is that because the cursor drawing routines are being handled by Photoshop, in application space, rather than by Windows, the brush performance is noticeably poorer.

With Photoshop CS2, if you use it on both Mac and Windows, you will notice that the cursor display–especially with very large brushes in Brush Size mode–is significantly smoother and faster on the Mac than it is under Windows.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
LH
Larry Hodges
Jan 18, 2006
"Clyde" wrote in message
PacMan wrote:
Photoshop works the same on both platforms until you get five viruses per day hacking at your windows system…
then you need norton’s antivirus to keep things reasonably safe.. that alone hogs the memory at an insane level.
Oh and finally the less than stable windows longhorn soon to arrive 🙂
You’d never drag me aways from OS Tiger on a G5 and put me back into the death trap of windows.
I’ve used both platforms to test web sites since 95 using photoshop, dreamweaver on both and I’ll tell you it’s not photoshop that kills it’s the viruses and blue screen on the PC that drives you nuts!
If you want tons of games get a PC…
if you want a serious machine with the most stable app and no virus issues… get a Mac.
enough said!

One of the beauties of the Windows environment is that you don’t have to use just one application to do something. No one said you have to use Norton Anti-Virus and I don’t. I use something better, smaller, faster, easier, less obnoxious, and less expensive than Norton.

BTW, I have been working on Windows since 2.0 and Mac since a pre-production of the very first Mac. I have never had a virus infect any computer that I used. It isn’t that hard to protect your computer against virii.

On a Mac you do have fewer choices in any application category. That may or may not be an issue. It depends on if there is a Mac app that does what you want to do or not.

I think OS X is an excellent OS. It isn’t perfect though. It crashed on me more often than I would have liked, but it wasn’t crippling. Actually I have had fewer crashes since I go rid of my Mac. That isn’t really proof of anything (any more than your narrow-minded rant).

Apple goes through a lot more trouble to control the hardware, OS, and software on their computers. Mostly they keep the combinations under pretty good control. The geek has fewer choice and options in working on the detail. However, that is its biggest advantages; Macs are designed to be for the people who want the computer as a tool for doing something. If you don’t want to play WITH the computer, but would rather play ON the computer the Mac has been designed for you.

Windows has a more open and evolutionary history because it has to be everything to everyone in every situation. That leaves a lot more room for variation. Variation opens the door to possible conflicts; witness humankind. However, Windows gives the geek more ways to control his own system. If you like to understand and play WITH you computer, a Windows system works very well.

I used to make a living with computers and know how to make Windows run very well, very smooth, very fast, very cheap, and very secure. Windows is getting much better at doing that automatically. OS X has pushed them that way. This is good.

From my point of view, Windows XP vs. OS X is pretty much a toss up. They run, look, act, and do pretty much the same thing in the same way. Each has its own idiosyncrasies, but they are minor in real day-to-day usage. They both can be made secure and you can find some application that does what you need it to do.

So, I agree with someone here… Buy the application that you really need, buy the OS that it runs on, then buy the hardware that it runs on. Then shut up and get some work done.

Clyde

Well said. I run WinXP x64, 2gb dual channel ram on an AMD dual core 64 bit CPU and Ultra320 SCSI 10k rpm harddrives. Photoshop stinkin’ smokes (sidebar: be sure to install the dual CPU patch from Adobe). And I can run it and a dozen other apps at the same time without issue. Hell, I can defrag one of my drives and run a scan on another while compiling code, Photoshop…whatever. Never an issue. Period.

For AV, the best thing going is Avast!, and it’s free for home users. And…it runs great on x64 with minimal overhead.

Regarding which OS is more stable, just go to your local Kinkos and ask the guy behind the counter which crashes more. I’ll give you one guess which OS is the biggest pain for them.

My experience is that Mac users are Mac users not because it’s a better platform, but because they despise Bill Gates and his success. Not the best reason to select an OS.
LH
Larry Hodges
Jan 18, 2006
"Scott Glasgow" wrote in message
KatWoman wrote:
2. With large brushes in Brush Size cursor mode, the performance of the
brushes is better on Mac than PC, as Adobe had to implement their own cursor handing in the PC version to overcome a technical limitation in Windows.

add to that the cursor does not change color on a PC like it does on the Mac, (making it hard to retouch studio gray backgrounds)
<<::SNIP::>>

There’s a way to set that so that you get a contrasting brush cursor. I don’t recall where in Preferences, but look for Color Picker and change it from Adobe to Windows (or vice versa; it’s been a while 😉 and you will get the contrasting cursor.

Apples look nicer other than that I don’t use one and don’t know the merits. I hated not having the left clicker (I hear the newest OS supports it)

Yeah, I’ve always wondered about that. After 5-6 years (and ten years prior with a 2 or 3 button mouse) I’m so used to my wheel mouse , effectively 3-button + wheel, giving me so many options for control that I can’t quite conceive what it would be like to have only one button. Why have they waited so long to adopt multiple buttons? Sheer NIH syndrome?

Arrogance. Heaven forbid the ALMIGHTY ELISTIST APPLE admit that Windows had a good idea. But it’s hard to see a good idea with your nose up in the air.

I laugh my ass off ever time I see Apple’s market share. BWAHAHAHAHAHA. If it weren’t for schools, Mac would be long gone. I have four kids. Of course their schools have Macs. They can’t wait to get home to use our Windows systems.
N
nomail
Jan 18, 2006
Larry Hodges wrote:

I laugh my ass off ever time I see Apple’s market share. BWAHAHAHAHAHA. If it weren’t for schools, Mac would be long gone. I have four kids. Of course their schools have Macs. They can’t wait to get home to use our Windows systems.

That’s probably because they are ‘script kiddies’ writing virusses for Windows and they have no clue how to do that for MacOS X.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
CW
C Wright
Jan 18, 2006
On 1/18/06 4:32 AM, in article , "Larry
Hodges" wrote:

"Scott Glasgow" wrote in message
KatWoman wrote:
2. With large brushes in Brush Size cursor mode, the performance of the
brushes is better on Mac than PC, as Adobe had to implement their own cursor handing in the PC version to overcome a technical limitation in Windows.

add to that the cursor does not change color on a PC like it does on the Mac, (making it hard to retouch studio gray backgrounds)
<<::SNIP::>>

There’s a way to set that so that you get a contrasting brush cursor. I don’t recall where in Preferences, but look for Color Picker and change it from Adobe to Windows (or vice versa; it’s been a while 😉 and you will get the contrasting cursor.

