[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino ummm, no, that doesn't surprise me. but the difference is a matter of seconds, and that surely cannot be the sole reason for choosing one system - a few seconds. even steve job's pixar uses linux machines for their animation rendering...he knows what's faster.

It's more than just benchmarking filters. It's overall speed of brush strokes with larger brushes in Painter. And in many cases it is a matter of usability. I don't like watching my brush stroke playing "catch up" with my stylus. I want real time speed, or as close to it as possible.

Quote:

i'm not saying that apple doesn't have its shortcomings...but for me and a lot of other people out there, apple machines work great. we'd rather put up with the shortcomings of apple than put up with the shortcomings of PCs. simple as that.

LOL, the best statement so far.

-Ed

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikoLayer wow, chill out there again, price/performance ratio was one of MANY things we felt lacking with apples. you make it sound like we are all broke and forced use PCs which is obviously false. on the BMW bit... not really into cars, i wouldnt have said anything if you posted something about BMWs. if you truly think apples rock, please post some more convincing reasons than [they are comparable to DELL price wise] you keep fleeing to the same obscure comments such as "they get the job done in a better way than anything else on the market". Way to look at products objectively! Could you elaborate on exactly what type of work you do and how are macs better in that regard? macs are slower, more expensive and virtually unupgradable - thats objectiveness for you. if i said they look ugly and that makes you gay then that would have been something subjective and offensive. personally i think they are neither spectarcular looking, nor ugly. i dont think anyone was getting hot tempered over this; some cynicism, maybe. we arent sueing you for chosing your beloved apples you said apples rock, and we would want to know why. who knows, there were some things we werent well informed about. well now, getting little defensive there arent you? we are cool with you using macs, not really blindly bashing them either. tell us some sound observations on macs we may have neglected if you will.

thanks for cooling this thread down a bit, MikoLayer!

 

[Edwood]

BTW, what the hell does this thread have to do with Computers as a Source? Other than the fact that the new iMac is a computer?

This thread belongs in the Members Lounge, or better yet, I think all new Mac product threads should go Outside.

-Ed

 

[MikoLayer]

Quote:

i've never thought dells were "the best"...but many people would buy a dell rather than build their own because they don't know how to build one or they'd rather not take the time to do it. that's not hard to figure out. i'd rather buy a headphone amp or have someone make me one because i don't know how to build it myself. i could learn, but i don't have the time. that's not a problem with the hardware, it's a problem with having the know-how to build one.

oh come on, you know thats apples to ornages comparison right there. last time i checked putting up a computer didnt need any comprehensive knowledge in electronics and soldering skills. just cuz people buy fords and toyotas it doesnt mean they need to buy pre-assembled lego blocks for their kids

Quote:

i think apple's bang for buck is pretty close to comparable systems you buy from most PC manufacturers

again, this problem isnt limited to apples; its more of DIY vs vendor computers as a whole.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood And in many cases it is a matter of usability. I don't like watching my brush stroke playing "catch up" with my stylus. I want real time speed, or as close to it as possible.

I am dying here myself. I must use my Mac since I need to use Mac based fonts. Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, etc. are just insane slow with window scrolling, the tools, and such. I should use a faster Mac but I just am not willing to invest in it when I use the Mac like 5% of the time. I should look into font convertors.

OSX is pretty but it is a graphical hog. I really enjoyed the speed of OS9 more. A well maintained system can last a while. Somepeople say OS9 or Win2000 or even Win98 are bad. I've had long uptimes with any of those.

WinXP's footprint is much larger than NT. I think SP2 increases it also. I havn't fooled around with turning off those extra services in SP2 on my secondary box.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood BTW, what the hell does this thread have to do with Computers as a Source? Other than the fact that the new iMac is a computer?

Like I said in my first message, the only relevent thing is that onboard sound isn't that great in general

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino p.s. i don't agree with everything 3lusiv3 said above, so don't lump me into that sort of mac zealotry...macs don't always get the job done as fast or better than other systems...in fact, there are some apps that run on PCs that i'm much rather use than their comparable apple ones. still, i enjoy the Mac user experience and most of what it has to offer...if that makes me a crazy mac zealot, then so be it.

I'm not a Mac zealot and I don't love Apple, and I don't want to get into specifics and things with other people because that wasn't the intention of this thread. Macs have there place and we use Windows when it's appropriate. Pixar recently changed to doing all their work on Macs including rendering, from what I have read.

I work in a large TV production company by the way.

 

[Alex Altorfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood Actually, there were quite a few before Apple. http://www.sun.com/960710/feature3/sketchpad.html In 1988 there was one called the "Wang Freestyle". Not very portable there either. As for handhelds, sorry, Apple was not first either. Jeff Hawkins, the creator of the original Palm Pilot, created the GriDPad Handheld. http://www.pencomputing.com/palm/Pen33/hawkins2.html Of course his next gen handheld, the "Boomer" was a total flop. Much like the Newton that followed. They were a bit ahead of their time. But it really wasn't until M$'s Tablet PC introduction was there a mass market full featured OS system. Not an overgrown PDA, or a stripped down laptop. Still, Tablet PC's have more improvements to go, but it's really fun to be able to write and truly draw on the screen. -Ed

I remember the Zoomer. It came out after the Newton and was sold at RatShack stores. It sucked badly. Actually, there was a twin-processor British device that was rushed to market a few weeks before the Newton. It was also the cheapest pen based PDA for a while. It likewise flopped. My Newton was great though. I used it everyday for three years, but I dropped it one time too many. Had to retire it given that there were no replacement parts avaliable. Steve Jobs had pulled the plug on the Newton. Bummer. I´m a devoted Palm user now.

Cheers,
Alex

 

[Alex Altorfer]

I´ve used Apple products for over twenty years and have no regrets. My first machine was an Apple II. I like the Mac interface experience and enjoy the hassle/virus free computing. Performance is not a major concern for me. Unlike most PC makers, Apple is a historically significant company. Using a Mac is like being a part of computing history. I feel that´s a good reason to choose Mac over PC. I´ll always use Apple computers.

Cheers,
Alex

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan Like I said in my first message, the only relevent thing is that onboard sound isn't that great in general

LOL, if we don't start posting about the onboard sound or possible sound upgrades with this new iMac, I vote this thread dies or goes Outside.

-Ed

 

[lan]

Apple USB and firewire compatible soundcards are like the minority of the minority. I don't think many of us have tested those things but somebody should do a test as community service

 

[Czilla9000]

Ya...I don't understand why when a Mac guy complements a Macintosh computer the PC guys take it as an attack.

Technically, what the iMac has going for it is the PowerPC G5. The processor has better floating point performance than an Intel Itanium2 (I can hear PC guys screaming "WHAT?"). That was one of the reasons Virginia Tech decided to use the processor and use Apple machines to build the world's third fastest supercomputer, at a cost of only 5 million. The Itanium2 cost $7,000 only for the processor, the entire computer (a singal node) cost about $4,000 (they were fully loaded) for the PowerMac G5s VTech used. Plus, they came with dual processors. The G5 can also execute 200+ instructions-in-flight, and is aided by a very complex three-saged branch prediction system.

http://www.apple.com/education/scien...hitecture.html

 

[Skarecrow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino you're running win2000 on a 133 pentium, but that's my point exactly-you're forced to run win2000! and we know how crappy win2000 is.

Funny you should say that. In my opinion Win2k is the best operating system Microsoft has ever released. Windows XP is really just Win2k version 1.1a. It's windows 2000 with a prettier face (one which i disable btw. I find the original "classic" interface more useable) and more bloatware. Ever notice that almost every hardware driver for windows xp is lableled windows xp/windows 2000. they are virtually the same operating system.

I run windows XP on one computer here at home, Windows 2000 on the other, and windows 2000 on my work machine. I'm very familiar with both operating systems, and win2k is still my go-to operating system for most computers.

As for OSX being more stable and more robust... well i must admit that i have zero experience with OSX other than playing around with the demo machines at compusa... but i don't see how it can do much better than the winNT kernal does when it's installed on a good machine. both of my home computers are overclocked, and ran 24/7 at 100% usage (folding@home) until very recently (too much heat in the summer in this room), and between them have 1 (one) unidenified crash in the past year. one. perhaps i'm just used to microsoft operating systems, but i have to believe that averaging 0.5 crashes per year is pretty damn good for a home system, no matter what os it runs.

 

[Skarecrow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czilla9000 Technically, what the iMac has going for it is the PowerPC G5. The processor has better floating point performance than an Intel Itanium2 (I can hear PC guys screaming "WHAT?").

RISC is good. RISC processors have traditionally had very very good floating point performance.

I am however curious to see what EPIC processors are doing in 10-15 years though. remember we're still only on the 2nd generation of EPIC processing.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czilla9000 Ya...I don't understand why when a Mac guy complements a Macintosh computer the PC guys take it as an attack. Technically, what the iMac has going for it is the PowerPC G5. The processor has better floating point performance than an Intel Itanium2 (I can hear PC guys screaming "WHAT?"). That was one of the reasons Virginia Tech decided to use the processor and use Apple machines to build the world's third fastest supercomputer, at a cost of only 5 million. The Itanium2 cost $7,000 only for the processor, the entire computer (a singal node) cost about $4,000 (they were fully loaded) for the PowerMac G5s VTech used. Plus, they came with dual processors. The G5 can also execute 200+ instructions-in-flight, and is aided by a very complex three-saged branch prediction system.

Yes, but how does it sound?

I'll bet Foobar 2000 would sound awesome on it.
Oh........ yeah......

-Ed