Uhoh, the mod squad is after me. You suggest I think before trying to prove that a crappy OS is a good one? Ok, let's hear your arguement for Windows? Especially on a Graphics based forum, this should be good, since you know, Windows is renowned for it's graphic program handling skills. [/b][/quote] more like the good friend squad
Getting a Macbook is not a good idea for financial reasons, you can get a Windows laptop with the same specs (Intel C2D, Intel GMA 950) for less than $450. As for the OS... I feel that mac users should be insulted at the fact that Apple doesn't think they can use more than one mouse button when high end mice have 7+.
hm .. well my Mac Þro works like a beast in photoshop and other multimedia encoding - Currently waiting for the new OSX Mac Leopard to get released so i can slap that on - At the moment its on C2D E6600 2.5GHz , 3GB DDR2 , 200GB SATA , 6600GT - Planning on upgrading it to 4GB Memory , 750GB HDD & probably a better GFX Card than this one since the MacPr0 has ample amounts of space for 3x8800 to be hooked up in there I have read articles about them .. they seem stable and the overall performance of the mac is decent and can run Windows XP and/or OS X (and potentially Linux) using bootcamp but that isnt ready for the masses And no i didnt spend £2000 on my Mac Þro i got it for free as a present Anyone would take it if what you get is free Freebies ftw !!
Accute observation, however note that he never talked about using his Macbook in line with a server / network, did he? Multitasking IS a big F--- wow little guy, what can you do on a computer if you can only run a few programs? Crashing is not related to anything at the firmware level. Trying to show off your vocabulary? If crashing doesn't have anything to do with hardware, why do slow computers crash when you try running a lot of high end programs, and computers with a lot of RAM and big processors run it smoothly? This wasn't supposed to be an arguement, but keep the nonsense coming. zzz [/b][/quote] server performance and end user performance tend to overlap, though admittedly on the server side of things, there is an increased dependency on the system bus and hardrive/SSD performance. You stated OSX is a high performer. It isn't. It does have what would probably be the best GUI in the industry. Seriously, OSX is designed as if it were to be used by idiots. For a lot of people that's a VERY good thing. For others it sucks as advanced users will end up spending a lot of time under terminal. If you're low on RAM, data is swapped to disc. That shouldn't cause an OS or other apps to crash as much of the data transfer is indeed directed at the firmware level and largely independent of the operating system. and multitasking is a "big wow" as any moderating system can do it reasonably well. From winblows, to linux, to BSD, to solaris, to Darwin multitasking isn't too much of a feature anymore so much as it is a defacto standard. It was a huge feature 10-20 years ago when it just began to emerge. theyn slow down because data is paged to the harddrive(or other form of non-volatile storage) as opposed to the main system memory, and in typical scenarios accessing data from a hardrive takes thousands of times longer than form the RAM. Typical access time on a harddrive is 11ms. on a system with RAM it can be as low as 2ns, this is true of any operating system. Running slowly is not the same thing as crashing. and for the record I'm not after you. If you angered another mod for some reason I have nothing against that. on another note, for non-demanding tasks the bottleneck is the end user, not the operating system. your essay will be finished just as quickly under windoze as under OSX or gentoo. Same goes for most things categorized as "general use" In the end whatever makes you happy is how you should go. For me, I use 5 versions of windows and a few versions of linux and that works for me. To each their own. and I'll be blunt the two companies I hate most are M$ and apple. M$ for it's monopolization of the industry, and apple for it's horrendous marketing and gimmicks. Both companies have held back the software industry greatly. They probably cost us around 20 years because of their anti-competitive tactics. [/b][/quote] +respect Xlink couldn't have said it better myself, basically i c mac as bsd with a crappy gui chucked on top and most of bsds best features removed... cant say much better for windows as Xlink has stated, nor will i preach open source and the linux alternative to the masses. however i have used macs, and IMO they are not what they are made out to be... for instance, im always hearing about the fact that mac is impervious to viruses? like wtf? mac IS bsd, the kernel that the mac os has run on since the move to osx is bsd, hence anything that affects bsd will have an equal impact on macs..there is viruses for all oses inculding bsd (hence mac) the other thing that annoys me about the mac fanboys is the macs perform better in multimedia tasks, this argument is no longer viable with the transition to x86 as they are now essentially running the same hardware, yet they stil keep saying the the difference is huge and pcs are vastly inferior, the ONLY thing that gave mac a competitive edge in the multimedia market is the ppc architecture which was a better and more stable design than most x86 and x64 based processors... anyways i could go on but i think ive said enough and don't want to offend any mac activists...