Apples look nicer other than that I don’t use one and don’t know the merits. I hated not having the left clicker (I hear the newest OS supports it)

Yeah, I’ve always wondered about that. After 5-6 years (and ten years prior with a 2 or 3 button mouse) I’m so used to my wheel mouse , effectively 3-button + wheel, giving me so many options for control that I can’t quite conceive what it would be like to have only one button. Why have they waited so long to adopt multiple buttons? Sheer NIH syndrome?

Arrogance. Heaven forbid the ALMIGHTY ELISTIST APPLE admit that Windows had a good idea. But it’s hard to see a good idea with your nose up in the air.

I laugh my ass off ever time I see Apple’s market share. BWAHAHAHAHAHA. If it weren’t for schools, Mac would be long gone. I have four kids. Of course their schools have Macs. They can’t wait to get home to use our Windows systems.
And your attitude, expressed above, clearly has no influence on your kid’s thinking!!
C
Clyde
Jan 18, 2006
Larry Hodges wrote:
"Scott Glasgow" wrote in message
KatWoman wrote:
2. With large brushes in Brush Size cursor mode, the performance of the
brushes is better on Mac than PC, as Adobe had to implement their own cursor handing in the PC version to overcome a technical limitation in Windows.
add to that the cursor does not change color on a PC like it does on the Mac, (making it hard to retouch studio gray backgrounds)
<<::SNIP::>>

There’s a way to set that so that you get a contrasting brush cursor. I don’t recall where in Preferences, but look for Color Picker and change it from Adobe to Windows (or vice versa; it’s been a while 😉 and you will get the contrasting cursor.

Apples look nicer other than that I don’t use one and don’t know the merits. I hated not having the left clicker (I hear the newest OS supports it)
Yeah, I’ve always wondered about that. After 5-6 years (and ten years prior with a 2 or 3 button mouse) I’m so used to my wheel mouse , effectively 3-button + wheel, giving me so many options for control that I can’t quite conceive what it would be like to have only one button. Why have they waited so long to adopt multiple buttons? Sheer NIH syndrome?

Arrogance. Heaven forbid the ALMIGHTY ELISTIST APPLE admit that Windows had a good idea. But it’s hard to see a good idea with your nose up in the air.

I laugh my ass off ever time I see Apple’s market share. BWAHAHAHAHAHA. If it weren’t for schools, Mac would be long gone. I have four kids. Of course their schools have Macs. They can’t wait to get home to use our Windows systems.

I hate unreasonable Windows arrogance as much as I do unreasonable Mac arrogance. Neither makes sense or is true.

Clyde
LH
Larry Hodges
Jan 18, 2006
"Clyde" wrote in message
Larry Hodges wrote:
"Scott Glasgow" wrote in message
KatWoman wrote:
2. With large brushes in Brush Size cursor mode, the performance of the
brushes is better on Mac than PC, as Adobe had to implement their own cursor handing in the PC version to overcome a technical limitation in Windows.
add to that the cursor does not change color on a PC like it does on the Mac, (making it hard to retouch studio gray backgrounds)
<<::SNIP::>>

There’s a way to set that so that you get a contrasting brush cursor. I don’t recall where in Preferences, but look for Color Picker and change it from Adobe to Windows (or vice versa; it’s been a while 😉 and you will get the contrasting cursor.

Apples look nicer other than that I don’t use one and don’t know the merits. I hated not having the left clicker (I hear the newest OS supports it)
Yeah, I’ve always wondered about that. After 5-6 years (and ten years prior with a 2 or 3 button mouse) I’m so used to my wheel mouse , effectively 3-button + wheel, giving me so many options for control that I can’t quite conceive what it would be like to have only one button. Why have they waited so long to adopt multiple buttons? Sheer NIH syndrome?

Arrogance. Heaven forbid the ALMIGHTY ELISTIST APPLE admit that Windows had a good idea. But it’s hard to see a good idea with your nose up in the air.

I laugh my ass off ever time I see Apple’s market share. BWAHAHAHAHAHA. If it weren’t for schools, Mac would be long gone. I have four kids. Of course their schools have Macs. They can’t wait to get home to use our Windows systems.

I hate unreasonable Windows arrogance as much as I do unreasonable Mac arrogance. Neither makes sense or is true.

Clyde

Mine isn’t one of arrogance, but rather a feeling of satisfaction in response to theirs as they slip away to insignificance.
T
Tacit
Jan 18, 2006
In article ,
"Larry Hodges" wrote:

Arrogance. Heaven forbid the ALMIGHTY ELISTIST APPLE admit that Windows had a good idea. But it’s hard to see a good idea with your nose up in the air.

The two-button mouse was not invented by Microsoft.

I laugh my ass off ever time I see Apple’s market share. BWAHAHAHAHAHA. If it weren’t for schools, Mac would be long gone. I have four kids. Of course their schools have Macs. They can’t wait to get home to use our Windows systems.

A lot of people don’t really understand market share, or what it means–probably because they do not understand how enormous the computer market is.

Apple’s current market share is hovering around 1.8%. Does that mean of all the computers out there, 1.8% of them are Macs? No. That’s the "installed base." It means of all the computers being sold every month,
1.8% of them are Macs.

That’s a pretty small number, right? A company can’t survive with that few sales, right?

Not true. How many computers is that paltry 1.8%? Every three monts, Apple sells $5,700,000,000 worth of computers. Five point seven BILLION dollars’ worth. Every three months.

That’s pretty significant. To put it into perspective for you, Apple’s total market capitalization right now is a bit over $72 billion…seventy-two *billion* dollars…which is more than Dell’s $71 billion.

And Apple has no debt at all and about nine billion dollars in the bank; Dell has $600,000,000 in debt.

In other words, Apple is a stronger, healthier company, with greater total value and more money, than Dell. Anyone who thinks Apple is going out of business doesn’t understand economics.

