Which do you think is better? Pcs or Macs... Each have there advantages and disavantages.

List what you like and dislike about them after voting.

I have never worked on Mac.

I work on them at school but there crappy 2 year old ones. What I have seen there not that good

Macs :D

It's nice to use photoshop and be able to open the terminal and ssh to our server and control it without having to switch to another unix box :)

Great gui, plenty of apps, unix based but the machines are expensive. I bought mine second hand but plan to buy a new one when i can afford to.

I used windows from win3.1 to xp, linux and freebsd. I could go on for days about the pros and cons of each (i'm no expert with linux or freebsd mind you) but overall, the new mac os (10.1, yet to try 10.2) is the best operating system i ever used.

I can not stand the lack of choices with a Mac and its closed, proprietary architexture.

Thats what i thought at first too, the base of the OS is open source, it's developer tools are free and the api's are open as well. I suspect things are going to change on the hardware front soon too and it will be for the better :) We'll see soon.

The new iMac seems pretty nice actually. Too bad my folks won't buy one for me. (and even if they did want to buy me another computer, they'd probably buy me a PC :()

macs are for computer noobs. Just my opinion :D

Macs aren’t real computers:D ;)

Hm, do you use a mouse? What about an operating system with any sort of window like interface? Do you know where the ideas came from? Think different.

I suggest trying OSX, if you think macs are for "noobs", feel free to dive in to the terminal. It is a unix operating system afer all and i'm sure you know unix was not made for "noobs". (although it is now usable by "noobs")

I don't bash a product until i try it because i know how it looks to people who know better.

Sorry if it that sounds mean but i suggest that you try it to see what you think and then comment. I too was a wintel "noob" for many years until i found OSX.

This pretty much sums up my opinion ;)

http://www.raytracer25.btinternet.co.uk/iToilet/itoilet.html

That is a funny parody voxtreme-matt.

Has anyone here used osx?

Originally posted by DayGlo
Hm, do you use a mouse? What about an operating system with any sort of window like interface? Do you know where the ideas came from? Think different.

I suggest trying OSX, if you think macs are for "noobs", feel free to dive in to the terminal. It is a unix operating system afer all and i'm sure you know unix was not made for "noobs". (although it is now usable by "noobs")

I don't bash a product until i try it because i know how it looks to people who know better.

Sorry if it that sounds mean but i suggest that you try it to see what you think and then comment. I too was a wintel "noob" for many years until i found OSX.

Can you use a Mac withous OSX? How many OS'es are there for Mac in comprison to teh 290+ of PCs? Can I go to microcenter and pick up a Mac mobo, case, CPU and video card and build one? How does it hold up as a server compared to 4-way Intel Compatible?

Nope, I haven't used it - I didn't vote in the thread for that very reason, I haven't used a Mac for a long time... just though I'd add a little entertainment

Acronym BOY, good questions :)

There are many os's you can use including all the mac os's, most bsds and linux distros, most windows versions, yes windows, but who cares when you have everything you need in 1 OS.

The machines use RISC architecture and PowerPC processors so you don't have much choice right now for boards but you can use any hard drive, ram, and there are many video cards to choose from. I built and rebuilt alot of pc's and would rather have a machine that just works.

As for holding up as a server, read a little bit about the xserve, there are plenty of bench marks all over the web, one can be found at

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/18421.html
It is titled "Apple Xserve Benchmarks Toast Dell in New Test"

Anyway, i have some work to do, i suggest you guys/gals read up on apple with an open mind, you might be suprised with what you find. http://www.apple.com/powermac/ might be a good start.

Have a nice day!
:beer:

Right on voxtreme-matt :)

Ack, i have to get to work but here is an interesting link.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

bye!

Macs kill PCs.

OS X will run for months if you don't have to install any system updates.
My XP machine crashes every few days.

I can use my Mac out of the box to test webpages using Apache which is preinstalled.

I can ssh into a remote server out of the box.

I can ssh into my Mac out of the box.

I can ftp into my Mac out of the box.

My Mac is silent compared to my PC.

Awesome Aqua GUI that pales compared to XP's colours slapped onto what is basically W2K.

Macs always work when you want them to.

The only way to fix Windows is format C:

Originally posted by mind21_98
The new iMac seems pretty nice actually. Too bad my folks won't buy one for me. (and even if they did want to buy me another computer, they'd probably buy me a PC :()

Thats because macs are so expensive. You have to cut you give a leg and half of an arm. :p

Originally posted by devon
The only way to fix Windows is format C:

Thats called PEBCAK.

Originally posted by devon
Macs always work when you want them to.

So do PCs. 96% of the world (according to google stats) use PCs and they seem to do just fine.

PEBCAK again.

Originally posted by devon
OS X will run for months if you don't have to install any system updates.

What is the $129 Jaguar? Not only did you need an update, but you were charged $129 for it.

Seocndly, linux is free. You seem to confuse PC with windows.

Originally posted by devon
My XP machine crashes every few days.

Mine hasnt. PEBCAK as well as confusing PC with windows.

Originally posted by devon
I can use my Mac out of the box to test webpages using Apache which is preinstalled.

Yes, becuase MS is not allowed to bundle software because they have 91% of the home user market.

Not to mention linux can and does do this as well. And you have yet agian confused PC with Windows.

Originally posted by devon
I can ssh into a remote server out of the box.

See above.

Originally posted by devon
I can ssh into my Mac out of the box.

See above.

Originally posted by devon
I can ftp into my Mac out of the box.

See above.

Originally posted by devon
My Mac is silent compared to my PC.

Buy a dell or water cool. Both can be done for teh same price or less than your Mac.

Originally posted by devon
Awesome Aqua GUI that pales compared to XP's colours slapped onto what is basically W2K.

You can change the colors, but thats PEBCAK and you yet again somehow confused PC with Mac

Originally posted by Acronym BOY
How does it hold up as a server compared to 4-way Intel Compatible?
The Mac xserve works quite well thank you.
Originally posted by templates911
Thats because macs are so expensive. You have to cut you give a leg and half of an arm. :p
Not really. An eMac, for example, will work just as well as a similarly priced Win PC (better IMHO).

ABoy, I don't understand you and "confusing PC with windows." You seemed to be confused. While you are technically correct (a PC doesn't equal Windows; for example a Mac is a PC) I'm pretty sure that the originally poster ment Win PCs vs. Macs.


