NEW PICS OUT TODAY

Perhaps that Photoshop is one of the better graphics editing apps for the Mac? They didnt have the same range of available programs as the PC
 
Perhaps bcase PS is the only one I have 4 Mac. I also havea 1.5GHZ P4 dwnstairs with Photoshop 5.5 on it.
 
as it happens im testing photoshop elements 6.0 for adobe at my office. in some european languages. oh, and i hate the mac so much. all i can do is cut cds on it.
 
I, I am gonna forget you said that. If it wasnt for the mac, you wouldnt have a PC, oh also, the AA TFC Guild, they work with graphics, They agree that Macs are the best Graphics editing computers.
 
*dreddnott lowers himself to replying to the thing known as Antman*

"If it wasnt for the mac, you wouldnt have a PC"

This statement is loaded with ignorance: the IBM PC was released in 1982, and very shortly afterwards came the Apple Lisa: a clunker that directly ripped off Xerox's GUI innovation. It would be more accurate, and far more damning, to state that if it wasn't for the Macintosh, I wouldn't have Windows. Instead, I'd probably be running some Quasi-OS/2 beast that is ten times more stable and far more useful.

You own a Mac and a P4...the two computers that do the exact opposite thing to achieve the exact same results: utter mediocrity (I'll get to Photoshop and Quake III later).
The Pentium 4 tops out at 1.5GHz, and I believe the G4 can hit 733MHz now, correct? The G4, with its incredible RISC and Altivec capability, and the P4, with its incredible 1.5GHz clock and 3GHz ALU, end up performing about the same. Another way to put it, in the context of the AMD Athlon, is that the G4's shitty ramping, the P4's shitty instructions-per-clock efficiency, and BOTH chips' excessive need for optimization put them both behind the AMD chip.
Photoshop was originally a Mac application, and Adobe, as usual, goofed on the x86 port, giving Mac fanatics a crude rationalization for clinging to their incompatible beasts. As for Quake III, which the G4 don't do so well at, the reason for the Pentium 4's high scores mostly have to do with the partially commendable, partially diabolical pairing of its 400MHz memory bus with PC800 RAMBUS memory - giving it the bandwidth Q3A is so desperate for (at least as long as you care about frames per second 10% greater than the 1.2GHz Athlon's 200FPS or so - compare that with your refresh rate). The Pentium 4 does quite miserably even in comparison to the 1GHz PIII in virtually every other test performed - and the cost of both G4 and P4 is far too much for the possible advantages in single applications. Go get a nice cheap 1.2GHz Athlon, overclock it to a couple GHz (with a 175MHz DDR bus - it has been done), and laugh maniacally as you realize you've been duped by the whole manic CPU war that keeps dumping out faster chips that really are no better for everyday usage. Usage...Usagi...chan! san! sama!

The lesson in this? If your CPU was fabbed in the second half of the year 2000, don't bother upgrading it for a long time.
 
And on top of everything that dredd said not one single mac I have ever used has had a right mouse button!! I mean seriously, how can you use a computer without a right mouse button? Talk about awkward!!

:p
 
I think it has something to do with the fact that the Macintosh Operating System, up to version 9.whatever, is a non-multitasking operating system. One button, one task...keeps it simple. ;-)
 
Wow, what are you on? non-multi-tasking? MacOS has been multi-tasking since much longer back than V9

TC
 
Macs have a Star Menu (Apple Menu), Plug And Play, multitasking, integrated sound card and mouse since 1987. Each of them even had SCSI bilt in for peripherals access... witch mean you could plug a hard drive on the back of your computer, if you liked.

Mouse were sold as an option on PC systems untils Windows 95 got out. (I still remember the seller asking "Do you whant a mouse with it ?") When I bought my fist sound card for my 80386 PC in 1991 to play WC2, people were laughing at me. "A sound card, what for ? That's only a gadget, there's already sound in your PC !" (speaking of the PC speaker) DOS wasn't multi-tasking, got to wait for Windows 95. DOS wasn't plug and play, neither was Windows 95 (to my opinion).

You've got to admit, Win95 was only a imitation of MacOS for PC. Icons, point and click, desktop, Start Menu, Config Panel, etc. etc. etc.

Hey, my computer's a PC, but I can't help it but admit that Macs are superior. Too bad I can't afford one.
 
Ho, and by the way, even though the standard mouse shipped with a Mac only have one button, you can use mouses with has many buttons has you like on a mac too. Context menu on right-click ? Yes. Mousewheel ? Yes. Programable buttons like forward and back ? Yes. No problemo.
 
You can quote me as saying earlier in the thread that "if it weren't for Macintoshes, we wouldn't have Windows".

Microsoft Windows was originally a licensed and heavily modified version of MacOS (see Apple's lawsuit to stop Microsoft from using that license on later versions of Windows). As much as I loathe and despise Windows, I will say that Microsoft managed to improve on the original. :)

As for multitasking...MacOS uses a variety known as "cooperative multitasking" - which means the foreground application will eat up as much as it chooses before giving control back to the system (interesting to note that the Lisa had preemptive multitasking - the style used in advanced operating systems like OS/2, Linux, even Win95 and NT).
In preemptive multitasking, the system will control processor time and increase (and hopefully decrease) memory usage based on the application's needs (and occasionally user-set priority), which gives a superior simulation of true multitasking, and can actually get things done in the background while you're doing CPU-intensive stuff in the foreground. Also, programs do not run out of memory until your computer does. I say simulation because obviously the CPU can only squeeze out one instruction at a time, which means only one thread at a time. Preemptive multitasking is simply a better way to deal with the unfortunate single-threaded situation (I wouldn't mind two Athlons for my next system, a video renderer for college).

Steve Jobs knows the minds of his users (99% of them) - he made that new mouse have one button that takes up the entire surface of the mouse on purpose - so as not to confuse his victims... ;-)
 
Back
Top