You and I are on the same page about arrogant Apple elitists; it’s a pity you don’t see that you yourself act and sound exactly the same way about Microsoft.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
T
Tacit
Jan 18, 2006
In article ,
"Larry Hodges" wrote:

Regarding which OS is more stable, just go to your local Kinkos and ask the guy behind the counter which crashes more. I’ll give you one guess which OS is the biggest pain for them.

People prefer whichever OS they are most familiar with, and tend to believe that the unfamiliar OS "crashes more." For this experiment to have any validity, they would have to keep an accurate, written log.

My experience is that Mac users are Mac users not because it’s a better platform, but because they despise Bill Gates and his success. Not the best reason to select an OS.

How many Mac users is your experience based on?

I am a Mac user. I amalso a Windows user, a Linux user, and a Solaris user. As I type this message on my Mac laptop, I have a Windows XP systemsitting to my left, a Linux machine behind me, a Sun SPARCstation-20 on the other side of me, and a Mac desktop on the other side of that. At my office, I have a Mac desktop and a Windows XP desktop.

I began using IBM PC systems in 1992, and programming them in 1993. I began using Mac systems in 1984, and programming them in 1985. I have used every single version of Windows since Windows 3.1, including Windows NT Advanced Server for RISC on DEC Alpha systems. I have used every version of Mac OS since System 1.1, including OS X Server.

In my experience, prior to OS X and Windows XP, both were unstable. Since Windows XP and OS X, both have become much more stable. Of the two, I prefer OS X, even though I have more experience with Windows XP, because OS X has what I find to be the better user interface once I got used to it. I will also say, however, that it took me longer to get used to the OS X interface than it took to get used to the XP interface.

A lot of people on this thread have pooh-poohed the problem of viruses and worms on Windows, saying things like "Oh, *I* don’t have any viruses!" That may be true, or it may not be true (my bet is that some people are infected and simply don’t know about it), but either way it’s irrelevant; with CERT saying that 90% of all home consumer Windows systems being compromised by at least one virus, Trojan, or other piece of malware, and with viruses on Windows systems so common that most spam is now relayed through compromised home systems (and, more and more often, spamvertised Web sites are now being hosted on compromised PCs as well), the threat of malware is a genuine and legitimate concern for Windows users.

I have Photohop on both my Mac and Windows boxes. In my experience, Photoshop’s performance is better on a high-end Mac than on a similarly high-end PC, though the gap is so narrow it’s likely to be completely irrelevant to almost all users. I’m sure a properly tweaked PC can give equivalent performance to a properly tweaked Mac; performance is no longer a reason to choose one over the other, except perhaps for Photoshop CS2, whose brushes can be sluggish on PC systems.

In terms of cost, Macs are no longer more expensive than PCs; in fact, the reverse is true. I have an accountant for my business, and I bought a high-end Mac system and a high-end Windows system at the same time a few years back. The Mac system cost me a little bit more (not much; the difference in cost was only about 2%); but over the last four years, the Mac’s productivity has consistently been higher, and the Mac’s total cost of ownership, which factors such things as downtime, hardware failures, and other expenses, has been lower. For a home user most concerned about up-front costs, Macs are still a little bit more expensive; for people who make money from their computers, this is not the case.

In the end, these things are tools, not religions. I am always amused when I see the fanatic worshippers of His Most Royal Gates or His Most Holy Jobs start going at it; it quickly becomes clear that each prefers His Most Sacred Computer simply because he has no experience with the other. It’s like the idiots who babble about Dodge vs Chevy or whatever the hell it is they get so worked up about. One of these days I’m going to make a bumper sticker for my Del Sol that reads "I’d rather push a Honda than drive a Toyota," just to illustrate how ridiculous it all is.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
LH
Larry Hodges
Jan 18, 2006
"tacit" wrote in message
In article ,
"Larry Hodges" wrote:

Arrogance. Heaven forbid the ALMIGHTY ELISTIST APPLE admit that Windows had
a good idea. But it’s hard to see a good idea with your nose up in the air.

The two-button mouse was not invented by Microsoft.

I laugh my ass off ever time I see Apple’s market share. BWAHAHAHAHAHA. If
it weren’t for schools, Mac would be long gone. I have four kids. Of course their schools have Macs. They can’t wait to get home to use our Windows systems.

A lot of people don’t really understand market share, or what it means–probably because they do not understand how enormous the computer market is.

Apple’s current market share is hovering around 1.8%. Does that mean of all the computers out there, 1.8% of them are Macs? No. That’s the "installed base." It means of all the computers being sold every month,
1.8% of them are Macs.

That’s a pretty small number, right? A company can’t survive with that few sales, right?

Not true. How many computers is that paltry 1.8%? Every three monts, Apple sells $5,700,000,000 worth of computers. Five point seven BILLION dollars’ worth. Every three months.

That’s pretty significant. To put it into perspective for you, Apple’s total market capitalization right now is a bit over $72
billion…seventy-two *billion* dollars…which is more than Dell’s $71 billion.

However, software vendors see the smaller market share. Hence, limited software for Macs. And you’re talking about one PC vendor, Dell. Toss in the others and the picture changes.

Actually, I’d like to see the % of clone PCs compared to proprietary systems like Dell, HP, etc. Like most guys I know, I prefer a clone, for reasons of expandability, upgrading etc.

And Apple has no debt at all and about nine billion dollars in the bank; Dell has $600,000,000 in debt.

Great point actually.

In other words, Apple is a stronger, healthier company, with greater total value and more money, than Dell. Anyone who thinks Apple is going out of business doesn’t understand economics.

You and I are on the same page about arrogant Apple elitists; it’s a pity you don’t see that you yourself act and sound exactly the same way about Microsoft.

As I said in my post to Clyde, mine isn’t one of arrogance, but rather a feeling of satisfaction in response to theirs, given Mac’s market share. If you look at the percentage of Mac users who literally *hate* Microsoft, it’s much higher than vice versa. I don’t view Apple with contempt. But most Mac users see MS as the Evil Empire.
LH
Larry Hodges
Jan 18, 2006
"tacit" wrote in message
In article ,
"Larry Hodges" wrote:

Regarding which OS is more stable, just go to your local Kinkos and ask the
guy behind the counter which crashes more. I’ll give you one guess which OS
is the biggest pain for them.

People prefer whichever OS they are most familiar with, and tend to believe that the unfamiliar OS "crashes more." For this experiment to have any validity, they would have to keep an accurate, written log.
My experience is that Mac users are Mac users not because it’s a better platform, but because they despise Bill Gates and his success. Not the best
reason to select an OS.

How many Mac users is your experience based on?

I am a Mac user. I amalso a Windows user, a Linux user, and a Solaris user. As I type this message on my Mac laptop, I have a Windows XP systemsitting to my left, a Linux machine behind me, a Sun SPARCstation-20 on the other side of me, and a Mac desktop on the other side of that. At my office, I have a Mac desktop and a Windows XP desktop.

I began using IBM PC systems in 1992, and programming them in 1993. I began using Mac systems in 1984, and programming them in 1985. I have used every single version of Windows since Windows 3.1, including Windows NT Advanced Server for RISC on DEC Alpha systems. I have used every version of Mac OS since System 1.1, including OS X Server.
In my experience, prior to OS X and Windows XP, both were unstable. Since Windows XP and OS X, both have become much more stable. Of the two, I prefer OS X, even though I have more experience with Windows XP, because OS X has what I find to be the better user interface once I got used to it. I will also say, however, that it took me longer to get used to the OS X interface than it took to get used to the XP interface.

Then you were using the wrong Win OS. NT4 was much more stable than anything Apple had at the time. If you’re talking about Win98, you have a point. But I went NT4 as soon as it came out and never went back. NT4 could be hard to configure with sound cards, etc. But once you had it running, it ran great.

I’ve also run dual CPU boxes since NT4 came out. Mac only recently started offering dual CPU systems.

A lot of people on this thread have pooh-poohed the problem of viruses and worms on Windows, saying things like "Oh, *I* don’t have any viruses!" That may be true, or it may not be true (my bet is that some people are infected and simply don’t know about it), but either way it’s irrelevant; with CERT saying that 90% of all home consumer Windows systems being compromised by at least one virus, Trojan, or other piece of malware, and with viruses on Windows systems so common that most spam is now relayed through compromised home systems (and, more and more often, spamvertised Web sites are now being hosted on compromised PCs as well), the threat of malware is a genuine and legitimate concern for Windows users.

If you have AVP and run scans regularly, you don’t have any. The problem is a large % of consumer users don’t protect their systems. They connect directly to their cable modem rather than a router, don’t have AVP, don’t have their systems PW protected. I just went to a client’s this week and cleaned out 243 infected files from his system.

I have Photohop on both my Mac and Windows boxes. In my experience, Photoshop’s performance is better on a high-end Mac than on a similarly high-end PC, though the gap is so narrow it’s likely to be completely irrelevant to almost all users. I’m sure a properly tweaked PC can give equivalent performance to a properly tweaked Mac; performance is no longer a reason to choose one over the other, except perhaps for Photoshop CS2, whose brushes can be sluggish on PC systems.
In terms of cost, Macs are no longer more expensive than PCs; in fact, the reverse is true. I have an accountant for my business, and I bought a high-end Mac system and a high-end Windows system at the same time a few years back. The Mac system cost me a little bit more (not much; the difference in cost was only about 2%); but over the last four years, the Mac’s productivity has consistently been higher, and the Mac’s total cost of ownership, which factors such things as downtime, hardware failures, and other expenses, has been lower. For a home user most concerned about up-front costs, Macs are still a little bit more expensive; for people who make money from their computers, this is not the case.

In the end, these things are tools, not religions. I am always amused when I see the fanatic worshippers of His Most Royal Gates or His Most Holy Jobs start going at it; it quickly becomes clear that each prefers His Most Sacred Computer simply because he has no experience with the other. It’s like the idiots who babble about Dodge vs Chevy or whatever the hell it is they get so worked up about. One of these days I’m going to make a bumper sticker for my Del Sol that reads "I’d rather push a Honda than drive a Toyota," just to illustrate how ridiculous it all is.

lol. Good point.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
K
KatWoman
Jan 18, 2006
"Larry Hodges" wrote in message
"tacit" wrote in message
In article ,
"Larry Hodges" wrote:

Arrogance. Heaven forbid the ALMIGHTY ELISTIST APPLE admit that Windows had
a good idea. But it’s hard to see a good idea with your nose up in the air.

The two-button mouse was not invented by Microsoft.

I laugh my ass off ever time I see Apple’s market share. BWAHAHAHAHAHA. If
it weren’t for schools, Mac would be long gone. I have four kids. Of course their schools have Macs. They can’t wait to get home to use our Windows systems.

A lot of people don’t really understand market share, or what it means–probably because they do not understand how enormous the computer market is.

Apple’s current market share is hovering around 1.8%. Does that mean of all the computers out there, 1.8% of them are Macs? No. That’s the "installed base." It means of all the computers being sold every month,
1.8% of them are Macs.

That’s a pretty small number, right? A company can’t survive with that few sales, right?

Not true. How many computers is that paltry 1.8%? Every three monts, Apple sells $5,700,000,000 worth of computers. Five point seven BILLION dollars’ worth. Every three months.

That’s pretty significant. To put it into perspective for you, Apple’s total market capitalization right now is a bit over $72
billion…seventy-two *billion* dollars…which is more than Dell’s $71 billion.

However, software vendors see the smaller market share. Hence, limited software for Macs. And you’re talking about one PC vendor, Dell. Toss in the others and the picture changes.

Actually, I’d like to see the % of clone PCs compared to proprietary systems like Dell, HP, etc. Like most guys I know, I prefer a clone, for reasons of expandability, upgrading etc.

And Apple has no debt at all and about nine billion dollars in the bank; Dell has $600,000,000 in debt.

Great point actually.

In other words, Apple is a stronger, healthier company, with greater total value and more money, than Dell. Anyone who thinks Apple is going out of business doesn’t understand economics.

You and I are on the same page about arrogant Apple elitists; it’s a pity you don’t see that you yourself act and sound exactly the same way about Microsoft.

As I said in my post to Clyde, mine isn’t one of arrogance, but rather a feeling of satisfaction in response to theirs, given Mac’s market share. If you look at the percentage of Mac users who literally *hate* Microsoft, it’s much higher than vice versa. I don’t view Apple with contempt. But most Mac users see MS as the Evil Empire.
But most
Mac users see MS as the Evil Empire.

no those are Linux users………………..HEHE
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 18, 2006
"tacit" wrote in message

Apple’s current market share is hovering around 1.8%. Does that mean of all the computers out there, 1.8% of them are Macs? No. That’s the "installed base." It means of all the computers being sold every month,
1.8% of them are Macs.

It’ll be interesting to see how your economics pan out when their market share drops to 1% – and then 0.5% – and then 0.1%. Make no mistake about it, that’s the direction it’s heading — and has been heading — for a very long time.
N
nomail
Jan 18, 2006
C J Southern wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message

Apple’s current market share is hovering around 1.8%. Does that mean of all the computers out there, 1.8% of them are Macs? No. That’s the "installed base." It means of all the computers being sold every month,
1.8% of them are Macs.

It’ll be interesting to see how your economics pan out when their market share drops to 1% – and then 0.5% – and then 0.1%. Make no mistake about it, that’s the direction it’s heading — and has been heading — for a very long time.

Get your facts straight:

http://www.architosh.com/news/2005-07/2005c-0719_appleback-a ec1.html

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/apple_cont inues_to_gro w_worldwide_macintosh_market_share/

http://news.techwhack.com/1047/22032005-apple-market-share-o n-the-rise-i s-mac-mini-behind-it/


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 18, 2006
"Larry Hodges" wrote in message

Then you were using the wrong Win OS. NT4 was much more stable than anything Apple had at the time. If you’re talking about Win98, you have a point. But I went NT4 as soon as it came out and never went back. NT4 could be hard to configure with sound cards, etc. But once you had it running, it ran great.

Many people still don’t seem to appreciate that Microsoft ran two "loosly" concurent series of operating systems. The business series went from WinNT3.1 to WinNT 4.0 to Win2K to WinXP – the home/games series went through Win95 to Win98 to WinME. When run on WHQL certified hardware (as recommended by Microsoft) the business platforms were always exceptionally stable.

The "stability" or should I say "instability" debates started when people started using the likes of Win95 for business apps – something it was never designed for. The main problem at the time was that hardware wasn’t fast enough for games if you had to route screen I/O through an OS API – so in order to make the game work at an acceptabe pace MS had to allow program developers to access the hardware directly – unfortunately a lot of software floating around (both game and others) wasn’t particularly well written and used to play "free and loose" with system resources. If, for example, the OS sets the video mode to a certain state – it expects it to be in that state when it next goes to write some video data – if some other app has changed modes and not told it then all hell breaks loose. In their business line of products this wasn’t allowed to happen – ALL I/O HAD to go through the OS (or it was terminated).

Eventually we reached a point where hardware was fast enough for games when fed through "thin" APIs like Direct-X and still give acceptable performance.

So in terms of stability MS have always had a stable product available (I’m talking workstations that could run for weeks or months without having to be reset) – the biggest problem was people trying to run business apps on home/games OS like Win95 – in other words they used the wrong tool for the job. I understand that Macs have improved their stability dramatically – which is just as well, because back in the glory days of the early macs you wouldn’t be able to get through a single day without having to restart several times.
JM
John McWilliams
Jan 19, 2006
C J Southern wrote:
"tacit" wrote in message

Apple’s current market share is hovering around 1.8%. Does that mean of all the computers out there, 1.8% of them are Macs? No. That’s the "installed base." It means of all the computers being sold every month,
1.8% of them are Macs.

It’ll be interesting to see how your economics pan out when their market share drops to 1% – and then 0.5% – and then 0.1%. Make no mistake about it, that’s the direction it’s heading — and has been heading — for a very long time.

Oh, quite! Just ask/read John Dvorak.

Market share per se, means little in some industries.



John McWilliams
LH
Larry Hodges
Jan 19, 2006
"KatWoman" wrote in message
"Larry Hodges" wrote in message
"tacit" wrote in message
In article ,
"Larry Hodges" wrote:

Arrogance. Heaven forbid the ALMIGHTY ELISTIST APPLE admit that Windows had
a good idea. But it’s hard to see a good idea with your nose up in the air.

The two-button mouse was not invented by Microsoft.

I laugh my ass off ever time I see Apple’s market share. BWAHAHAHAHAHA. If
it weren’t for schools, Mac would be long gone. I have four kids. Of course their schools have Macs. They can’t wait to get home to use our Windows systems.

A lot of people don’t really understand market share, or what it means–probably because they do not understand how enormous the computer market is.

Apple’s current market share is hovering around 1.8%. Does that mean of all the computers out there, 1.8% of them are Macs? No. That’s the "installed base." It means of all the computers being sold every month,
1.8% of them are Macs.

That’s a pretty small number, right? A company can’t survive with that few sales, right?

Not true. How many computers is that paltry 1.8%? Every three monts, Apple sells $5,700,000,000 worth of computers. Five point seven BILLION dollars’ worth. Every three months.

That’s pretty significant. To put it into perspective for you, Apple’s total market capitalization right now is a bit over $72
billion…seventy-two *billion* dollars…which is more than Dell’s $71 billion.

However, software vendors see the smaller market share. Hence, limited software for Macs. And you’re talking about one PC vendor, Dell. Toss in the others and the picture changes.

Actually, I’d like to see the % of clone PCs compared to proprietary systems like Dell, HP, etc. Like most guys I know, I prefer a clone, for reasons of expandability, upgrading etc.

And Apple has no debt at all and about nine billion dollars in the bank; Dell has $600,000,000 in debt.

Great point actually.

In other words, Apple is a stronger, healthier company, with greater total value and more money, than Dell. Anyone who thinks Apple is going out of business doesn’t understand economics.

You and I are on the same page about arrogant Apple elitists; it’s a pity you don’t see that you yourself act and sound exactly the same way about Microsoft.