Now, onto my opinion. It really depends on what you're doing. For boring, maundane tasks Win PCs work great! For creative projects Macs are clearly the best. I primarly use a PC (I'm on it right now) but when I do graphics work, I switch over to a Mac.

Why must we continue to have this debate? Play around with both types of computers and find the one that works best for you. It's an individual choice, not a group one.

Wow, how elite, "PEBCAK".

For people with better things to do then keep up with the latest jargon, it stands for "problem exists between chair and keyboard", i just looked it up at google.

"What is the $129 Jaguar? Not only did you need an update, but you were charged $129 for it."

You do not need the update. It ads many new features and enhancments to the operating system. I am happy without it (10.1.5) but can't wait till my local dealer has it in stock so i can purchase a copy.

You mentioned running xp, was your update free? pirated? or did you pay for it with the cost of your computer?

Anyway, it is very clear who has "PEBCAK".
:laugh:

Originally posted by Acronym BOY


Thats called PEBCAK.


Riiiiggghhhht.. And that's called arrogance.


So do PCs. 96% of the world (according to google stats) use PCs and they seem to do just fine.

PEBCAK again.


So. That makes them better? Arrogance again.


What is the $129 Jaguar? Not only did you need an update, but you were charged $129 for it.

Your point? It was well worth the money.


Seocndly, linux is free. You seem to confuse PC with windows.

Good for linux. Go ask the general public what a PC is. Most people will say it runs Windoze.



Mine hasnt. PEBCAK as well as confusing PC with windows.

Lucky you. 99% of PCs come with Windoze.


Yes, becuase MS is not allowed to bundle software because they have 91% of the home user market.

Microsoft would rather charge for their products, not give them away.



Buy a dell or water cool. Both can be done for teh same price or less than your Mac.

And how many Dell's come with linux? Why would I want to carry around a tank of water and a heat exchanger with my computer.


You can change the colors, but thats PEBCAK and you yet again somehow confused PC with Mac

I would never confuse PCs with Macs.

Originally posted by DayGlo

Anyway, it is very clear who has "PEBCAK".
:laugh:

Very clear indeed. :stickout :stickout

*eats his popcorn*

I love flame wars. :cool:

hehe, i usually try to stay away from potential flame wars, i don't know what came over me.

Time to back off now.

*opens a beer*
:beer:

Originally posted by devon
Riiiiggghhhht.. And that's called arrogance.

Not my fault you cant use PCs without crashing them.

Originally posted by devon
So. That makes them better? Arrogance again.

No, thats showing you 96% of the world that hits google, a very popular website, must be doing fine in using PCs over Macs.

Originally posted by devon
Your point? It was well worth the money.

My point is that you said:

OS X will run for months if you don't have to install any system updates.

OSX did have an update, and a hundred dollar one at that, SPs are free for PC users who choose windows, and of course linux itself is free as well. And both can, have and will run for months.

Originally posted by devon
Good for linux. Go ask the general public what a PC is. Most people will say it runs Windoze.

Because the general public is uneducated, thats your excuse as well?

Originally posted by devon
Lucky you. 99% of PCs come with Windoze.

And? Windows != PC

Is it difficult to understand?

Originally posted by devon
Microsoft would rather charge for their products, not give them away.

Considering it is more expensive to buy a Mac than a PC, that arguemnt isnt well founded. In addition to the fact that PC != Windows. Just becuase the general public doesnt have a clue doesnt mean it does. Just like AOL ! = the internet.

Originally posted by devon
And how many Dell's come with linux?

Why does it have to come with the OS? You can buy the Dell, choose not to agree to the EULA and go toss on a BSD iso. Is that hard to do? No.

Originally posted by devon
Why would I want to carry around a tank of water and a heat exchanger with my computer.

Because it will be quieter than a Mac. The new Gateway (which targets Macs) even has a peltier in there. No to mention that Mac processing power has been lagging terribly.

Originally posted by devon
I would never confuse PCs with Macs.

I stand corrected. You have confused PCs with windows.

But there is more....

Remember this?

This board has been shutdown for 24 hours in protest of how negative the Mac community has been and continues to be over all the great products Apple releases for us. They may not be all we ever dreamed of, but when last I checked we still don't have cars that fly and rocket packs to blast off with for short Sunday afternoon flights. Sometimes dreams are not reality and that is okay.

That sounds wonderful.

Maybe than they can catch up because we know that they dont stand a chance when benchmarked agaisnt other computers (and yes these benchmarks arent even in games, becuase we know Macs arent meant for gaming, they are meant for graphics work and video editing):

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm


And here is old news, Apple itself may change platforums by putting Intel inside. http://www.forbes.com/2002/08/09/0809apple.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=

Maybe than Macs can catch up, by ditching Motorola and playing catch up to the other 96%.

Does anyone else use all of the above? I'm typing this on my iBook, running os X 10.1.5. I have two more machines at my desk, one running Win2K and the other running Redhat 7.3. I'm at home right now. I have a laptop with Win2k and a desktop with NT4 in the office.

Any of the machines that I use can fulfill most of my computing needs. I like Win2k at home for gaming. I like Redhat for messing around and screwing things up. I like OS X because I can mess around and not really screw things up.

I had some problems with my mouse under Redhat 7.3 today. An hour and two hand-edited config files later and things are working fine. Sort of fun to tinker with, but not something that I have to put up with on my other system. For downsides to the others, screen redraws, and hence perceived responsiveness, are too slow on my iBook. As for Windows, it has a crappy command line, and since I do all my real work in a shell that's a major downside.

So really I don't have much of an opinion. I use and like alll three, and if OS X were snappier it might find itself in the lead. It's worth noting that 10.2 running on the latest and greatest from Apple might do just that, but as others have mentioned, Apple hardware is expensive and this iBook isn't even 6 months old (and it can't make use of Quartz Extreme in 10.2).

joe

Yes, any of the above does work for me. I have my servers run BSD (one is a redhat, its ensim I wanted to play with that), my desktop runs 2k, my secondary home use one runs BSD, and my laptop is a Mac running yellow dog linux.

But I much prefer PCs for a large number of reasons.

Beautiful Aqua GUI, Photoshop, Gnome. What more could you want?

Originally posted by Acronym BOY


Not my fault you cant use PCs without crashing them.


Seems you are confusing PCs with Windows here.

It's not my fault Windows can't surf the net without freezing.


No, thats showing you 96% of the world that hits google, a very popular website, must be doing fine in using PCs over Macs.


They may be doing fine, but I prefer to be doing better and with less hassle.


My point is that you said:

OS X will run for months if you don't have to install any system updates.

OSX did have an update, and a hundred dollar one at that, SPs are free for PC users who choose windows, and of course linux itself is free as well. And both can, have and will run for months.


I didn't say that there weren't any updates. If left running without any system updates, OS X would run for a year if not more.

Jaguar was not comparible to a service pack. It's comparible with upgrading from Win2k to XP. Was that free? No.


Is it difficult to understand?

I never said I think that PC = Windoze. You pulled that out of thin air.



Because it will be quieter than a Mac. The new Gateway (which targets Macs) even has a peltier in there. No to mention that Mac processing power has been lagging terribly.

Peltiers are not new. Macs used to have them years ago.

Mac processors are at the mercey of Motorola. That's something that Apple is working at.


This board has been shutdown for 24 hours in protest of how negative ...

That sounds wonderful.



The admin of macosx.com decided to close his message board for a day. I don't see the relevance.

posted by AcronymBOY:
Not my fault you cant use PCs without crashing them

posted by devon:
Seems you are confusing PCs with Windows here.

It's not my fault Windows can't surf the net without freezing.

No, I can surf the net without freezing, on Windows as well as BSD as well as RedHat. All on x86 acrchitexture.

posted by AcronymBOY:
No, thats showing you 96% of the world that hits google, a very popular website, must be doing fine in using PCs over Macs.

posted by devon:
They may be doing fine, but I prefer to be doing better and with less hassle.

Better? Does that mean paying $3000 for a Mac that is just as fast as a $1000 home built PC or a $2000 OEM?

And dont forget the lovely iMac web surfing problem when those first came out.

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002apr/bma20020422011306.htm

If twice as long is better, I dont want it.

And as for less hassel, does that mean you endorse the "complete widget" model? Have fun with that.

posted by AcronymBOY:
My point is that you said:

OS X will run for months if you don't have to install any system updates.

OSX did have an update, and a hundred dollar one at that, SPs are free for PC users who choose windows, and of course linux itself is free as well. And both can, have and will run for months.

posted by devon:
I didn't say that there weren't any updates. If left running without any system updates, OS X would run for a year if not more.

Jaguar was not comparible to a service pack. It's comparible with upgrading from Win2k to XP. Was that free? No.

PC have been known to run for a year or more too.

And if Jaguar wasnt a service pack why not integer++?

posted by AcronymBOY:
Is it difficult to understand?

posted by devon:
I never said I think that PC = Windoze. You pulled that out of thin air.

No, you were the first who made mention of windows in making this post:

My XP machine crashes every few days.

As well as:

Awesome Aqua GUI that pales compared to XP's colours slapped onto what is basically W2K.

And also:

The only way to fix Windows is format C:

It seems YOU are the one who brought up Microsoft. The poll was PC vs Mac, not Windows vs Mac. YOU brought it up and pulled it out of the air. Not me. Pay attention a little more.

posted by AcronymBOY:
Because it will be quieter than a Mac. The new Gateway (which targets Macs) even has a peltier in there. No to mention that Mac processing power has been lagging terribly.

posted by devon:
Peltiers are not new. Macs used to have them years ago.

Mac processors are at the mercey of Motorola. That's something that Apple is working at.

No kidding they arent new.

Now about them getting rid of Motola and switching to X86, that wouldnt be the platform also known as IBM PC Compatible, would it be?

So now Macs are good becasue they are switching to the PC platform.

posted by AcronymBOY:
Not my fault you cant use PCs without crashing them

posted by devon:
The admin of macosx.com decided to close his message board for a day. I don't see the relevance.

Why did he close it? Becuase even the Macalots were complaining about Apple.

I would also like to take this time now to thank you for ignoring several points that I have made, your lack of a response to them shows a lot more than you think:

Number 1:

posted by devon:
Good for linux. Go ask the general public what a PC is. Most people will say it runs Windoze.
posted by AcronymBOY:
Because the general public is uneducated, thats your excuse as well?

I guess that is your excuse.

Number 2:

posted by devon:
Microsoft would rather charge for their products, not give them away.
posted by AcronymBOY:
Considering it is more expensive to buy a Mac than a PC, that arguemnt isnt well founded. In addition to the fact that PC != Windows. Just becuase the general public doesnt have a clue doesnt mean it does. Just like AOL ! = the internet.

Arent you going to argue how affordable Macs are?

Number 3:

posted by devon:
And how many Dell's come with linux?
posted by AcronymBOY:
Why does it have to come with the OS? You can buy the Dell, choose not to agree to the EULA and go toss on a BSD iso. Is that hard to do? No.

Not to mention that Dell isnt the only place to get a PC from. You can even build them yourself it you want. You can pick from a few hundred different motherboards currently being sold as well as different CPU manufacturers along with numerous other choices you dont get when you deicde to think different and buy a Mac that is just like everyone elses Mac.

Number 4:

posted by AcronymBOY:
Maybe than they can catch up because we know that they dont stand a chance when benchmarked agaisnt other computers (and yes these benchmarks arent even in games, becuase we know Macs arent meant for gaming, they are meant for graphics work and video editing):

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/...cw_macvspc2.htm
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/..._aeshowdown.htm


And here is old news, Apple itself may change platforums by putting Intel inside. http://www.forbes.com/2002/08/09/08...yahoo&referrer=

Maybe than Macs can catch up, by ditching Motorola and playing catch up to the other 96%..

Argue how much better Mac is and than say that Macs are looking at putting Intel inside becuase Mac hardware can not compare.

X86 is proven, reliable, cost efficient hardware.

Who really cares?

My grandpa's Mac sucks so I voted PC...

Just for the record, on this here page 3, I only read the last two posts, I felt they were the only 2 worth my time. :rolleyes:


Someone asked a few pages ago, if anyone here actually uses OS X. Yes, I also run OS X daily... average ~8 hours/day active use. I adore it. My current uptime is about 3 weeks, I had a power outage that wrecked it from being longer. :bawling: But then, who cares? ;) I simply find OS X comfortable. I run it on a 3+-year-old computer. Best $1200 I ever spent on a computer, and it still zoooooms so I don't see the need to chop off any of those arms to upgrade any time soon. ;)

Side note regarding upgrades: I actually buy most of my Apple computers used. I have bought two off of eBay and a third off a Forum. All three were in tip-top shape and I save an average $400-600 off list price. Keep in mind, it's against my religion to spend >$2K retail, including RAM and drive upgrades, so I am usually getting a $1400-1800 system for less than a thousand dollars. They can be had, ya just gotta look.

I use Windows 98 and WindowsXP at two different jobs. I also run Win98 on another PC I have here at home. None of the three Windows machines is nearly as stable, unfortunately, and the PC programs are so raggedy and cheap looking :blush: ick! And the apps run all rough-looking and frequently crash (I especially love the cryptic error messages). I consider anything over 25% of actual program start-ups, ending in a crash, to be frequent.

I have had to learn my way through Windows and have finally tweaked 2 of the 3 computers to be relatively stable. However my 3-year-old OS X computer (an old G3 / 400 mhz / 640 RAM) smokes the 6-month-old P3 Dell running XP. I also had to walk my boss through a startup on the XP machine today, apparently it went down rather ugly-like.

It should be mentioned that Jaguar is not like a security update. Security updates and regular OS updates are free. Jaguar is a completely different OS, like Win98 and WinXP are different. It is not "required" to get Jaguar and no, I don't plan to. I simply don't need it. ;)


*shrug* I like Mac. But ya'll might like PC, and that is cool by me.

As for this ridiculous dickering, good heavens. Use whatever operating system/hardware platform you want and BE HAPPY YOU HAVE A CHOICE. What an unfortunate reflection upon us as users, as if a flamefest is going to actually influence anyone in a helpful way. :rolleyes:

I enjoy reading about actual users' experiences. :)

plink, plink

:D Bailey

If I could justify the additional cost of a Mac, I'd buy one in a SECOND! OS X is like the coolest operating system ever... The problem is that I can build a top-of-the-line PC for under $1000, upgrade it with the parts I want for the price I want whenever I want, and I can do pretty much everything I want to with it, so I'm stuck in that rut and hard to move...

But, to be fair is Billy Gates could dictate the make, manufacturer, and model of every single piece of hardware that goes into PCs and dictate every possible combination of said hardware in the machines, Windows would be twice as fast and something like 20x more reliable... Basically anyone can make a fast and reliable operating system when they completely control the platform. Case in point: Solaris, OS/400, HP-UX, AIX, Mac OS, etc. Keep in mind that an ex-Netscape employee is saying this before flaming me... :)

I love OSX, but I refuse to be forced into buying their hardware. If they do adopt the X86 architecture and we can run OSX without high-design, high priced, yuppie hardware, I'll be the first in line to start using it.

Imagine! No more sacrificing Photoshop to leave Windoze behind! UTOPIA!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by lightnin
I love OSX, but I refuse to be forced into buying their hardware. If they do adopt the X86 architecture and we can run OSX without high-design, high priced, yuppie hardware, I'll be the first in line to start using it.

Imagine! No more sacrificing Photoshop to leave Windoze behind! UTOPIA!!!!!!!!! I would also use OS 10 if this was possible. Macintosh hardware is way overpriced...

Originally posted by baileysemt123
Just for the record, on this here page 3, I only read the last two posts, I felt they were the only 2 worth my time. :rolleyes:


It did go to 3 pages very quickly. But theres been some good responses and some well hmm. nevermind.

Macs suck :o

Originally posted by DayGlo
What about an operating system with any sort of window like interface? Do you know where the ideas came from? Think different.

Erm, Xerox if I remember rightly...could be wrong.

Never used a Mac but know that many of design-houses I work with are replacing Macs with PCs. In one of them, the have a Mac running as some sort of server. Best not to repeat what the Network Admin says about them.

But hey, what do I know? I've never used one, and never been tempted to. I'm sure they work :D

Thanks for correcting me PJamie, i looked and found this.

"So where did the GUI come from, and who invented it?

In 1979, the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center developed the first prototype for a GUI. A young man named Steve Jobs, looking for new ideas to work into future iterations of the Apple computer, traded US $1 million in stock options to Xerox for a detailed tour of their facilities and current projects. One of the things Xerox showed Jobs was the Alto, which sported a GUI and a three-button mouse. When Jobs saw this prototype, he had an epiphany and set out to bring the GUI to the public.

Apple engineers developed Lisa, the first GUI-based computer available to the public. It was too expensive; no one bought it. But the seed germinated into a flower that would change the world."

That text came from http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,9297,00.html

Hey, find out if your admin guy is using os8 or 9 and if he is tell him to get moving and run osx, i think he'll thank you :)

Pcs are in the lead by many votes. :)

Originally posted by templates911
Pcs are in the lead by many votes. :)

http://acronymboy.com/wht/july2002os.gif

No kidding. I think i mentioned that numerous times already.

Originally posted by Acronym BOY


http://acronymboy.com/wht/july2002os.gif

No kidding. I think i mentioned that numerous times already.

We've only got 0.4% of our users using MacOS, compared to 1% Linux:

http://shaun.ln3.net/wht/operatingsystems.jpg

--Shaun

But my stats were for a much larger website, google.com. In theory, the larger the sample or cross section, the more likely it is to have a truer microcosm. (Playing the law of averages and such).

Originally posted by Acronym BOY
But my stats were for a much larger website, google.com. In theory, the larger the sample or cross section, the more likely it is to have a truer microcosm. (Playing the law of averages and such).


Aaah, ok. I wasn't sure where your statistics were from.

Yes, as a larger site they would represent the various operating systems more fairly.

--Shaun

Originally posted by shaunewing
Aaah, ok. I wasn't sure where your statistics were from.

Yes, as a larger site they would represent the various operating systems more fairly.

--Shaun

If you really wanted to bias things a bit, we can look at the stats from either apple.com/mac.com or redhat.com :D

Originally posted by Acronym BOY


If you really wanted to bias things a bit, we can look at the stats from either apple.com/mac.com or redhat.com :D

lol, yea :stickout

mac sucks :stickout

yea, most people agree

I worked with all generations starting of a PC XT to the PIV,
and with a few Macs...

My opinion?

A mac is like a toy...
It's just made to "look good", the design is the biggest interest of Mac...

I feel like being in a very tiny enviroment, with so less powerfull tools...

Even for only browsing the net ... the mac can't please me.

:s

I like Windows XP...

I do development work on both PCs ad Macs. My relative opinion of the two has changed because of the recent OS releases on each platform.

Mac OSX is an excellent OS. Solid foundation, wicked cool user interface. The java developemnt environment on OSX is most excellent.

Windows XP is more eye-candy than any real improvement over W2k. Combine that with Windows DeActivation feature and the onerous EULA that Microsoft is forcing you to agree to, and Windows XP becomes less attractive.


As things stand now, my main computer is running Windows 2000 SP2. My next computer will most likely run Max OSX.

I have not worked on Mac. My programer was suggesting Max OSX. Let's see.

OS X is pretty awesome. If you're moving from Windoze you'll probably hate it. If you're moving from Linux you'll love it. Ironically, if you're moving from Mac OS 9 you'll probably hate it because you have to re-learn the OS. They changed a lot of shortcuts that had been around for 10 years (what happened, did they decide to do business like M$?)

If you want to see the best reason to use OS X, follow this link:

http://www.apple.com/powerbook/index17.html

apple is overpriced , over marketed crap . Thier new mac looks look a vanity mirror , that isnt "very" upgradable . They advertise BSD when only a small portion of the os uses a single layer of bsd 4.4 . Considering freebsd 5.0-release is available ... Looks wise , osx does look nice , but if you buy a computer based on GUI alone , then you're not a very informed computer user anyways . People talk about stability , my winXP box has NEVER crashed . Not to say windows is better , but i see people comparing osx to win98 and other win os's . Lets compare mac os 8/9 to windows . Anyone that has used those os's know they crash , alot . Dont forget about the "bomb" or "skull and crossbones" error that forced you into rebooting , or if you were lucky , sticking a paperclip into a small hole located in a hard to reach spot on your computer . They use marketing schemes like "switch" , " velocity engine" , and "mhz dont matter" . They get famous people who more then likely dont even use computers alot to testify how great these computers are . They make claims that mhz dont matter , in a way they're right , considering we'll be hitting 4/5 ghz by the end of this year and chips/cpu arent really measured in mhz anymore . They use old dead risc technology , that hasnt really changed much since the dawn of apple powerpc . Apple does not have the device support that windows has , they do not have half as many software titles , they dont have half as many games , they're not as cheap as a pc , they dont allow you to choose your operating system . They dont allow you to choose your hardware . You cant build your own . Upgrading motherboard and cpu is virtually null . If you want a system upgrade like jaguar , you'll pay 200 bucks for it . As opposed to linux or windows , who offer them free . When your box becomes outdated , you'll be forced to throw it away since apple doesnt believe in upgrading . I cant justify buying a apple computer , they dont anything i could do for less money with the same quality on a x86 pc . And oh yeah , this guy bought his apple OSX computer about 4 months ago , can someone explain what these 36 crashes are and why he had to reinstall osx 3 times :

http://osxsucks.com

the only thing i could justify using a mac or apple product for is a music studio , and even thats starting to change ...industry standards that is

Macs blow,PC's rule!!!!!!

The Dude :)

Case, there are too many problems with your post to even think about responding to them. You are entitled to have biased, uninformed, close minded opinions regarding the operating system(s), which you choose to live with, or without. Allot of people choose to only believe what they want to, I choose to experiment for myself with a fairly open mind regarding everything in life.

I have used windows, every version, since 3.1, all i can is good riddance. I paid full price for jaguar and it was worth every single penny. It is not an "upgrade", you must consider windows 2000 to windows xp an upgrade as well.

Oh yeah, the crashes the guy talks about were probably due to a flakey install, which i'm quite sure can happen on any operating system. I have been using OS X for about a year now, 100% crash free :)

I use both. I love computers and technology period. I use Macs for design and music. I use PC's for business and general use. I have both on my desk sitting side-by-side, and I can tell you that web sites look nicer on a Mac. Everthing looks a little bit clearer, brighter and sharper on a Mac. I don't why that is, but it is what it is. :cool:

Oops, i missed the # of installs. :eek:

That guy should have his computer checked out. I searched google for that error but only his site comes up.

I just emailed the guy from the site to ask him a few questions about it.
I wonder why he would hide his name with the domain registry, looks like it was updated today (http://www.iputthedotinthe.com/osxsuckscom.tiff) even.

In case you're wondering, the screenshot is a tool that comes with OS X, very handy :)

In my opinion just about every OS has its place. Overall a Mac is the best desktop computer.

Mac: Desktop
*nix: Server
Gaming: PC
Microsoft: Those who want to follow the norm.

My biggest problem with Microsoft, is people buy it because they think that is all that there is out there. Why do you use MS Word? Because its a kick-ass word processor? No, because everyone else uses it. Non-techie Joe Shmoe doesn't think about these things.

Most people in this world are not techno-savy. Nor will they ever be. For them, a Mac. Yes it has its flaws in that 90% of the poplation doesn't have one, but that doesn't make it an inferior machine.

People who want something to take apart and play with -- a PC. Would you buy your mother a car that is cheap and say, "All you have to do is get it a new carburetor, change, the tires, and bleed the brakes." No, get a brand new Honda Accord and let her drive it away.

Another beef I have with people who say "Mac sucks" is they don't give it a chance. Then they say, "It doesn't do it like Windows." Uh, hello, its not windows. My Sentra doesn't drive like a Mercedes because . . . its not one. After years and years of using MSWindows, change is hard. But that doesn't mean it sucks or doesn't work.

Sorry, I didn't mean to evangelize, but this is one of those topics that kinda bugs me.

Originally posted by spongerob
OS X is pretty awesome. If you're moving from Windoze you'll probably hate it. If you're moving from Linux you'll love it. Ironically, if you're moving from Mac OS 9 you'll probably hate it because you have to re-learn the OS. They changed a lot of shortcuts that had been around for 10 years (what happened, did they decide to do business like M$?)

If you want to see the best reason to use OS X, follow this link:

http://www.apple.com/powerbook/index17.html

I'd like to thank you for reviving a thread that is almost 6 months old. Congrats for telling us about Apple's new laptoop, I'm sure those of us who have been living under a rock are very thankful.

Originally posted by vguile
Microsoft: Those who want to follow the norm.

Funny how it is Mac users who are constantly saying they "think different" and don't follow the norm. Last time I checked you were all running the same operating system, and almost all of you were running the same version of it. That is not thinking different, rather it is being all the same.

There are over 300 choices of different OS's (not even counting the different versions) you have when picking an OS for your PC, but with Macs you have a handful.

You can buy the latest model PC and you can go the Intel route ofr the AMD route. Or the Via route. Or the Transmeta route. Or the Sun route. If you want to buy a Mac you dont have choices, you must be the same as every other Mac owner.

Any Mac owner who thinks there different needs to realize they are just like every other Mac owner.

Originally posted by vguile
My biggest problem with Microsoft, is people buy it because they think that is all that there is out there. Why do you use MS Word? Because its a kick-ass word processor? No, because everyone else uses it. Non-techie Joe Shmoe doesn't think about these things.

First off this thread is not OSX vs MS. It is PC vs Mac... But I'll humor you.

Well there are advantages to using the most popular desktop OS. Chances are you will (and currently do) have the largest hardware base to draw from. You will also have the knowledge that you can use ~90% of the desktop computers becasue they are all like yours. You also know that if you run into a problem, chances are 80% of the world did as well.

Anyone try to troubleshoot an AS/400 lately? Lots of support for them around, right?

Originally posted by vguile
Most people in this world are not techno-savy. Nor will they ever be. For them, a Mac. Yes it has its flaws in that 90% of the poplation doesn't have one, but that doesn't make it an inferior machine.

No, it makes it less popular by the average consumer.

Originally posted by vguile
People who want something to take apart and play with -- a PC. Would you buy your mother a car that is cheap and say, "All you have to do is get it a new carburetor, change, the tires, and bleed the brakes." No, get a brand new Honda Accord and let her drive it away.

You seem to be under the impression that Macs are cheap. Cost to performance ratio would show just the opposite.

But your mother a Dell with on site support. She still thinks AOL is the internet, so don't give her a piece of plastic and expect her to learn an OS and application set that is different from what 90% of her friends use.

Originally posted by vguile
Another beef I have with people who say "Mac sucks" is they don't give it a chance. Then they say, "It doesn't do it like Windows." Uh, hello, its not windows. My Sentra doesn't drive like a Mercedes because . . . its not one. After years and years of using MSWindows, change is hard. But that doesn't mean it sucks or doesn't work.

Of course its not windows. No where have I ever said windows was best. But if a person asked for one OS and you give them another what do you expect their response to be?

And for those of us who can't afford a Mercedes (or a Mac) and still want reaonable performance, we will be perfectly happy buying a faster car (or in this anaolgy, x86 hardware) for less money.

Originally posted by Acronym BOY
Funny how it is Mac users who are constantly saying they "think different" and don't follow the norm. Last time I checked you were all running the same operating system, and almost all of you were running the same version of it. That is not thinking different, rather it is being all the same.

I think you're approaching this from the wrong perspective. The whole "think different" is referring to the choice among OS's. Not the OS itself.

Originally posted by Acronym BOY
There are over 300 choices of different OS's (not even counting the different versions) you have when picking an OS for your PC, but with Macs you have a handful.

You can buy the latest model PC and you can go the Intel route ofr the AMD route. Or the Via route. Or the Transmeta route. Or the Sun route. If you want to buy a Mac you dont have choices, you must be the same as every other Mac owner.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm referring to the general consumer. In which case the only viable choices are Mac OS and Microsoft Windows.

If we expand to the lesser known OS's, then its really a moot point. Let's say you're looking to run Redhat as a desktop environment. Or your looking into fancy hardware choices and configurations. Its likely you're savvy enough with computers that the decision is ultimately just user preference. Whatever you need to make it do, you'll figure it out regarless of OS.

Originally posted by Acronym BOY
First off this thread is not OSX vs MS. It is PC vs Mac... But I'll humor you.

Yes you're right, but my post was in reference to, essentially, Windows vs OSX. I was just addressing one of the points in the grand PC vs Mac issue. Which in my case is that for the general consumer, a Mac running OSX can do most of what a Windows user is doing, and is less frustrating.

As I stated above, for those who are more comfortable with computers, it becomes a moot point and is ultimately a matter of preference.

Originally posted by Acronym BOY
Well there are advantages to using the most popular desktop OS. Chances are you will (and currently do) have the largest hardware base to draw from. You will also have the knowledge that you can use ~90% of the desktop computers becasue they are all like yours. You also know that if you run into a problem, chances are 80% of the world did as well.

Anyone try to troubleshoot an AS/400 lately? Lots of support for them around, right?

The Mac has plenty of support, and the community is large enough that this is not an issue.

Originally posted by Acronym BOY
No, it makes it less popular by the average consumer.

Apples biggest downfall.

Originally posted by Acronym BOY
You seem to be under the impression that Macs are cheap. Cost to performance ratio would show just the opposite.

But your mother a Dell with on site support. She still thinks AOL is the internet, so don't give her a piece of plastic and expect her to learn an OS and application set that is different from what 90% of her friends use.

I wasn't implying at all that Macs are cheap. They are definitely more expensive than PCs.

So how do you justify the expense? In my opinion the gain is in that (again, for the general non-technical public) working a Mac is more intuitive. And it requires less support. I would personally rather give my mother a Mac. What her friends use is of little consequence because she doesn't sit around and talk about computers with her friends. When she has a computer problem, she comes to me. And in my experience, there are less questions with a Mac.

I have a relative overseas who is by no means computer literate. She had a PC and could use it for what she needed. Then I gave her my old Mac and she said she loved it. She said it took less thinking for her to work with it. I've found this to be quite common.

Again, I can't stress enough that I'm talking about the general public. I myself build PCs, and use PCs running Win2k server, Win2k Pro, and Linux. My preference, though, for a personal desktop, is a Mac running OSX.

I use a PC but I voted for a Mac. I've used a Mac before but I don't have one, and from that experience:

I WANT A MAC!! I WANT A MAC!!

Originally posted by Acronym BOY
I can not stand the lack of choices with a Mac and its closed, proprietary architexture.

Well, I would say that your comment applies more to PCs and their Microsoft proprietary software than the FreeBSD-based Mac OS-X.

A review of Apple's new notebook is here (http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl/xml/02/12/16/021216plpowerbook.xml)


An excerpt:

"...Apple packaged the PowerBook G4s so exquisitely that at first we were afraid to get our fingerprints on them. Our reverie lasted about 15 minutes. Then we dragged two systems -- an earlier 867MHz model and the newest 1GHz unit -- through hell for several weeks, both in the lab and on the road. We beat them twice as hard because they're so pretty and because, well, we're not Mac people. When it was over, the PowerBooks owned us utterly. Trust us; that never happens...."

Originally posted by Mike the newbie


Well, I would say that your comment applies more to PCs and their Microsoft proprietary software than the FreeBSD-based Mac OS-X.

how so , i think his comment means what it means . People so easily confuse the word PC with MICROSOFT , and this is not the case . What he means is , he doesnt like how Apple has a closed platform , and only software designed for apple , will work for apple . As opposed to a x86 machines , which will run pretty much all os's . While you run your freebsd BASED machine , us pc owners will run the REAL DEAL (not to mention fbsd is on release 4.7 , 5.0 release , and osx is 4.4 BASED). And as far as choices , you cant honestly believe that you have more choices with a apple computer then you do a pc ? Even apple users will admit that the pc has a more vast platform , allowing the end user to pick and choose as they feel . Let me help you , argue how great the little amount of software apple has ...and how its so much better then what the other 90 percent of the world uses ....

Sorry to bring up such an old thread but looks like whoever owns osxsucks.com changed their mind. BTW, he never replied to my email.

case, did you know that you can run kde or gnome or whatever window manager you want at the same time in osx? Not to mention loads of other linux applications, applications that would never run on windows because they would require a complete rewrite.

I can make my desktop look however i want it to look, thank you very much :)

Of course it wont run on windows, thats a big fat DUH. Windows isnt deigned to run KDE,Gnome,IceWM , or the any other xwindows manager type programs (but can with cygwin). I see no point in using multiple window managers simulatiously anyways , unless i was developing something which i dont. Many applications that run on linux have already been ported to windows, such as gimp,apache,php,mysql,etc... (the list is to extensive). You can say that you can run many linux apps, thats great, i can too on my x86 linux box =]. Guess what, i bet my linux box out performs your apple computer, and at half the cost. You then go on to say you can customize your desktop....OOOHHH, AHHHH... as if you cant in windows..lol. Im sure you know they're many alternatives to explorer, luna is highly customizible, not to mention tons of freeware programs that allow to change the look and feel of windows. Regardless of what osxsucks.com changed their website to, we all know what it said prior not to mention the actual domain name. If you look on google you will still see the cached version is available. =].

Hehe, anyone take the time to think about what PC stands for?

PC=Personal Computer, which would make an Apple computer a PC since it too is a personal computer, unless it is used for business, then it would be called a BC.

Gotta love how people are more than happy to say Apple/Macs Suck or I hate them without backing up that statement as to why.

Then again last time they touched an Apple system was back in 1997 in their school computer literacy class for which they got an F in so they blame it all on the Apple computer thus starting a lifelong hatred for the system.

Then again this poll makes as much sense in asking Ford vs Chevy or blue ink vs black ink or Pizza Hut vs Pizza Inn.

I am an avid PC user.

Apple is just having this nice ad campagin to show off its computers... that have an decreasingly small share of the market. Sad case but the reality.

For the average desktop user, ie word processing, web surfing, chatting, email....Mac's are the way to go. It's pretty much idiot proof. And if a user still can't figure out to work a Mac, he/she wouldn't be any better on Windows, let alone Linux. I'd like to own a powerbook one day, my sister has one and it's quite nice. Stable OS, clean look, simple interface. For what I do, I prefer the Intel/AMD route (more bang for the buck and scalability). Video encoding, digital video editing, image manipulation, stress the CPU, hardrives, and memory to no end. It may not seem like a lot if we're talking a few seconds here or there for some small image/video file manipulation, but if you're encoding an hour long MPEG2 video with transitions and layered special effects, those little seconds add up. And frankly, the dual G4's aren't all they're cracked up to be. Benchmarks have shown the dual G4's either playing catch up or squeaking by a single cpu P4 3.06ghz Dell machine in applications such as Photoshop and After Effects. I guess the point is, choose the right tool to do the job. There isn't a magic wand of an OS or platform that'll solve all the problems. Just because a Ford Lightning embarrasses a lot of "sports cars" on the drag strip, it don't make it a good idea to run it on a road course and expect a win.

BTW, Macs did suck until OSX came out. But so did Windows until Win2k was released.

Originally posted by case
apple is overpriced , over marketed crap . Thier new mac looks look a vanity mirror , that isnt "very" upgradable .

Okay... why am I agreeing with case?

This can't be happening...

Well it happens...

Case you are absolutely right (sig material), Apple always overprices everything and is crap.

And OSX... crap....

Hi,

Well, the only real reason I got my apple iBook was becuase it looks nice..

It still gets stares when I use it in the train - not sure whether it's becuase everone likes the design or becuase they think it's such a rubbish laptop..

Looks like I am gonna have to go and pick myself up a nice sony vaio :D - Their newest models are v. nice, just a tad overpriced.

Regards
Asif

Yeah just the looks... but then again... you can get that out of the Sony Vaio... :) Those Japanese... always thinking of something great... :) Thumbs up to them. ;) My dad has a Sony Vaio for work.

Originally posted by dvstuff
For the average desktop user, ie word processing, web surfing, chatting, email....Mac's are the way to go. It's pretty much idiot proof.

why would i want to pay for a 1500.00 dollar apple computer, when i can call dell and get a 499.00 dollar x86 computer with everything, not to mention it does everything you just mentioned. Im not trying to argue or anything, but the reason pc's* dominate the market for one reason. They're cost effective. Do you want to pay a thousand bucks to check email or five hundred bucks to check email? Im not saying windows is a great os, it very buggy and lacks security in alot of areas, BUT i can build a POS computer for 299 slap windows or linux on it and let it roll..... If i could put osx on my pc i would do it, but im not about to be over charged for something because it has an apple logo glued on to it.

I could even get you a PC for $199 for word processing, websurfing, chatting and email. With a monitor included. PCs are obviously the way to go for those things.

Originally posted by giancarlo
Okay... why am I agreeing with case?

This can't be happening...

Well it happens...

Case you are absolutely right (sig material), Apple always overprices everything and is crap.

And OSX... crap....

omg, stop the presses, me and gian agree...woohoo, this is one small step for mankind..... It beats arguing thats forsure :)

exactly gian, i could get an old used computer thats does everything for like 60 bucks out of the classified ads if needed.

Originally posted by case
omg, stop the presses, me and gian agree...woohoo, this is one small step for mankind..... It beats arguing thats forsure :)

I never expected this. ;)

Yeah, I know places I can find Pentium II machines for cheap... the point is Apple is overpriced and not a good buy when you can get something that can do the exact same thing for much less.

Originally posted by giancarlo

And OSX... crap....

Never really used it eh?


Hell I see cheap computers in the Fry's ad all the time, won't make me buy one.

I could build one just as cheap too, better yet pull one out of my ass, knock off the peanuts and corn stuck on it, load up windows and have it for you for free.


What is this thread here for anyway? Arguing which is better is like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded. (http://www.tardonews.com/)

Milkman, how can you argue about this anyways...

It is like when I was comparing the South Korean and North Korean Navies. The South is stellar and the North is a piece of crap. And believe me the South is not the Mac. ;)

Just a couple questions here:
I use only Linux for a few years now, and its been a while since I saw Mac. I'd like to hear from someone using Linux and Mac.

Can you use Mac without mouse ?

Are keyboard and keyboard shotcuts fully customizable ?

If you use mouse are the mouse actions fully customizable?

I understand MAC's come with X now. Is all off the X functionality there ?

Is there open source sftware for Mac ?

One of the reasons I cannot work with windows is "user multitasking". Example, I will often have 10 to 15 applications spread around the four virtual desktops. Some of the apps might just sit there by the time I use them again. Right now it is very simple to configure their behaviour (which windows get minimized simultaniously and so on). How is Mac doing in this respect?

Thanks.

I work with a couple of designers that are working on Macs. First of all, it's another kind of computer user. They dont want to be in full control, everything must work with 1 click (and their mouse is really gay with only 1 button).

Mac users still have the arrogance that their computers are better for design and stuff. Well even the newest Mac (1400mhz something dual processor) gets its ass kicked on all performance tests by a 2800mhz intel. And wether you use photoshop on pc or mac, it has the same functionalities, except that on pc it's alot faster.

I work with with my pc in a pretty Mac oriented environment everyday and I can only say, it's good for kids, dumb designers, and housewifes wanting to use word.

And oh about OSX.. that's just Apple's preparement to switch over to intel/amd based processors cause motorola can't keep up.

Overal, for dumb computer users, it will be a fine system.

If you have an IQ, you get a pc.

I heard the 1400MHz Mac got is butt kicked in PCs with similar CPUs. (For example, my Althon XP 1600+ would kick its butt).

Macs in my opinion would be mostly for elementary schools.

Originally posted by jackor
(and their mouse is really gay with only 1 button).


What are you 12 or something? Does that 1 button mouse smoke mouse pole?



Originally posted by giancarlo
I heard the 1400MHz Mac got is butt kicked in PCs with similar CPUs. (For example, my Althon XP 1600+ would kick its butt).



Any proof or just hearsay on your playground




Macs in my opinion would be mostly for elementary schools.

So that's what school you're in :D

seriously milk, you cant honestly sit there and refute that a x86 machine cant out perform a mac. I would have to say this is common knowledge if you're an avid computer user. I would also have to say that the x86 platform has closed the gap when it comes to designing graphics and such. The only place i can think of that uses apple computers as an industry standard is professional music studios. Even then , you can get protools on a x86 machine, and still produce the same quality of music.

Originally posted by case
seriously milk, you cant honestly sit there and refute that a x86 machine cant out perform a mac.

Actually I really don't care either way. Use the machine you're comfortable with. I think it's funny as hell the way people say Mac Suck or It's Gay! If you're going to bash something, atleast present a decent argument, otherwise you come off looking like a tardo window licker.



FYI, machine I'm on right now is a self built amd, laptop is a Dell and machine used for video editing is an Apple G4, sorry just can't seem to get Final Cut Pro to run on a PC :D

Originally posted by MilkMan
Actually I really don't care either way. Use the machine you're comfortable with. I think it's funny as hell the way people say Mac Suck or It's Gay! If you're going to bash something, atleast present a decent argument, otherwise you come off looking like a tardo window licker.



FYI, machine I'm on right now is a self built amd, laptop is a Dell and machine used for video editing is an Apple G4, sorry just can't seem to get Final Cut Pro to run on a PC :D

You act all high and mighty like you know it all, but you don't know a thing. Just face it: a PC outperform a Mac while taking a piss.


Here's a DECENT benchmark.


http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm


Conclusion
As you see, the dual Athlon is still the fastest PC we've tested, but the single Intel P4 2.53 GHz machine runs a close second, and even beats the dual Athlon on some of the tests. And, as expected, the Mac dual 1GHz G4 could not even come close to keeping up with these two PCs. Even though the P4 machine has only a single processor, it was easy for it to leave the dual-processor Mac far behind.

Now, next time if you want to act all superior and stuff, check your facts first.

Hey Milkman, I am in high school and I use Pentium 4s... but somebody decided to skimp on the video cards and put in Geforce2 MX200s... what a waste of money.

Originally posted by jackor
You act all high and mighty like you know it all, but you don't know a thing. Just face it: a PC outperform a Mac while taking a piss.




Like I give a shiznit.


Now, next time if you want to act all superior and stuff, check your facts first.


Angry little monkey aren't ya, always out to prove you're right. I think you need a nap.

Originally posted by MilkMan
FYI, machine I'm on right now is a self built amd, laptop is a Dell and machine used for video editing is an Apple G4, sorry just can't seem to get Final Cut Pro to run on a PC :D

Non-Linear Editing suite is childs play. If all you do is just cut up video together, it doesn't matter what you use, FCP, Avid DV Xpress, Premiere, Media Studio Pro...they're all gonna do the same job.

Originally posted by dvstuff
Non-Linear Editing suite is childs play. If all you do is just cut up video together, it doesn't matter what you use, FCP, Avid DV Xpress, Premiere, Media Studio Pro...they're all gonna do the same job.

Like I originally said, use what you're comfortable with.

BTW, Premiere sucks

why does premiere suck? if it's because it is slow...then yeah, it does suck. or if it's because it lacks an audio mixer, then i agree. but i'm not concerned with broadcast. if i was, i'd use avid dv xpress.

Originally posted by giancarlo
Hey Milkman, I am in high school and I use Pentium 4s... but somebody decided to skimp on the video cards and put in Geforce2 MX200s... what a waste of money.

maybe because the school knows that you shouldn't be playing games while you're in school :D

someday every kid grows up. :laugh: