i need help. in a month from now im getting a laptop. I wanna get apple since some say its better than microsoft in quality so can you help me choose:

Macintosh or Windows (XP). can you tell me the pluses and minuses of each please....

Mac:
+ Beautifully designed notebooks
+ OS X is apparently very good, beautiful interface
+ Apple computers are masters on the terrain of GFX manipulation (Photoshop etc)
- Windows software won't work on a mac
- That means most games won't work (although most other applications should have a Macintosh counterpart or macintosh version)
- You pay for the name apple
- You have to learn how to use Mac OS

Windows XP:
+ everything runs
+ You won't have to learn how to work with a new OS
+ It's easy to get software
+ It's most certainly better for games
- Instable
- It's Microsoft, so get ready for security issues

the laptop i want:

laptop (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00022ADXA/ref=ord_cart_shr/102-6535537-3516102?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance)

well..i guess i can do without games.but the analogue of photoshop is attractive.But is it very hard to learn to use Mac and if i cant use win software then does apple have programs that can replace the windows software?

Actually Microsoft has macintosh versions for a big deal of its software, like office, Messenger and (older versions of) IE. There should be software on the laptop itself though, like the OS (of course), Safari (web browser) and a whole bunch of other stuff I don't know what it is XP.

what? what makes macs better with photoshop than windows?

Get Windows, its much better than Macintosh in my opinion. I had some link somewhere, I'll dig around for it.

Originally posted by Sinbios@Aug 31 2004, 08:04 PM
what? what makes macs better with photoshop than windows?
Their architecture is completely different from a PC's, making the mac faster with graphical things. Don't ask me why, but that's how apparently it is. Why do you think the GFX business uses mostly macs?

??

the speed of the graphical things are determined by the videocard, and macs use the same video cards as pc's. and the GFX business don't all use macs... they're just mostly artists and like pretty things.

Originally posted by Sinbios@Aug 31 2004, 11:04 AM
what? what makes macs better with photoshop than windows?
well, Photoshop and most other graphics applications are designed with OS X in mind, so everything, especially the UI, flows much better. You;ve got to use it on a mac to see the difference.

Originally posted by Sinbios@Aug 31 2004, 11:43 PM
??

the speed of the graphical things are determined by the videocard, and macs use the same video cards as pc's. and the GFX business don't all use macs... they're just mostly artists and like pretty things.
Lol, not? Stuff like Photoshop requires a powerful CPU and fast system memory, the GFX card doesn't matter much, unless you do 3D with 3D Studio Max or something.

Laptops, in my opinion, are a bad idea unless you plan on never being able to sit down at a desktop machine due to being out a lot.

For gaming laptops, go with a windows. For anything else, I would recommend a mac laptop.

the only thing i know is that Mac has a different 'speed preference' (?) someone told me that it does operations in a different order than win. and thats why musicians and artists use mac...

but im not a great artist or anything i just want a good fast computer and i wanna draw sometimes.i had in mind installing both Mac and XP so i can work in one place and play in the other,but does any one know if its Harmful to the comp. if it has 2 different systems?

I think the main reason musicians and artists use macs are because they're fast and reliable. It's also a more intuitive interface for people who aren't completely familiar with computers. I still like windows more though and I can't play games on the mac.

You can't run XP and Mac OS on one system, they both are completely different systems.

It is possible to run a Windows emulator on a mac. However, it will be extremely slow.

That doesn't count, that's the same as running a N64 emulator on Windows.

Originally posted by Angelic@Sep 1 2004, 04:56 AM
Lol, not? Stuff like Photoshop requires a powerful CPU and fast system memory, the GFX card doesn't matter much, unless you do 3D with 3D Studio Max or something.
the mac cpu is certainly not more powerful than pc cpu's. a mac g5 will do 8 instructions per cycle, as opposed to AMD's 9 per cycle, and Intel's 6 per cycle. Intel's top of the line desktop chip operates at 3.6 gigahertz, or 3600000000 cycles per second, times 6 instructions per cycle, is 21600000000 instructions per second, or 2.16 * 10^10 instructions per cycle. plus 16kbytes of L1 cache and 1024kbytes of L2 cache. AMD's top of the line desktop processor, the 3800+, runs at 2.4 gigahertz, or 2400000000 cycles per second, multiplied by 9 instructions per cycle, is also 21600000000 instructions per second, or 2.16 * 10^10 instructions per second, with 128kbytes of L1 cache and 512kbytes of L2 cache. now, the top of the line G5 processor runs at 2.5 gigahertz per second, or 2500000000 cycles per second. multiply that by 8 and you get 20000000000 instructions per cycle, or 2.00 * 10^10 instructions per second, plus 128kbytes of L1 cache and 512kbytes of L2 cache. hence, there is no reason to say that mac processors are more powerful, as they actually do less instructions per cycle than either AMD or Intel. as for ram, macs uses the same type of ram as pc's, and that can't be used as a factor to judge which is better. there is no solid proof that macs do graphics better, and i've tried photoshopping in macs myself. same thing.

Whoa.... thats a lot of information

*thinks* ... *thinks*

alright thanks everyone you really helped me, ive made my choice:

~Mac~

Originally posted by Sinbios@Sep 2 2004, 03:21 AM
the mac cpu is certainly not more powerful than pc cpu's. a mac g5 will do 8 instructions per cycle, as opposed to AMD's 9 per cycle, and Intel's 6 per cycle. Intel's top of the line desktop chip operates at 3.6 gigahertz, or 3600000000 cycles per second, times 6 instructions per cycle, is 21600000000 instructions per second, or 2.16 * 10^10 instructions per cycle. plus 16kbytes of L1 cache and 1024kbytes of L2 cache. AMD's top of the line desktop processor, the 3800+, runs at 2.4 gigahertz, or 2400000000 cycles per second, multiplied by 9 instructions per cycle, is also 21600000000 instructions per second, or 2.16 * 10^10 instructions per second, with 128kbytes of L1 cache and 512kbytes of L2 cache. now, the top of the line G5 processor runs at 2.5 gigahertz per second, or 2500000000 cycles per second. multiply that by 8 and you get 20000000000 instructions per cycle, or 2.00 * 10^10 instructions per second, plus 128kbytes of L1 cache and 512kbytes of L2 cache. hence, there is no reason to say that mac processors are more powerful, as they actually do less instructions per cycle than either AMD or Intel. as for ram, macs uses the same type of ram as pc's, and that can't be used as a factor to judge which is better. there is no solid proof that macs do graphics better, and i've tried photoshopping in macs myself. same thing.
How about this, Photoshop is optimized for mac and then "ported" to Windows. Wiseguy =_=

Some programs work better on Intel CPUs, some on AMD CPUs and others on Mac CPUs.

Originally posted by alone@Sep 2 2004, 06:21 PM
Whoa.... thats a lot of information

*thinks* ... *thinks*

alright thanks everyone you really helped me, ive made my choice:

~Mac~
you know, mac and windows aren't the only options...

angelic: i don't really see why the port would make any difference in terms of performance, but eh.

That's easy, PS is optimised for the special instruction sets that are in MAC CPU's and not (or less) optimised for Intel and AMD CPU's.

Macs are evil. They are satan-spawn. Windows all the way. Mainly because all software works with windows. Alot don't work with a mac. Most everything is designed for PC's...it's way easier if you get a PC

Originally posted by Sashiro@Sep 2 2004, 02:56 PM
Macs are evil. They are satan-spawn. Windows all the way. Mainly because all software works with windows. Alot don't work with a mac. Most everything is designed for PC's...it's way easier if you get a PC
I'll be the first to call bullshit here.

Huh? Most companies designs software for PC's FIRST. Some don't even make them for macs. If you think otherwise about that, you're majorly wrong.
I think macs are only for people who do some sort of art for a living and are professionals, otherwise it's just not practical. www.zeuspc.com *DROOL*

I.E: A big example is mIRC. It only works with windows. Millions of people use mIRC. In fact, one of my friends got SO pissed off when he couldn't run mIRC and he found out there were so many games he couldn't play and programs he couldn't use, he returned his mac a week after he bought it.

Originally posted by Sashiro@Sep 2 2004, 04:29 PM
A big example is mIRC. It only works with windows.
Every OS has programs uniquely made for them. What's your point? What's mIRC got over other IRC clients?

Also, my last comment was referring to your claim that every single piece of software works with windows.

I didn't mean everything, duh, but most things are made for PC, more than macs anyway. And yeah, there are alternatives to mirc, but mirc is better than them-I've seen/used them. They are crappy. It's called "Ircle" and it is as bad as pirch^10. I'm sticking with what I said. Only people who use it for their job should have one. They cost more than a PC with the same specs too.

Originally posted by Sashiro@Sep 2 2004, 05:07 PM
I didn't mean everything, duh, but most things are made for PC, more than macs anyway. And yeah, there are alternatives to mirc, but mirc is better than them-I've seen/used them. They are crappy. It's called "Ircle" and it is as bad as pirch^10. I'm sticking with what I said. Only people who use it for their job should have one. They cost more than a PC with the same specs too.
Elaborate a little more than just saying that they are "crappy".

I highly doubt, if there even are advantages of mIRC over OSX IRC clients, that it would influence the choice to go with either OS.

It's all based on what will be most useful for you. If you are a graphic designer, a Mac with OS X will greatly benefit you. If you are a programmer, running Linux is a great option. If you play games, or for general business use, Windows will suit you fine.

95% of desktop computers in the world run Windows. This is why application developers generally target Windows-based computers; it has a huge market share. Does that mean OS X sucks? Of course not.

Oh, and if you are going to compare macs/pcs on a program please pick something more relivant than IRC clients. mIRC is a horrible piece of software and Ircle is no better (albeit less ridden with security flaws).

Originally posted by "magz"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("magz")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I&#39;ll be the first to call bullshit here.[/b]

i&#39;ll be the second :>


Originally posted by "magz"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("magz")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Every OS has programs uniquely made for them. What&#39;s your point? What&#39;s mIRC got over other IRC clients?[/b]

more people use windows, and hence use mIRC, and hence more scripts have been written for it.

<!--QuoteBegin-"Gand"@
If you are a graphic designer, a Mac with OS X will greatly benefit you.[/quote] i still don&#39;t see how that works, given that most modern processors will be more than enough to run anything that needs to be done in photoshop fast enough that the supposed optimizations are negligible anyways. has anyone actually taken processors of the same processing power from apple, amd and intel, and benchmarked their performances to calculate the differences? i for one can&#39;t find any. even if there were, the advantages of a mac processor over a pc processor would hardly be noticeable.

<!--QuoteBegin-"Gand"
It&#39;s all based on what will be most useful for you. If you are a graphic designer, a Mac with OS X will greatly benefit you. If you are a programmer, running Linux is a great option. If you play games, or for general business use, Windows will suit you fine.[/quote]

rephrase - if you fancy yourself an artist, can&#39;t figure out how to turn off the firewall in winxp, or are one of those self-proclaimed elitists that just has to be different from mainstream opinions for no proveable reason, then get a mac. if you&#39;re a hardcore geek and just have to prove that you&#39;re better than everyone else (ZOMG MY OS IS BETTER THAN YOURS), go for linux. if you&#39;re anyone else, just go with windows.

the reason windows is the best choice is because it&#39;s popular. nobody can deny that windows is the most popular OS in the market. that doesn&#39;t mean you have to go with popular opinion, but this means most third-party software writers would cater to windows users, simply because with the same effort to write their software, they could be selling 1000 copies to the mac market, or they could sell millions to the windows market. this is why there are just so much more third-party software available for windows rather than mac, linux, or other operating systems. of those third-party software makers, only the big ones could manage to port those software to other OS&#39;s, for almost no profit. hence, with a windows system, you can always find dozens of available 3rd party software for any task, whereas choices are few or not available at all for other systems.

Linux? i never even heard of that...

look im not getting a Mac cause i fancy myself elite or an artist-i just want a good computer... so far its cheap and has all the functions a good laptop should have;it has good creative programs so if i wanna create an amv or draw myself a new avatar i can do that-but im a growing economist so heres how i figure:

microsoft has about 80%market share.lets say Mac has...10% microsoft doesnt need to do a lot to keep their place cause everyone has win. Mac however wants to increase their share and how can they do that:advertisement(maybe but mic. can advertise more) create better programs so that more people would be attracted-yes&#33;

i just think that most programs are created more user-friendly,more professional than the programs that win. makes cause they dont give a #&#036;%& about consumers any more

Originally posted by alone+Sep 4 2004, 09:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (alone &#064; Sep 4 2004, 09:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Mac however wants to increase their share and how can they do that:advertisement(maybe but mic. can advertise more) create better programs so that more people would be attracted-yes&#33; [/b]
advertisement (read: bullshitting). yes, of course. then again, i doubt mac can advertise better than Intel, AMD, Microsoft, and all the PC packagers combined. :rolleyes:

as for "creating better programs", mac by themselves really can&#39;t compete with the hundreds of thousands of 3rd party software writers out there that write for windows.

<!--QuoteBegin-alone
Linux? i never even heard of that...[/quote]

then i place you among the users who can&#39;t figure out how to turn off the firewall in winxp. have fun with your mac.

Originally posted by Sinbios+Sep 4 2004, 07:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sinbios &#064; Sep 4 2004, 07:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-alone
Linux? i never even heard of that...

then i place you among the users who can&#39;t figure out how to turn off the firewall in winxp. have fun with your mac. [/b][/quote]
That was a totally thoughtless flame.

Edit: Also... your comment on what kind of person you are based on what computer system you get is completely bias&#39;d and misinformed.

oh, how so? there are many people who choose their systems based exactly on the criteria i described.

Originally posted by Sinbios@Sep 4 2004, 06:27 PM
oh, how so? there are many people who choose their systems based exactly on the criteria i described.
Your generalizations are mere stereotypes without any logic or facts to back it up save for your personal experience.

Lemme explain what I meant, guys. Geez. I just think he would be better off getting a PC&#33; Macs are mainly for graphics deisgners..PCs are more all-around. That was my opinion and I haven&#39;t changed my mind&#33;

I bet Sinbios is just one of those Intel/ M&#036; Fanboys <_< You see them everywhere, think they are überl33t and such.

@ Alone : Well, if you&#39;ve decided, don&#39;t bother, but you might want to tell us what software you use most.

For Photoshop users, Macintosh, definitely. But I don&#39;t know if it fits into your budget. I have a crappy Windows laptop to do other stuff, and since I don&#39;t play games much, I can afford to buy and use a Mac.

Even my favourite Aurora&#39;s slightly slower - and that is one kickass machine, for gaming anyway.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/

http://www.alienware.co.uk/Product_Pages/desktop_gaming.aspx

I still wish I could go to Japan instead of getting the G5. :mellow:

Originally posted by Angelic@Sep 5 2004, 07:35 AM
I bet Sinbios is just one of those Intel/ M&#036; Fanboys <_< You see them everywhere, think they are überl33t and such.
FYI, i&#39;m running on an AMD chip, and i use windows precisely because of the reasons i described. heck, i don&#39;t even like microsoft.

M&#036; (http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-07-22&res=l)

btw, has anyone pull out some proof as to why macs are better than pcs for photoshop...?

The fact that most companies use macs and not windows for that kind of stuff? :mellow:

stupid question but... doesnt Mac also have a firewall? of course you&#39;re right i dont know how to turn on a firewall on XP because...i still have win2000...

my minds made up:ill get a mac and then ill tell you all if i turned into a graphic designer

just the opposite. the criteria are derived from the marketing and advertisements from those very companies. what are mac&#39;s selling points? ease of use, beautiful interface. they are made to target users who 1) finds windows too complicated and 2) likes pretty interfaces. what are linux&#39;s main points? stable, reliable, more "powerful" than windows, less "frill", open source. all made to cater to power users who needs more functionality than pretty interfaces. both are enough of a minority to enable users of said systems to claim that they have better taste than windows users and have a better system.

maybe you should come up with some arguments of your own instead of just calling me misinformed and logic-lacking.

Originally posted by alone@Sep 6 2004, 04:25 PM
stupid question but... doesnt Mac also have a firewall? of course you&#39;re right i dont know how to turn on a firewall on XP because...i still have win2000...

my minds made up:ill get a mac and then ill tell you all if i turned into a graphic designer
Getting a mac won&#39;t make you a GFX designer, that&#39;s something you&#39;ll have to do yourself.

It&#39;s not just like *POOF* you&#39;re a graphics designer, the computer can&#39;t do it for you. Windows is better for all-around. Point made. Anyone disagree with me on that? -_-

please dont use this thread to setle your arguments

i know im just showing the stupidness of this opinion:that Mac users are only for graphics designers

Originally posted by Sinbios Zefiris Ark@Sep 6 2004, 08:19 AM
just the opposite. the criteria are derived from the marketing and advertisements from those very companies. what are mac&#39;s selling points? ease of use, beautiful interface. they are made to target users who 1) finds windows too complicated and 2) likes pretty interfaces. what are linux&#39;s main points? stable, reliable, more "powerful" than windows, less "frill", open source. all made to cater to power users who needs more functionality than pretty interfaces. both are enough of a minority to enable users of said systems to claim that they have better taste than windows users and have a better system.

maybe you should come up with some arguments of your own instead of just calling me misinformed and logic-lacking.
You say that as though Windows XP was not an attempt at making the GUI more "pretty". Anyways... beauty is all in the eye of the beholder. Quite frankly... I hate the Aqua GUI. It pisses me off how things feel all liquidy and shit. That&#39;s just not my style.

If I am not mistaken, computers were created to make things easier... not harder. Ease of use is essential when considering a computer.

And lastly... the best argument is, more often than not, the truth. Which I simply stated in my previous post. You start off your reply with a flame and then use a stereotype of the kind of people that use each system as one of your major arguments? And now you imply that macs being easier to use than windows is a bad thing? You have got to be joking me...

i imply nothing. i merely take what the advertised strong points of each system and derive what audience they are intended for. it does not matter that winxp is an attempt at prettiness, it is generally accepted that mac has a prettier interface. computers are created to make things easier... except for the hardcore users, who can&#39;t care less about easy of use and focus mainly on functionality. i do not imply that macs being easier is a bad thing, i state that if you find windows too complicated, then a mac is ideal for you.

lastly, that was not a flame, but a statement, which is later proven TRUE. this is a flame: your arguments are pointless and easily dissected, come up with better ones. which was exactly what you tried to say to me, with NOTHING to back your claims.

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/pages/09.html

Well, I hope this gives you confidence in your choice, Alone. ^_^

Originally posted by Sinbios Zefiris Ark@Sep 6 2004, 07:15 PM
i imply nothing. i merely take what the advertised strong points of each system and derive what audience they are intended for. it does not matter that winxp is an attempt at prettiness, it is generally accepted that mac has a prettier interface. computers are created to make things easier... except for the hardcore users, who can&#39;t care less about easy of use and focus mainly on functionality. i do not imply that macs being easier is a bad thing, i state that if you find windows too complicated, then a mac is ideal for you.

lastly, that was not a flame, but a statement, which is later proven TRUE. this is a flame: your arguments are pointless and easily dissected, come up with better ones. which was exactly what you tried to say to me, with NOTHING to back your claims.
Advertised strongpoints? From the latest apple comercial (http://www.apple.com/imac/video/) (according to their website) I see nothing based on graphics design whatsoever. I see all-around functionality. You try tell me to backup my claims before you even state any evidence that yours are more than half-baked conclusions&#33; "Generally this generally that blah blah everyone thinks blah blah" does not count for anything. Show me some hard proof of your claims so that I don&#39;t think you are just pulling them out of thin air. If my arguments are pointless then what does that make of your arguments which stem from mere personal experience AFAIK.

Define hardcore before you even THINK of using the term "hardcore user". What qualifies you as a hardcore user? Up to what extent do you focus on functionality in order to be considered "hardcore"?

Stop making me work so hard to defend a system which I do not even actively use. It&#39;s just not worth my time. Neither are you.

Originally posted by Sinbios Zefiris Ark@Sep 4 2004, 11:29 PM
advertisement (read: bullshitting).
You derived the "intended consumers" of the systems from this, right?

Do define once more the "intended consumers" of the PC and the Mac again, please.

Oh, and you might just want to check out the link I posted above, and perhaps post a link in response. At your convenience, of course.

it all boils down to personal preference

*eyes lock button*

i think computers should be:fast,easy to understand (user friendly) and have a lot of programs.not all producers support Mac,but the best programs certaintly do

we&#39;re being childish...this looks like a Gamecube vs. PS2 fight.Everyone has his preferences so just all calm down

Ah, who cares. Get whatever you want. If you end up regretting what you get, that&#39;ll be your problem.

Ah, who cares. Get whatever you want. If you end up regretting what you get, that&#39;ll be your problem.

that wasnt really a nice thing to say especially if i asked for your help
<_<

Originally posted by magz+Sep 7 2004, 04:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (magz @ Sep 7 2004, 04:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Advertised strongpoints? From the latest apple comercial (http://www.apple.com/imac/video/) (according to their website) I see nothing based on graphics design whatsoever. I see all-around functionality. You try tell me to backup my claims before you even state any evidence that yours are more than half-baked conclusions&#33; "Generally this generally that blah blah everyone thinks blah blah" does not count for anything. Show me some hard proof of your claims so that I don&#39;t think you are just pulling them out of thin air. If my arguments are pointless then what does that make of your arguments which stem from mere personal experience AFAIK.

Define hardcore before you even THINK of using the term "hardcore user". What qualifies you as a hardcore user? Up to what extent do you focus on functionality in order to be considered "hardcore"?
[/b]
http://www.apple.com/macosx/

keywords: "ease of use", "world&#39;s most elegant user interface".

maybe you should read the mac site before trying to tell me what apple does and does not advertise.

as for hardcore, a hardcore user is one who would sacrifice the interface for functionality. :)


Originally posted by "magz"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("magz")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Stop making me work so hard to defend a system which I do not even actively use. It&#39;s just not worth my time. Neither are you.[/b]

then stop, because you&#39;re really not doing too well in defending it. and really, don&#39;t make me start serious flaming.

<!--QuoteBegin-"Dark Bring"@
You derived the "intended consumers" of the systems from this, right?

Do define once more the "intended consumers" of the PC and the Mac again, please.

[/quote] the people who actually BELIEVE said bullshit.

<!--QuoteBegin-"Dark Bring"
Oh, and you might just want to check out the link I posted above, and perhaps post a link in response. At your convenience, of course. [/quote]

:rolleyes:

1) http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/38445/38445.html

(look&#33; benchmarks instead of theoretical calculations&#33; and adobe itself denounces macs&#33; &#092;o/)

2) http://forums.ichigos.com/index.php?showto...indpost&p=44855 (http://forums.ichigos.com/index.php?showtopic=1392&view=findpost&p=44855)

(look&#33; theoretical calculations too&#33; &#092;o/)

Originally posted by Sinbios Zefiris Ark+Sep 8 2004, 06:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sinbios Zefiris Ark @ Sep 8 2004, 06:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> http://www.apple.com/macosx/

keywords: "ease of use", "world&#39;s most elegant user interface".

maybe you should read the mac site before trying to tell me what apple does and does not advertise.

as for hardcore, a hardcore user is one who would sacrifice the interface for functionality. :)

the people who actually BELIEVE said bullshit.

<!--QuoteBegin-"Dark Bring"
Oh, and you might just want to check out the link I posted above, and perhaps post a link in response. At your convenience, of course.

:rolleyes:

1) http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/38445/38445.html

(look&#33; benchmarks instead of theoretical calculations&#33; and adobe itself denounces macs&#33; &#092;o/)

2) http://forums.ichigos.com/index.php?showto...indpost&p=44855 (http://forums.ichigos.com/index.php?showtopic=1392&view=findpost&p=44855)

(look&#33; theoretical calculations too&#33; &#092;o/) [/b][/quote]
My comment on what apple advertises was aimed at your stereotype that macs are only for artists. I never said ease of use was NOT advertised by apple.

Exactly how much does a hardcore user have to sacrifice in order to be considered hardcore?

You act as though you flaming will actually help your argument. Flames on the internet are nothing more than little tidbits of text which make certain people feel better about themselves. Created by and affecting only those who take the internet a bit too seriously.


Wow... an article from winnetmag? From March 2k3? Hmmm... Find a more recent test and maybe I&#39;ll actually believe you.

Hardcore users may not use a GUI. What am I saying? HArdcore users don&#39;t use an OS, they type and read the language of the processor B)

Originally posted by Angelic@Sep 9 2004, 08:40 AM
Hardcore users may not use a GUI. What am I saying? HArdcore users don&#39;t use an OS, they type and read the language of the processor B)
Machine language is a pain. Assembly language is even worse :(.

Machine Language:
add q[1] ACC

Assembly:
125456

Laptops eh. I suggest you get one Windows XP, since all Mac laptops don&#39;t use intel. I&#39;m not trying to be an Intel fanboy, but have you ever seen the specs for the Intel Centrino? It&#39;s the best CPU for laptops around today. Most CPUs start off as desktop oriented and are toned down for laptop power requirements. The Centrino was built from the ground up with only a Laptop in mind, therefore it will save you alot of energy (important because of crappy laptop battery life), and will give you more bang for the buck.

If you wanna be hardcore, get any laptop with Centrino, format it, and install Linux. :D

I have an AMD 64, great piece of work. Battery&#39;s dead after just two hours though, quite annoying >< Ah well, I have my AC adapter so it&#39;s okay XP

I would have gotten a Centrino if those weren&#39;t so expensive. I would have gotten a Mac but didn&#39;t for pretty much the same reason.

the Mac i want costs &#036;1999.99 i can afford that :)

Originally posted by magz@Sep 9 2004, 06:19 AM
You act as though you flaming will actually help your argument. Flames on the internet are nothing more than little tidbits of text which make certain people feel better about themselves. Created by and affecting only those who take the internet a bit too seriously.


Wow... an article from winnetmag? From March 2k3? Hmmm... Find a more recent test and maybe I&#39;ll actually believe you.
says the one who STARTS flaming. please, really. :rolleyes:

since we&#39;re arguing about "in general", and seeing that processors haven&#39;t really evolved THAT much in terms of performance since the main focus recently has been on the new gen sockets, which actually give worse performance in certain cases, a march 2k3 article is certainly more reliable than one obviously misleading and mistaken article on a poorly designed webpage by a guy who claims to be a mac consultant.

I&#39;m tired of your pointless arguing, whoever wants to get a mac gets a mac and who wants to get a PC gets a PC. Sinbios, I congraduate you on being the most annoyingly persistent person I ever seen on the net. I never saw someone be so stubborn when making a point, not even myself, and that says a lot.

I&#39;m locking this thread, I think it served its purpose more than enough.