As I said in my post to Clyde, mine isn’t one of arrogance, but rather a feeling of satisfaction in response to theirs, given Mac’s market share. If you look at the percentage of Mac users who literally *hate* Microsoft, it’s much higher than vice versa. I don’t view Apple with contempt. But most Mac users see MS as the Evil Empire.
But most
Mac users see MS as the Evil Empire.

no those are Linux users………………..HEHE

Well of course. They both wear tin foil hats.

btw, I’m a big FPS game fan myself. Have been since the mid 90s. Unreal still stands as my favorite single player game. Not Unreal II, but the original. Of course, CS and CSS, AA, HL, HL2, Quake2, 3 and 4. The only thing I play is FPS. FEAR is a great single player…great AI. FarCry on an x64 system has abolutely stunning graphics. Game play was a bit too difficult at times, but that’s my only complaint there. Just finished Quake4 last night. Not bad, but not up with FEAR. Now on to COD2!

Obviously, I don’t watch much TV…. 🙂
LH
Larry Hodges
Jan 19, 2006
"C J Southern" wrote in message
"Larry Hodges" wrote in message

Then you were using the wrong Win OS. NT4 was much more stable than anything Apple had at the time. If you’re talking about Win98, you have a
point. But I went NT4 as soon as it came out and never went back. NT4 could be hard to configure with sound cards, etc. But once you had it running, it ran great.

Many people still don’t seem to appreciate that Microsoft ran two "loosly" concurent series of operating systems. The business series went from WinNT3.1 to WinNT 4.0 to Win2K to WinXP – the home/games series went through
Win95 to Win98 to WinME. When run on WHQL certified hardware (as recommended
by Microsoft) the business platforms were always exceptionally stable.

I simply take it for granted that everybody knows this. Good point.

The "stability" or should I say "instability" debates started when people started using the likes of Win95 for business apps – something it was never
designed for. The main problem at the time was that hardware wasn’t fast enough for games if you had to route screen I/O through an OS API – so in order to make the game work at an acceptabe pace MS had to allow program developers to access the hardware directly – unfortunately a lot of software
floating around (both game and others) wasn’t particularly well written and
used to play "free and loose" with system resources. If, for example, the OS
sets the video mode to a certain state – it expects it to be in that state when it next goes to write some video data – if some other app has changed modes and not told it then all hell breaks loose. In their business line of
products this wasn’t allowed to happen – ALL I/O HAD to go through the OS (or it was terminated).

Had to troubleshoot a client’s Win98 box today. Couldn’t hardly remember how to get around. Normally, I simply decline to work on networks with a mix of 98 and NT systems. If it’s peer to peer, they just don’t play well together and I end up looking like the bad guy because I didn’t make it work right. But if I tell them they need to upgrade, they don’t want to spend the money. Come to think of it, I don’t like working on networks.

Eventually we reached a point where hardware was fast enough for games when
fed through "thin" APIs like Direct-X and still give acceptable performance.

So in terms of stability MS have always had a stable product available (I’m
talking workstations that could run for weeks or months without having to be
reset) – the biggest problem was people trying to run business apps on home/games OS like Win95 – in other words they used the wrong tool for the job. I understand that Macs have improved their stability dramatically – which is just as well, because back in the glory days of the early macs you
wouldn’t be able to get through a single day without having to restart several times.

When Vista comes out, Apple is going to shit a brick. This will be the biggest change since NT4, and Apple has to be sweating it. Too bad really. Competition is healthy and beneficial to all consumers. But I just don’t see Apple gaining on MS at this point. Good thing they have iPod.
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 19, 2006
"Larry Hodges" wrote in message

Had to troubleshoot a client’s Win98 box today. Couldn’t hardly remember how to get around. Normally, I simply decline to work on networks with a mix of 98 and NT systems. If it’s peer to peer, they just don’t play well together and I end up looking like the bad guy because I didn’t make it
work
right. But if I tell them they need to upgrade, they don’t want to spend the money. Come to think of it, I don’t like working on networks.

I’ve make a living out of working on networks for the past 20 something years – and there are still surprises. With a lot of these systems you really have to start with the basics – at a minimum give it a thorough RAM test (I use RST from uxd.com) and a thorough HDD test (I use SpinRite from www.grc.com) (if there’s flakey hardware then nothing will ever be stable). Scan it for virii and malware as a precaution. Go through the installed programs and uninstall anything that doesn’t need to be there. Check your network stack – unbind anything that’s not needed (like spx/ipx etc). After that, the fun starts 🙂

When Vista comes out, Apple is going to shit a brick. This will be the biggest change since NT4, and Apple has to be sweating it. Too bad
really.
Competition is healthy and beneficial to all consumers. But I just don’t see Apple gaining on MS at this point. Good thing they have iPod.

I think it’ll be another nail in the coffin – part of the slow death as the mac extreemists slowly lose the battle to keep their sinking ship afloat 🙂

They got a good jump on the market with the ipod, but the others are catching up quickly – I sure won’t be buying any apple shares in a hurry!
T
Tacit
Jan 19, 2006
In article ,
"Larry Hodges" wrote:

Then you were using the wrong Win OS. NT4 was much more stable than anything Apple had at the time. If you’re talking about Win98, you have a point. But I went NT4 as soon as it came out and never went back. NT4 could be hard to configure with sound cards, etc. But once you had it running, it ran great.

I started using NT at 3.5; I used NT4 for a time, but wasn’t impressed by it. IMO, Microsoft made a poor architectural decision with the later flavors of NT when they changed the memory model. More and more drivers, especially graphics drivers, began running in kernel space; better performance, in theory, but at the cost of overall system stability.

I’ve also run dual CPU boxes since NT4 came out. Mac only recently started offering dual CPU systems.

Actually, many people believe that’s the case, but it’s not. You could get multiprocessor PowerPC 604-based systems, back in the day; when I was working prepress, I had a quad-processor computer that ran System
7.1.2 (the first multiprocessor-aware version of the Mac operating
system). Used it for Photoshop, of course. To give you an idea how long ago that was: it was the first computer I’d ever seen or heard of that had a gigabyte of RAM, which set the company back about three grand just for the RAM alone.

