mastercheif already took care of this nonsense, but I'll reply any way
Again, Maya is available for the Mac. Same goes for open source apps like Blender. Poser is also available on the Mac. What else do you need?
Again, for what? Free utilities for system maintenance? Theres Onyx for that. It keeps my OS X boot time at around 21.5 seconds. Spyware and anti-virus? No need for those. Audio conversion or editing? Pick and choose. Video conversion? How about handbrake? ffmpegx (which is free, except for DVD shrinking tools)?
How about the equivalent to virtualdub?
For what? Video editing? I'm sorry, but Virtualdub is one of the most overrated pieces of software ever. For basic video editing and capture, iMovie HD comes with OS X and the UI is about 100x better than Virtual Dub. Converting video formats from one to another is handled very fast with decent quality by ffmpegx.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/mac http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/beta_mac
Audacity is free, open source software for recording and editing sounds. It is available for Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows, GNU/Linux, and other operating systems.
There you go.
How about programs I can use to convert video files, extract audio,
ffmpegx
Again, ffmpegx
It will convert from nearly any format to almost any format.
At least, all the formats I know of.
Final Cut Pro is inferior to Premiere pro. Mac is the one that's bloated, sluggish and fcp even fails more often than premiere. That's saying alot.
If Final Cut Pro is crashing, then you need to run Onyx on your system. But judging from your comments I believe its PEBKAC and not the Mac itself.
Oh and I would think the guys behind 300 would have a very different opinion of what the Mac is capable of when it comes to video producing/editing capabilities than you
So would quite a number of people behind Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc.
Quicktime is one of the worst containers I've ever used and I have to use that **** daily. Thankfully I can use Quicktime Alternative in the pc-world so I don't have to load up that pos player.
As mastercheif said, Quicktime isn't a container. Its a player. Quicktime uses H.264, an ISO standard. Unlike many of the alternatives out there, such as WMV.
Oh and I noticed one thing about Quicktime. Nearly all of the "problems" Quicktime (and iTunes/Safari) has under Windows are the result of not properly maintained systems. Yes, Windows requires A LOT of maintenance and Apple's Windows software assumes that the user takes care of the system. Don't take care of your system and the software won't run properly. Other issues are caused by Windows poor driver support (such as v-syncing issues outside of 3D gaming).
Photoshop cs3 doesn't run any better in this mac pro I'm writing right now than in my vista 64-bit machine.
I just want to say you got proven wrong by a very large margin there
A good prove of that is the new Safari port to windows. And ofcourse iTunes and quicktime.
Whats wrong with iTunes? And Quicktime? Explain. Oh and don't say "iTunes is bloated". You're talking to someone who has seen Windows Media Player 11 eat up more than 200 MEGABYTES (yes TWO HUNDRED) of RAM while downloading music from "Urge", while iTunes was only using around 40MB downloading video from the iTunes Store.
How about I'd like to tweak my harddrives to go down after 3 hours of idleing (instead they go every 5 minutes!)?
So its a bad thing that OS X extends the life of your hard drives?
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.p...2Bdrive%2Bidle
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.p...2Bdrive%2Bidle
How about if I'd want to disable that indexing?
What indexing? Spotlight indexing doesn't eat up your system resources and slow down your system like Windows indexing does. Don't confuse the two at all. They're similar, but Spotlight is done in a manner that actually benefits the user. Where Windows basically grinds the system to a halt while it does it. To be honest with you, I've never even noticed it running at all until I ran Onyx and had it clear the Spotlight index. Then I clicked on Spotlight after the reboot and it said "indexing computer". I left and came back a couple of minutes later and it was finished. Files generally only get indexed when they're new to the system.
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.p...tlight%2Bindex
But Spotlight is like google search for your Mac. Unlike Windows XP's pathetic search and Vista's desktop search which won't even find the file you want even if you type in the specific file name with extension.
I'd also like to monitor my cpu usage without wondering around the applications folder.
So use iStat Pro (free widget)
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashb.../istatpro.html or drag and drop Activity Monitor to your Dock.
Why is the folder navigation so horrible?
rofl how is it horrible? It's no different than Windows, seeing as how MS basically ripped the navigation structure (and even the new column views in Vista) right out of OS X. You can also change the way you navigate folders you know.
Probably because you're a new Mac fanatic and don't know anything?
I know how to spell
Judging from your comments, however, I can definitely say I know more about Windows, OS X, and other nerdy computer related material than you do.
You bought your first one just 3 months ago?
Yes. After using Windows since the old Windows 3.0 days.
I got tired of Windows constant problems and spending just as much time maintaining the OS as using it. Vista is a joke. I finally got tired of it last night and erased my boot camp partition entirely. I finally have a fully modern computer.
Macs are good for people who only care about using safari and a bit of photoshop.
As I said before, I know the people behind the film 300 would definitely disagree with you there
As well as many on LOTR, Star Wars, the early Xbox360 game developers, etc.
Macs are for people who want a computer to run like a computer in 2007 should. If you want to be stuck in 1995 with a prettier UI, then Windows is for you. But if you want a system that is stable, easy to use, more tweakable than any Windows OS ever, and a system thats generally built to last, you'll get a Mac. If you want a system that you have to maintain, one that crashes regularly (I've had Vista fully crash on my more than 6 times in one month on my new HP system, with a FRESH install of the OS, just by trying to skip chapters while playing DVDs), and an all around OS that is generally outdated and insecure, you'll get Windows.
Thank god we can also boot the mac into windows vista to run our render engine on.
Pretty funny that Macs run Windows better than dedicated Windows machines
For instance, garageband is pretty sweet for what it is, but when you get into the adobe software etc.
Adobe for music/sound editing? No thanks. Not when Protools is pretty much the defacto software for any true musician and it runs significantly better on the Mac, both on the hardware and software level. Video editing? Again, I'm sure the guys behind 300 would have a thing or two to say about how good Macs are for movies.
there is much more you can do with windows, but it takes some practice/training to get to it.
Not really. Head over to macosxhints.com and check out all you can do. OS X is far more capable, "tweakable" and customizable than Windows ever was and probably ever will be. OS X also has an equivalent, or better, piece of software for everything you can do in Windows.
Drivers, drivers, drivers, and drivers. As I said before, Linux developers have to write those drivers, reverse engineering. You didn't mention problems with the graphics card.
So why would I settle for poorly developed drivers made by somebody who had to reverse engineer the hardware when I could get a better OS with drivers written by the people who made it?
Do you know that some rendering/hinting functions are blocked due to several software patents from Apple and other companies?
"Patents" are a very poor excuse for Linux developers to fall back on. If patents caused such problems with innovation, then why aren't we all driving Fords?
Sigmatel only produces 3 HD audio chipsets, and not one of them is better than mediocre. It has to be one of them, unless you now mean to resile from the triumph of your very trivial success in showing that yours was not one lame HD audio chipset, but another lame HD audio chipset.
Again, where is your proof that the chipset is bad?
You have NOT provided any kind of proof whatsoever.
This is like arguing with a profoundly retarded child
Says the one who is flaming, but has yet to provide any proof to back up such statements. Its rather sad when people resort to flaming because they have no other way to backup their own statements or arguments.
Proceeding on the assumption that it is one of the 3 Sigmatel chipsets, whyever should I not use published specifications? I'm sure that Sigmatel is solicitous to represent the performance of its products to be as good as is possible. Your use of Creative was a particularly poorly chosen example, because I am quite happy to accept your logic and conclude that the performance of the Sigmatel chipset can only be inflated rather than understated, and can in reality only be worse than the stated figures
Again, where is your proof?
I'm waiting.
Where is it?
What? You have none?
Published specifications don't mean anything. Again, look at Creative. How was that a poor example? OH I see how it was, because it ruined your little argument. Look at other pieces of audio equipment. Headphones are a great example. Look at the published specifications of the Sony MDR-V700DJ headphones versus the Audio-Technica ATH-A500s. On paper, the V700s blow away the A500s. Yet when it comes to real audio performance, the A500s are leaps and bounds beyond the V700s.
Theres even $30 headphones out there that have better "specifications" than the A500s, etc. Yet we all know how the real world performance is.
So, yet again, where is your proof? Other than your childish flaming and "it's bad because I say it is" your claims have absolutely nothing to stand on. Especially considering the people HERE who have disagreed with you based on their own EXPERIENCE.
Certainly not for the paltry $200 or so price difference between comparable PCs and Macs. (If there is a difference at all- I read a recent comparison of the MacBook Pro with comparable PCs and the Mac came out cheaper.)
Lets not forget that the only reason PCs are cheaper would be because they come loaded with all kinds of trialware, adware, some spyware, and all around junk ware that the developers pay the OEM to load on the system for them.
And I totally agree with you. Somebody couldn't pay me to ever switch back from OS X.
If you want a $500 computer, PCs are great. But if you are willing to spend over a grand, Mac is the best bargain going.
I'd rather have a Mac mini than a $500 PC
haha. Another thing people seem to forget.... is that the TIME you spend maintaining the system ends up costing a lot more than the Mac itself ever would. My time is far more valuable than the small price difference between a PC and Mac.
It was just the first pcmcia soundcard that came to mind. I know it does spdif out though.
And its not bit-perfect. There are also, literally, hundreds of posts in this forum blasting the quality of the Audigy line.
You want proof that the sigmatel chipset in my laptop is bad? It sounds worse in vista than the av710 sounds in linux, happy?
But you have a Dell
Saying Dell is "quality" is no different than saying McDonalds serves quality food!
m talking about my $1500 Inspiron 9300 "Multimedia Powerhouse".
Which ran Windows XP MCE 2005 out of the box.. an OS known for its terrible resampling.
already said that it uses an older generation of a sigmatel driver, but I seriously doubt that they managed to improve it much in the few months between when I bought my laptop and when the new models came out.
Again, it's not just the driver but the components and Windows/Linux. Windows has awful resampling. I mean, its literally a world of difference switching between OS X and Windows XP/Vista on my MacBook and listening to music. I listened to a lot of music on both over the last few months before deleting my Vista partition lastnight. The difference between the two is honestly as dramatic as the difference between cable TV and digital satellite. Night and day difference. If someone has only listened to the chipset with Windows or Linux then I can definitely understand why they would say its bad.
However, I am not saying it is high end or up to the same level as say.. a Revolution or E-mu 0404. But it is NOWHERE near as bad as the anti-Apple sheep are making it out to be.
Plus, the fact that its bit-perfect means that you can simply run the optical cable out to a receiver or DAC without having to purchase any kind of extra equipment or spend hours configuring software to get "decent" sound. It simply sounds great out of the box. An upgrade is OPTIONAL, unlike PCs where it is a necessity.
OK, so I guess HP does use conexant. Who cares? I wasnt even sure of it when I posted and ive never listened to the hp out of an hp anyway.
Just another example of you being wrong
And I have heard multiple HP computers. All sounded very different using the same exact chipset because of the different components in-between the chip and the headphone jack.
From the reviews ive read, all have said that the AV710 sounds only slightly worse than the m-audio 7.1. Im not really seeing your point. I guess now you are going to tell me that Bose sounds good too because it is expensive.
No, I would expect that comment from you.. seeing as how you've got a card that is utterly worthless under Linux playing FLAC files.. your setup would honestly sound only slightly better than some Via integrated chipset playing high bitrate MP3s. The AV-710 sounds only "slightly worse" than the Revolution 7.1 if its properly configured. Using the standard speaker/headphone out on the AV-710 produces some pretty bad $25 soundcard results.
I dont know where you get off insulting my 9600xt.
Because ATI's drivers are the worst?
It can run Half Life 2 at 1280x1024 with near max settings. It runs circles around the integrated video in the macbook and really isnt too far behind the 8600 mobile chip.
Too bad it can't help make Half-Life 2 a good game
Yes I have played HL2 and I have an original Half-Life CD from way back in the day. Anyway, if I want to play games, I'll buy an Xbox360 or PS3. PC gaming died a LOONG time ago (well, for anyone who got tired of FPS after FPS) and all of the "good" games are on the Xbox.
Oh and the 9600xt is O L D. If I wanted to play one of the hundreds of FPS clones available for the PC, I certainly wouldn't be using a GPU that was considered a "mid-range card" half a decade ago. I certainly wouldn't be using a card that was based on technology used in the GameCube either.
. It is the same card that is found in the midrange imacs. The X1600 is just a pci-express and slightly overclocked version of the 9600xt. So thank you for agreeing with me that the imac uses extremely outdated components.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R520 Facts say otherwise pal. You're confusing the X600 with the X1600. While the X1600 was designed to replace the X600, the performance is definitely better and it's not based on 2002 technology. Meaning it actually supports DirectX 9c and OpenGL 2.0 fully.
But none of that matters anyway, because my 17" 1920x1200 laptop has a 7800gtx overclocked to faster than desktop speeds.
But none of that matters anyway because PC games are DEAD and the good ones are all on the Xbox360 and PS3. Not to mention they'll look and play better on a nice 37"+ HDTV versus a tiny 17" screen
Just FYI, my 18 month old $1500 laptop can beat the pants off of a $2500 brand new macbook pro in gaming. Before you start talking about how well Photoshop runs on a macbook, remember I said gaming.
But, according to Dell's own specifications according to their site, the card in your system is still a MOBILE CARD. So while it may be "running faster", it does NOT beat the desktop card. With that said, the $2500 MacBook Pro has a 256MB GeForce 8600M GT. It is a DirectX 10 (yes TEN) card. There aren't too many REAL WORLD benchmarks available for the card yet (3DMark doesn't count because it doesn't even use a real game engine any more, and even when it did, you could get vastly different results just by running the benchmark twice in a row). However, the current performance puts it at the same level as your precious 7800. Lets keep one thing in mind, shall we? The GeForce3 initially didn't run any better than a GeForce2 Ultra. But as time went on and drivers improved, the GeForce3 basically left the GeForce2 in the dust. Especially as games started to use DirectX 8. And seeing as how the 8600M is a DX10 card and the 7800 is NOT, you can expect the MacBook Pro's performance to only get better with time.
Even with that in mind, lets say the 7800 was significantly better. Your system is still running a single core Pentium M (up to 2GHz) according to Dell's site. The $2500 MacBook Pro runs a Santa Rosa chipset with a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. Literally speaking, the CPU and chipset (not GPU) in the MacBook Pro literally slaughters the Pentium M in your system. Infact, the Core 2 Duo 2GHz in my MacBook would eat that Pentium M for lunch and still be asking for more. So even if the 7800GTX was that much more powerful, the processor in your system would be bottlenecking it to no end. On the other hand, the 8600M GT in the MacBook Pro is the bottleneck! However, because of your system's CPU bottleneck, the MacBook Pro will perform your system significantly when it comes to gaming. And when it comes to CPU intensive tasks like video encoding? Forget it. You're better off comparing your system to Semprons and old single core AMD Turions. You do know that the Pentium M is based off of Pentium 3 technology, right? Its basically a highly clocked P3 with SSE2 and a P4 speed FSB.
The MacBook Pro can also handle up to 4GB of RAM, while you're stuck with 2GB.
Honestly, your "multimedia powerhouse" has nothing on the MacBook Pro at all, and only a better GPU than my MacBook. But when it comes to real tasks, such as video encoding or battery life, the standard MacBook kills your system and the MacBook Pro is in a league beyond your system.
errr... OK. Im not sure nvidia was even making video cards back in 98. Didnt the Geforce 2 come out in 1999 or 2000?
Seriously, if you're going to try to talk smack and try to act like you know what you're talking about, at least know your facts. Nvidia's first add-in card was made in 1995. In 1998 I had a "RivaTNT" and was playing Unreal in OpenGL at 1024x768 and pushing around 30fps.
You may have noticed that dell is selling laptops preinstalled with Ubuntu. They all use the latest generation of intel products(not santa rosa yet though) and they work perfectly well out of the box. You dont get Broadcom cards when you use linux the same way you dont get a Dell when you use OSX.
I'm sorry but this is 2007. I shouldn't have to pick and choose hardware based around whether or not my OS will support it. Hardware simply works in OS X and Windows.
itunes is horrible. I remember using the first version ported to windows(4.0, i believe, might have been 4.3) and it was pretty nice.
Here we go with the BS again. iTunes 4.2 was the first release for Windows. EVERYONE knocked on it because it was so buggy, incredibly slow, and was basically a beta release.
More proof that you have not used what you claim to have used.
I downloaded the latest version yesterday and it was bloated garbage.
How is it "bloated"?
As for RAM usage, it uses less than WMP10 or 11 based on my own experience. Significantly less when downloading music. As I said earlier in my post, I've seen WMP11 bloat up to more than 200MB of RAM usage while downloading music. The most I've seen iTunes go up to is about 80MB while using Coverflow. It also hovers around the same amount as Winamp. I can't comment on Foobar because I don't remember how much it used.
CPU usage is the same as all other media players.
I also downloaded Safari, which was buggy as all hell, and the interface was a complete pain in the ass. Not to mention the MASSIVE amount of ram it uses.
Better check your Windows installation then
For me, FF2, Safari, and IE7 all used around 50MB of RAM while browsing with 2 tabs open. Browsing sites like Fark, digg, cnn, etc.
It was also perfectly stable.
Oh, and whats wrong with the UI? How is it a "pain in the ass". Give a real example please, because everything is setup very similar to IE and FF.
As for your ubuntu experience, what were you booting it on? The HP or the macbook?
MacBook, HP (even went so far as to spend all the time in the command-line getting drivers up and running), as well as my previous desktop (ATI Radeon 9550, Athlon XP2800+, 512MB of RAM, etc). I've booted it on a few system. Oh I also booted it on the HP dv6000t I have now. On top of that I installed Mandrake, in the past when it was Mandrake, on a system with an Intel i810 chipset and Celeron Coppermine 1.1GHz and only 256MB of RAM.
And I find it hillarious that you think that linux isnt gigabit capable.
Learn to read. I never said that. I said the driver for the gigabit card in my MacBook wasn't gigabit capable.
Keyboard/trackpad support was flaky? In Ubuntu I can use the touch pad, right click, middle click, left click and scroll all out of the box. In vista the touchpad is useless without installing drivers for it. As for the keyboard, im pretty sure you are talking out of your ass if you are claiming that the keyboard didnt work.
Again, learn to read. I never said it didn't work. I said it was flaky. For some reason in Ubuntu I have to disconnect and reconnect my USB dongle for my keyboard and mouse every time I boot into it.
Secondly, keyboard strokes are either too sensitive or not sensitive enough.
Same goes for the trackpad. On the HP systems it was very sensitive. I would be just be moving my finger on the trackpad, not lifting it up or applying more pressure, and it would register double clicks. You know how many times it caused me to open files, etc. that I didn't want to? Very annoying.
.