no macs?

[AlPhA]

no macs?

[MAD_DOG]

Mac's suck! Unless your in Graphic Design or Video Editing otherwise this topic along with Windows 98/ME should burn in hell.

[AlPhA]

Mac shouldn't be considered so bad. Well, sure they have no software, but they run unix (close enuff 2 linux). I would think that would've made it a big hit, but i guess i was wrong ::)

[Dani]

Yo, do you think it would work if Apple came out with an OS for the PC to compete with Windows ?

[aeinstein]

i'm new here (nice place u have here btw Danni!), so i hope this isnt out of place, but i think Macs r pretty cool (cept theyre TOTAL hogs on RAM, whatsup w/that?!). just upgraded my iBook from 9.04 to 9.1 b4 i logged on & it was a breeze... mostly i use pc's but am starting to learn Dreaweaver and figured my iBook was the way to go. ok, that's my 2.5 cents, guess i'll dry up & blow away now! ;)

[Dani]

Hey aeinstein - thanks for the kudos!

Glad you're enjoying the site -
maybe you can be our resident mac person ;)
mac ppl seem to be a rarity these days

not understandably though ...
unix with a great gui = a linux lover's dream come true
don't see why everyone shys away from os x ;)

[aeinstein]

mac guru?! KEWL - well, let me check my Websters an check out what guru actually means.... in the mean time i'll post a reply on your "Buying a new Mac" thread... :-)

[samaru]

The strange thing is, every Mac user that I've met has not really been a techie person. They don't know the ins and outs of their machine... strange....

Anyways, Not all Macs "Should Burn in Hell." I hear this a lot all the time. I used to think this too for a time. I realized though that the people that said this are people who don't use a Mac every day and strictly use Windows or Unix.

Macs are not only good for Graphics, but also for Video, and are very popular in the Music and Audio scene. They beat the crap out of Windows in these categories. Most professional design teams and music composing teams use Macs for it's easy to use interface and configuring. Graphics and Music Software companies know this, that graphic designers and composers use Macs more, so they tend to enhance and release better versions of their programs for Macs only. An example of this is the new Photoshop 7.0, which is enhanced only on the Macintosh to take use of their graphic chip. As far as music, go to Sam Ash and take a look at their software and computer peripheral section.

What do I prefer? I still prefer Windows; hands down. I'm not a serious graphics developer or musician, though I do take some time for both occasionally, so I don't need heavy duty power for them. I like Windows because it's intuitive, easy to configurable, very self-detecting, and has a very huge of population of users for better compatibility.

[aeinstein]

hmmm, well, i've worked w/a lot of tech ppl, so i'm not so sure about mac users not being technical... well, actually, if i understand ur post correctly, i'd have 2 say yes, prob most mac usrs rnt very tech oriented. basically the mac was marketed towards ppl who werent really nuts & bolts oriented, just wanted to find a bettr way of doing what they needd getting done, done. that marketing philos still carries over 2 2day - ull find most non-tech orients professional ppl (lawyers, doctors, literary types, etc) use macs, w/notable exceptions being those in mid-2-large corp envrions & those who 4 whatevr reason need a prog that is either only or best used on a pc.

Macs were always (& still r) better @ tasks that didnt/dont rely particularly on cpu intensive tasks as a measure of performance. for instance, db, spreadsheet, static-design and (like arch/engnrng draws w/no anim) word proc (pre Office2k in particular) tasks are really the forte of the pc - the cpu does by&large the majority of the work, with little taxation of peripheral devices. things like animation, audio, graphics & movie/video have - since the demise of the Amiga (w/its Fat Angus, Lazy Susan, etc.chips - real names, kid ya NOT!) - been the forte of the Mac. image refresh rates (not vid scan rates) have always been quicker. i'm not a mac techie (YET!) but it seems 2 me that the peripheral devices (vid, sound, tablet cards/devices) have 4 the most part been far better integrated in2 them and r able to take more of the computational load off of the cpu than pc. 2 a degree that makes sense just on merit alone when 1 considers that, with just 1 time period of exception, mac internal components are built, designed and/or spec'd by 1 source (Apple) and not by committees and/or competing vendors. Do Mac's Rule - yes, there corner of the world, just like PC's. In their day neither one could hold a candle to an Amiga tho, but that day came & went quite along time ago (well, in computer years anyway!!!).