Apple never released any multiprocessor G3-based systems; I actually spoke to an Apple engineer about that, because I wanted to get the company to upgrade my quad-processor 604-based box to G3 processors. The G3s use a completely different cache architecture, and it was never intended for multiprocessor configurations; they couldn’t resolve the cache coherency issues (though apparently they tried; the engineer I spoke with said he had a prototype dual-processor G3 system running in his lab). So the multiprocessor systems disappeared for a while, then returned.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
T
Tacit
Jan 19, 2006
In article <Bdzzf.16007$>,
"C J Southern" wrote:

Many people still don’t seem to appreciate that Microsoft ran two "loosly" concurent series of operating systems. The business series went from WinNT3.1 to WinNT 4.0 to Win2K to WinXP – the home/games series went through Win95 to Win98 to WinME. When run on WHQL certified hardware (as recommended by Microsoft) the business platforms were always exceptionally stable.

Provided the drivers were stable. ISTR a bunch of device drivers (looking at you here, Nvidia…) that made NT4 really flaky.

I used NT Advanced Server for RISC on a quad-processor DEC Sable system running DEC Alpha processors, and it was buggy as hell. We ran a few dedicated prepress apps on it–a trapping program, a page-imposition program, and a OPI server that sucked ass–and damned if that computer didn’t crash two, three times a day. I don’t know if that was Microsoft’s fault or DEC’s; that system had some funky hardware in it…but I recall being highly unimpressed by NT on RISC.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
T
Tacit
Jan 19, 2006
In article ,
"Larry Hodges" wrote:

When Vista comes out, Apple is going to shit a brick. This will be the biggest change since NT4, and Apple has to be sweating it. Too bad really. Competition is healthy and beneficial to all consumers. But I just don’t see Apple gaining on MS at this point. Good thing they have iPod.

Did you see the posters at the Apple Developer’s Conference when they released OS X 10.4? They had a bunch of banners reading "Microsoft, start your copiers" and "Windows Vista, available today."

Most of the interesting stuff (like WinFS) has now been ripped out of Vista, so I don’t think anyone’s really sweating it much. Had Microsoft stuck with what they originally said they’d ship in Vista, then maybe…but with much of the good stuff gone…eh.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 19, 2006
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/29.6.shtml

"
First on TMO – Apple Q3 Global Market Share Falls to 1.8% as Competitors Post Strong Gains
by Brad GibsonBrad Gibson, 3:15 PM EDT, October 29th, 2004

Apple Computer’s worldwide market share fell to 1.8% in the third quarter of this year from 2.1%, and dropped to 3.2% from 3.6% in the U.S., according to figures from research company Gartner. The numbers also showed dramatic declines in the quarter-to-quarter growth rate of Macs sold while Apple’s Windows-based competitors saw double digit increases in the U.S and an almost 10% rise worldwide.

Apple worldwide market share falls to 1.8% from 2.1%

According to the numbers obtained first by The Mac Observer, Apple’s worldwide market share ranking was tenth with a 1.8% share on unit sales of 836,300. In the second quarter, Apple posted a 2.1% share on sales of 879,900 Macintosh personal computers. During the same quarter last year, Apple had a 1.8% share after selling 791,100 Macs.

Compared to other PC vendors, Apple had a 5.0% decline in unit growth worldwide from the previous quarter. While Apple declined, its competitors gained 9.8% in unit growth from Q2. Year-to-year figures showed Apple with a
5.7% jump, as other vendors rose 9.8%.

No other PC vendor in the top ten posted a decline in year-to-year unit growth worldwide but Apple."
MR
Mike Russell
Jan 19, 2006
….
Not true. How many computers is that paltry 1.8%? Every three monts, Apple sells $5,700,000,000 worth of computers. Five point seven BILLION dollars’ worth. Every three months.

I llike Macs, but don’t buy all the numbers that come out of Apple’s marketing department, and I doubt Apple does either.

Apple’s annual revenue for 2004, according to their annual report, was $13.93 billion. This is under 4 billion per quarter, and much of the revenue was from iPod sales. I think it’s very unlikely that an individual quarter had 5.7 billion in Mac related revenue.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/oct/11results.html

That’s pretty significant. To put it into perspective for you, Apple’s total market capitalization right now is a bit over $72
billion…seventy-two *billion* dollars…which is more than Dell’s $71 billion.

This is misleading hype from Apple. Even if you accept that comparing Apple with Dell means anything at all, the actual numbers are 71.97 billion for Dell, and 72.13 billion for Apple. While comparing numbers like this may be fun from a rivalry stand point, there are several obvious reasons it’s not relevant to PC vs. Mac market share.
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/14/0032228

Still, I’m rooting for the Mac, sort of. I just don’t think quoting funny numbers adds to the dialog. I use a Mac in addition to my Windows system, and for the sake of competition the more operating systems out there the better. Linux is purportedly running on more desks than Max OS, BTW.. —

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
MH
Mike Hyndman
Jan 19, 2006
I’m thinking of buying a new cooker but I can’t make my mind up between a gas or electric one. My friend says that all the really creative chefs use gas to cook with as it is in their view more controllable, therefore that’s what I should buy, like he did. He just thinks that because the experts use gas and cook well, using the same will make him do so as well. As he only uses his cooker to warm pies and make toast though, he is not the best one to ask on the subject.
I’m not to sure about buying a gas one because with gas becoming more expensive, less gas cookers are being sold and I wouldn’t want to buy something that could be obsolete in a few years time. Althoughm with a gas cooker though at least when you turn it on and light it it stays lit, not like some electric ones that are always tripping out due to faulty rings and earth leakage. So, what do you think is the best one to cook with? Or does it really matter? It’s what the meal tastes like that counts is it not?

MH
LI
Lorem Ipsum
Jan 19, 2006
"tacit" wrote in message

I used NT Advanced Server for RISC on a quad-processor DEC Sable system running DEC Alpha processors, and it was buggy as hell. We ran a few dedicated prepress apps on it–a trapping program, a page-imposition program, and a OPI server that sucked ass–and damned if that computer didn’t crash two, three times a day. I don’t know if that was Microsoft’s fault or DEC’s; that system had some funky hardware in it…but I recall being highly unimpressed by NT on RISC.

The only fault on DEC’s part was putting NT on the Alpha platform. It was silly. NT just wasn’t ready.
C
Clyde
Jan 19, 2006
Larry Hodges wrote:
As I said in my post to Clyde, mine isn’t one of arrogance, but rather a feeling of satisfaction in response to theirs, given Mac’s market share. If you look at the percentage of Mac users who literally *hate* Microsoft, it’s much higher than vice versa. I don’t view Apple with contempt. But most Mac users see MS as the Evil Empire.

Don’t forget that one of the biggest publishers of Mac software is Microsoft. A lot of the haters of MS use their software on their Macs.

Clyde
C
Clyde
Jan 19, 2006
Mike Hyndman wrote:
I’m thinking of buying a new cooker but I can’t make my mind up between a gas or electric one. My friend says that all the really creative chefs use gas to cook with as it is in their view more controllable, therefore that’s what I should buy, like he did. He just thinks that because the experts use gas and cook well, using the same will make him do so as well. As he only uses his cooker to warm pies and make toast though, he is not the best one to ask on the subject.
I’m not to sure about buying a gas one because with gas becoming more expensive, less gas cookers are being sold and I wouldn’t want to buy something that could be obsolete in a few years time. Althoughm with a gas cooker though at least when you turn it on and light it it stays lit, not like some electric ones that are always tripping out due to faulty rings and earth leakage. So, what do you think is the best one to cook with? Or does it really matter? It’s what the meal tastes like that counts is it not?
MH

Nice analogy. It doesn’t fit 100%, but interesting and amusing all the same.

Clyde
N
nomail
Jan 19, 2006
C J Southern wrote:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/29.6.shtml

"
First on TMO – Apple Q3 Global Market Share Falls to 1.8% as Competitors Post Strong Gains
by Brad GibsonBrad Gibson, 3:15 PM EDT, October 29th, 2004

Funny you couldn’t find anything dated 2005…


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
N
nomail
Jan 19, 2006
C J Southern wrote:

First on TMO – Apple Q3 Global Market Share Falls to 1.8% as Competitors Post Strong Gains
by Brad GibsonBrad Gibson, 3:15 PM EDT, October 29th, 2004

Now find something from 2005…


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
MH
Mike Hyndman
Jan 19, 2006
Nice analogy. It doesn’t fit 100%, but interesting and amusing all the same.

Eggsactly 😉

Mike H
JM
John McWilliams
Jan 19, 2006
Mike Hyndman wrote:
Nice analogy. It doesn’t fit 100%, but interesting and amusing all the same.

Eggsactly 😉
The real answer is: Charcoal….


John McWilliams

Coach: "Are you just ignorant, or merely apathetic?" Player: "Coach, I don’t know, and I don’t care."
MH
Mike Hyndman
Jan 19, 2006
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
Mike Hyndman wrote:
Nice analogy. It doesn’t fit 100%, but interesting and amusing all the same.

Eggsactly 😉
The real answer is: Charcoal….
John,

Careful now, that could really start a "flame war".

Regards
MH
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 20, 2006
"tacit" wrote in message
In article ,

I started using NT at 3.5; I used NT4 for a time, but wasn’t impressed by it. IMO, Microsoft made a poor architectural decision with the later flavors of NT when they changed the memory model. More and more drivers, especially graphics drivers, began running in kernel space; better performance, in theory, but at the cost of overall system stability.

One needs to be careful that we don’t end up with a "tail wagging the dog" syndrome. The solution isn’t to move drivers outside the kernel again – it’s a clear onus on driver developers to write better code, and to invest the time and $$$ on getting it certified.

These things are written to open standards – but the the standards are complex and exacting – and my experience is that many "programmers" really don’t know fully what they’re doing – so they develop by trial and error – when something doesn’t work and they fiddle with the code so that it does work (without understanding why it didn’t work in the first place) & end up creating a time-bomb. This is the reason Microsoft encourages driver developers to get their drivers certified – it costs money for sure, but the payback is that the driver developers and Microsoft’s good folks get to ensure that standards are being interpreted and applied correctly. Unfortunately it doesn’t happen anywhere nearly as often as it should. Although by-and-large I feel things are working in the right direction – I can’t remember the last time one of my machines blue-screened – and it’s pretty rare that I have to force-terminate a program.
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 20, 2006
Personally, I’d stick with the microwave for heating my pies and a toaster for cooking my toast – and I’d get the house wired with a master RCD (personally I think RCDs should be mandatory – I hate to think how many lives are lost each year because people don’t use them).
MH
Mike Hyndman
Jan 20, 2006
"C J Southern" wrote in message
Personally, I’d stick with the microwave for heating my pies and a toaster for cooking my toast – and I’d get the house wired with a master RCD (personally I think RCDs should be mandatory – I hate to think how many lives are lost each year because people don’t use them).

But are they as good as the cooker for "burning" CD’s ? The master RCD tend to be 30mA, a bit to low for some leaky rings. MH
T
Tacit
Jan 20, 2006
In article <1ZWzf.16373$>,
"C J Southern" wrote:

One needs to be careful that we don’t end up with a "tail wagging the dog" syndrome. The solution isn’t to move drivers outside the kernel again – it’s a clear onus on driver developers to write better code, and to invest the time and $$$ on getting it certified.

With the economic realities of computer hardware, especially in the competitive realm of video hardware, being what they are, I’m skeptical that will ever happen.

Let’s say Company A and Company B are racing to market with a new, snazzy 3D video card. What’s at stake for being first? Potentially, tens of millions of dollars. I remember reading a fascinating magazine article some time ago about competition in the video card market between companies like Nvidia and ATI; with high-end cards selling for hundreds of dollars, and with gamers always hungry for the Next Big Thing, if one company beats its rival to market by twenty-four hours it can cost its rival literally tens of millions of dollars in sales.

Now, say I’m working for Company A and I know Company B will be releasing its new Next Great Thing ™ tomorrow. I have a choice; I can release my card today, even though I know the drivers are buggy; or I can wait ’til I know the drivers are good, and release next week…and get stomped economically. What should I do?

Most hardware vendors ship fast and ship crude, and let their users catch the splinters. After all, you can always put the fix on your Web site next Tuesday and let people download it, right?

Frankly, I’m not that crazy about the NT/2000/XP driver architecture at all. I think Microsoft took a step backward when it started putting device drivers in kernel space, and I know I’m not the only one who thinks this way; a lot of people I know bitch about it. 🙂


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections