Really? Why is that? What are the best bits/worst bits of a mac? Sorry for all the questions but I'm THINKING about switching but have never actually used one before . So of course I need some opinions first
Tell 'em Babs is 'ere...
DaVince This fool just HAD to have a custom rating
Registered 04/09/2004
Points 7998
17th August, 2007 at 17:16:07 -
I have almost never even seen a Mac, before recently. And then I can't use it and/or experiment with it, since it's my classmate's laptop.
I do want to try out a Mac sometime. If I would buy one, I'd still install Windows and Linux on it rather than use the native OS, though.
If you've never used one before then you're a crazy sausage
Yes they look nice but I think you either hate them or love them IMO. I also think alot of people that have Macs like to keep them as fasionable items, like chihuhuas in handbags
I am a crazy sausage! Well I hear that they are good for multimedia... and although I'm pretty crappy at that right now I'd like to really get into it some time. Are they generally better when it comes to web design, graphics and videos etc?
Tell 'em Babs is 'ere...
DaVince This fool just HAD to have a custom rating
Registered 04/09/2004
Points 7998
17th August, 2007 at 17:21:31 -
Originally Posted by -Adam- If you've never used one before then you're a crazy sausage
No, you just barely see them around here. Nobody I know has a Mac (except that classmate), and I'm studying IT.
Because for £630 (edu discount) you can buy a 20¨ C2D computer with a DX10 graphics card (albeit not one of the better ones), dual layer DVD burner, BT, Wifi and all that. They use the best LCD's going too. Run the best OS (hey I use both so I can compare) and run the OS with most apps. My iMacs are the most flexible computers I've owned. Even my family use them now (video/photo/audio stuff in OSX and office stuff in XP). These days XP feels like a necessary evil, my computer only crashes in XP and Adobes programs run much faster in OSX, and all the best pro audio and video apps are in OSX (Logic, Final Cut). If only they ported over MMF!
And the boot times!
Course this is only with the desktops. Portable Macs have a tendency to be expensive, but you're paying for frankly the best case, keyboard and ultra slim form factor... well in the MBP, the MB are hideous IMO. That might be worth it for some.
Buy it through edu and I think you still get an extended 3 year warranty too. No questions asked. You can return a whole system just from 1 dead pixel (Only Apple and Dell do this, infact).
Slink- iMacs and Mac Minis are like PC laptops. They are low power, high performance (that's why they're all using C2D), only upgradeable memory and HDD. Mac Pros are completely upgradeable. They're just like a standard desktop PC, which is a bit of a lie as the higher end models are veritable home super computers (16gb RAM, 8 cores, fibre channels...).
DaVince This fool just HAD to have a custom rating
Registered 04/09/2004
Points 7998
18th August, 2007 at 05:07:47 -
Originally Posted by -Adam- Dude, I was calling Slink a sausage for considering buying one when he hasn't even tried one, did you say you were gonna buy one?
It's just that you replied after my post, which kinda showed you might have been talking to me. And having used one is a seperate matter from buying one. But whatever, lol.
I also think alot of people that have Macs like to keep them as fasionable items, like chihuhuas in handbags
Lol! I know two people in my class who use Macs, and they're both spoiled upper-middle-class brats, who bring them to school just so they can show them off to everyone. Tch.
Once software support for things I actually want to use gets better, I'll think about getting a mac. You may be able to Dual Boot, but from what I've seen, two closely configured systems, one mac and one PC, both running windows XP; the PC runs noticeably better. This could also be the crap windows driver support though.
Originally Posted by Knudde (Shab) Once software support for things I actually want to use gets better, I'll think about getting a mac. You may be able to Dual Boot, but from what I've seen, two closely configured systems, one mac and one PC, both running windows XP; the PC runs noticeably better. This could also be the crap windows driver support though.
Really? I'm running and dual booting into both and Mac programs run faster (significantly in H.264 rendering processes). Even before Photoshop wasn't an Intel binary on OSX, it was running 4% slower than XP through emulation.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look It's standard pc without viruses and prettier and twice the price.
Sorry, you're wrong. As I posted earlier you get a C2D blah blah computer with 20¨ widescreen LCD and all the bells and whistles for £630. Students on my old course bought Macs because they were cheaper. Of course the big ones are expensinve but spec for spec the Mac Pro is cheaper than Dell systems. Laptops are very pricey but their desktops aren't.
Either way, I bought a £999 PC laptop for portable video editing and graphics work. It was a bit rubbish and pushed me into buying my first mac (PowerBook), for £930 which did a much better job, was smaller and had a better battery life.
Originally Posted by Dr. James Really? I'm running and dual booting into both and Mac programs run faster (significantly in H.264 rendering processes). Even before Photoshop wasn't an Intel binary on OSX, it was running 4% slower than XP through emulation.
I was talking about running windows programs on the Mac, not Mac programs. I can count the number of Mac programs I'd actually use on 1 hand. Though I should clarify that I was referring to games mostly (One of my main uses for the comp.). Like I said though, it could just be the crappy driver support for the Mac equip on windows. (I think the test machine was using a Radeon 9800 or something, I dont have the article in front of me ATM)
I don't know how Parallels works (emu or whatever), but yea it isn't as fast as Bootcamp since you're running 2 OS's simultaneously. That said MMF2 runs fine and I can play Tormishire with effects on full and have no drop in fps. Half Life 2 ran, albeit 5-10 frames slower. Which isn't too bad considering the whole virtualisation process, but I can't see them frames increasing.
Anyroad, pros n cons and all that;
+
Super fast load times.
No whole system crashes (unless you've destroyed your system), apps can be ¨forced quit¨ which closes anything down immediately.
¨Core¨ technology for better video/audio/image manipulation. Full 64bit support, all systems and configurations supported.
Better support for USB, Firewire and multiple monitors.
Pro apps.
Cross application support
OS memory usage is very low.
-
Portable prices.
No hard eject button.
Have to eject portable drives before removal.
Yeah, I almost fell off my chair when I saw how much memory Vista was hijacking on my friends comp. 748 Megs, straight from boot, minimal programs running.
Originally Posted by Ricky Garces If you don't mind, not being able to buy every game that comes out, not getting to run .exe files etc... Macs are pretty cool
Or you could just run things natively rather than using a My First Computer that needs an arseload of duct tape to be compatible with things worth computerising.
Best system will continue to be a dual boot win/linux box. Why would you need or want a Mac for anything?
Because pro apps work better (thank god for native RAW support), the whole system works better, the whole streamlined and faster productive experience. Duct tape? If you find it hard burning a driver CD and installing Windows then you should stay away from computers.
I'm still trying to find a use for Linux, to be honest. Macs have the pro software, Linux seems too hobbyist rather than productive, barring network and hosting servers. But unlike some I'm actually not mindlessly against something for crowd following reasons.
Following 5% is a crowd? Hmm. I bought my first Mac because it was (at the time) the best laptop you could buy for £930. Bar none. First at my uni to take the plunge too after hating the things during college, a mighty big crowd follower it seems.
If you can't see how good they are then it's no worry for me.
...And what exactly are these "pro apps"? And what magical quality of Macs makes them superior in that environment to the native application of the various IBM/PC OSs used by the vast majority of the market? Where are the benchmarks supporting these assertions?
Oh wait, nevermind. I just googled it quickly and I can see why you'd be reluctant to post evidence.
Originally Posted by Dr. James If you can't see how good they are then it's no worry for me.
And yet every time we have a mac thread you foam at the mouth and spew the same bullshit.
Then we have the real world test I can run now. loading up the Tormishire map (10,000x30,000, 56 layers). Photoshop CS3 on the same spec machine - C2D 2.16ghz, 3gb RAM, X1600.
OSX uses 40% CPU (0.30% when idle), 335.7mb ram. (216mb when idle)
XP uses 50% CPU (one core perhaps? 5% when idle), 650mb ram (constant). Incidentally XP locks out the whole system whilst loading/rendering, OSX had the OS and currently loaded apps performing at full speed.
This is why I do everything but MMF2 and games in OSX.
ps. Pro apps - industry standard Logic, Final Cut Studio, Motion, Aperture, Shake, better pro format support native in OS and cross program support. Tools all pre-installed and monitors all industry level calibrated. Less crashes, bonjour networking and better workflow management= easier to hit deadlines (this is why all the studios I've worked with chose macs, them 3 reasons alone).
See this is why I never try and argue about macs, people either love them or hate them. If an argument springs up I (usually) just say that the person is missing out (unless of course they used a mac for a significant period and found it not to be for them).
Advertisement
Post Reply
. So of course I need some opinions first 
Edited by the Author.
.