[samaru]

Everytime I think about Macs I think of the day when my friend and I bought "Doom II" a long time ago for his Mac. When we tried it on his computer, it wouldn't work. "Invalid CD." Then we tried it on my PC, and it worked fine... even though on the actual CD itself it said "Mac Version. Will not work on PC."

[aeinstein]

LOL! yeah, musta been that horrible mac - afterall the CD couldnt have been mislabled!!! ;) ;D

[samaru]

I can't believe it was mislabeled. It was funny seeing him pissed. :)

[big_k105]

hey i know that this thread is old but i want to know what Amiga is, and y it was so awsome. well thanks for the information.

[Dani]

Commodore Amigas are from the good ol' days of computers, one of the first personal computers released back in 1985. Most of the Amiga's followers were early-day computer hackers.

[big_k105]

ok now i know what they are jst needed a little memory refreshing. thanks dani

[TallCool1]

Hey I know that this thread is old, but I want to know what Amiga is, and y it was so awsome. well thanks for the information.

I was there, so I guess I'll try to give more information...

* The Amiga was based on the Motorola MC68000 processor family, but it wasn't crippled like the Mac or Atari ST -- or massively overpriced like the IBM Model 9000, Sun, and Fortune Systems machines.

* It had 4096 colors at a time when the IBM PC had 64 (or less), the Atari ST had 512, and the Mac had 2.

* It had 2-channel sound when the PC had a beeping speaker (or a sound card based on the SID chip from the Commodore 64), the Mac was a bit better, and the Atari ST had a cheap sound chip.

* It could be expanded to 8 MB memory when the PC was limited to about 2 MB of paged, segmented memory -- and the Mac and ST were limited to about 1 MB or less.

* It had a true preemptively-multitasking operating system when the Mac and ST did not (and could not); the PC had MS-DOS (and Windows still does not preemptively multitask).

* Plug-and-Play was invented on the Amiga; Apple and IBM had to license it.

* It was natively compatible with NTSC video (the system clock was 2x the NTSC color clock), which is what made the NewTek Video Toaster possible.

* When John Lassiter of Pixar told an audience at SIGGraph after a showing of Luxo, Jr. that "Someday, people will be doing this on home PCs" Amiga users already were.

* Much of today's so-called "hacker culture" was originally built around the Amiga, the Legion of Doom, for example. Captain Crunch was also an early adherent.

* The Amiga 3000UX remains, to this day, the only consumer PC to run true AT&T Unix (for what it's worth).

* For many years, the last computer still hooked up to the Space Shuttle on the launchpad before launch was an Amiga 500. It was destroyed by the rocket exhaust.

The Amiga died for, basically, two reasons:

* Commodore never properly promoted the Amiga line. During most of its life, the company was run very poorly.

* The hardware platform itself was very specific, so the user was limited as to how the unit could be expanded or upgraded. The upside to this was a strong reduction in compatibility problems.

Nowadays, there are good-performing Amiga emulators for the Mac and PC platforms (UAE, for example) and a goodly amount of freeware and abandonware available.

It's actually making a comeback of sorts. Check http://www.Amiga.org for info.

I hope that you found this interesting.

[Dani]

Very cool indeed. I get lost in history @ about the time of XEROX's days with GUI's. :P

[Bob]

Commodore Amigas are from the good ol' days of computers, one of the first personal computers released back in 1985. Most of the Amiga's followers were early-day computer hackers.

Hmmmm, I never thought of the Amiga as 'one of the first'. I had a Sinclair Spectrum some time before that. All seems like such a long time ago now .... :shock:

[MuddBuddha]

:shock: WOW! :shock:

I must bow down and worship at your feet TallCool1!

That was freakin' awesome.