"The argument on which machine is faster is futile. Macs are faster and more stable when used for Graphics or Complex mathmatical equations becuases of how they process data"
says who, except you??? - maybe that was true during the pentium 3 era, but check out the latest pentiums with H/T, the latest (my fav.) AMD Opterons and the like.
sameolddoctor, it sounds like PC's work out better for you and you should stick with them. In addition to my Mac, I do also own a Dell for other CAD/SolidWorks stuff I do. I see that some missed my point. I think its a shame that we have to choose Apple or PC. The whole industry is so money driven, and I see Microsoft as the biggest culprit through its market pressure/lawsuits. Seriously, why should we have to have TWO personal computers??? If MS is the devil so is Autodesk. AutoCAD was made for Mac's until '96. I'm sure they took Apple for dead back then and stopped developing as a business decision. I understand but Apple is much different today, no good reason why AutoCAD isn't on OS X now. Autodesk doesn't want to invest the money into something new when they already have a cash cow with AutoCAD on windows. It just makes it easier on them to have everyone on one platform. Again, we are the fools for buying into it, like AutoCAD is the best thing ever. BLAHHH!
gray and noci, what you say about Apple is true. This is not the same company that was 20 years ago. Months before Apple went public for the first time ('79 or '80), Steve Wozniak, one of the founders, distributed a large chunk of his ownership amongst other Apple employees. When he got rich, he made sure everyone else got rich too. After he quit Apple, he became a 6th grade science teacher. Its a shame few people like that exist in today's corporate world. Today, Apple corporate is greedy and nasty as the rest of them. In that regard, Apple is no better then the others with one big exception. Apple's lawsuits are warranted. Apple is the innovator so people often copy Apple products and lawsuits are in order. Current lawsuits against bloggers are warranted too. People SIGN a nondisclosure agreement and then share information. One of my friends is getting sued by Apple for releasing the next generation operating system. I feel for the guy because he will have a VERY hard time finding a job in the industry in the future, convicted or not. Microsoft on the other hand uses politics and market pressure to dominate the market. Through lawsuits and buyouts it has become a monopoly. Either way you look at it, monopolies are good for one thing and thats making money, not innovation and making things better. Competition stirs innovation not limits on use. Its hard to innovate when you have to pay out the ass to get Microsoft to license you some of its code. Now Microsoft is getting patent cazy with parts of XML (open source) so it can lock down another revenue source. Profit should not drive product development because in the end you get an inferior product that is full of holes (Viruses/Spyware/Poor Ease of Use) and in the end we are fools because someone sells us crap and takes our money. Its especially worrisome when you have no other choice but to buy that product (monopoly.) It is for this reason why it is important for open source to succeed. Mainly for IBM to be victorious in its 3 Billion dollar suit with SCO.
Second, although software choices are somewhat limited, I don't see this as a real argument. Just because Windows has some thousands and thousands of programs doesn't make it better. Most people use: word proccessing, web, AIM, e-mail, and only a handful of other programs, all with Mac versions/counterparts. Other Windows-only programs, like AutoCAD can be had with the help of VPC. Granted VPC is something you have to buy. Again, I don't think arguing about price is relevant. I bought a Mac but I don't have to buy antiantivirus/updates for it. It has other perks that only a modified PC would have (read: add $$$ aka Mustang/M3 comparison.) Just because it lacks Rhino, there are other important aspects of OS X that should be considered as well. If you prefer PC just get a PC. Hardware is not as limited as people think. Apple only designs and puts together, only 4 or 5 companies in the world have adequate tooling to make personal computers. Doesn't matter if its Dell, HP, Sony, Toshiba or Apple, they get made in one of the 5 in Asia. Almost everything that works in a PC will work in an Apple. Not only is your iPod made in China, it also has a Toshiba HardDrive inside ;-)
As for Microsoft owning 49% of Apple, don't know where you got that. hahaha, kinda funny. To escape some of the heat from the antitrust suit, Microsoft invested $150 Million into Apple via non-voting shares in '97 and it created MaBu, which is the second biggest software developer for Apple after Apple itself. As for the mouse, don't know where you got that either, if you know your computer history correctly, it should be noted that it was Apple that brought this wonderful mouse/point and click interface to the world. So in essence every Windows computer is based on this Apple operating system from long ago.
.. i would've modded zep's post as "5; insightful" if we were on /.
i second what you say about apple's role as "the innovators"; as the victims of permanent plagiarism waging a justified in-court war against copycats their actions are surely justified, but what about curbing people's ability to express themselves in journalism?
a more lenient handling of before-macworld-online-exposures of hyped products would be appropriate; c'mon folks, people will still crowd the mac stores in droves drooling over the products. i know *i* drool all over their designs, whether i love the functionality of the prodcuts or not *lol*
noci
i think that companies other than apple would protect release
of information just as vigorously if not more so especially when
it comes to new product release....companies use those events
to raise their stock price, create a buzz around the company,
make an event popular and basically try to control the release of
that information to get the max effect...when people release info
prior to the company's concented date it makes the above less
eventful...especially when it comes to jumps in stock prices i'd
imagine releasing that info is basically the same as insider trading...
just a thought..i think any company should pursue people that
are unable to wait...companies have to release the info to people
ahead of time in order to release it all at the same time...publishing
dates, and other prolonged schedules requires companies to release
confidential info...people who receive this inof shouldn't release it..
and only release it to benefit their own image/magazine whatever...
point taken, lars-
yet...... apple lives of "the buzz" created by mac watch sites. it's kind of a dangerous (in terms of the scenario you described, which is totally valid), but symbiotic & important relationship.
apple should not forget that, lest the mac-blog-crowd turns against the creature it feeds. i believe precisely this is in part happening right now: pro-mac, pro-creative blogs re-evaluating their headline policy.
and this is not happening because noone thinks that hard-fact whistleblowers bound by NDAs shouldn't be persecuted- no, it's taking place because apple's policy might have wide repercussions such as journalists' sources not being protected if the nfo-site under scrutiny happens to be a "blog".
thus, a lot of people were shocked. some kind of unholy dynamics developed around the whole case.
... and who says that only the corporations should feed the public with the information (be it about products or whatever) they see fit?
it's happening all of the time- viral / meme / guerilla marketing strategies are the pest of the 21st century, disguising product advertisements as news items to make it onto popular blogs.
remember
- ilovebees.com?
- the new mini cooper snoop ads (nutty prof building a robot in his backyard) ?
- "uncanny marine creatures found" - advertising a stupid ego shooter by catching people off guard?
.. to name but a few.
the boundaries of traditional nfo-flow have long since been blurred. it's about time apple & co. realize that and stop being so anal.
like they put it themselves:
[http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/]
"Welcome to a life less orderly."
"Lose control. Love it."
i don't really get this whole thinksecret thing. someone chose (as in voluntarily elected) to sign an NDA at apple, and then chose to break that by leaking confidential information. this is absolutely not the same thing as reporting on overheard conversations at the pub, and is categorically not 'whistleblowing'. whistleblowing is when someone breaks some kind of corporate nda to disclose criminal acts by the employer. information wants to be free and all, and i like to hear rumours about what apple's up to next, but i can't see how apple is in the wrong here (although I agree that they aren't making any friends this way).
I've have used both macs and pcs extensively, both professionally and in school. I have to say that I prefer the mac operating system especially in one regard: multi-tasking. OS X is a seamless multi-tasking environment when equipped with sufficient RAM. I can't say the same for windows. Take for instance the simple task of optimizing a pdf. On a mac, I can ask acrobat to optimize a pdf and while it is working on it, I can check email, surf the web, or work on a photoshop file seamlessly with very little performance degredation on either task - and this is on a 1 GHZ powerbook with 1GB of RAM. Even on our dual xeon's with 1GB RAM in the computer lab, trying to do the same multi-task operation is choppy and unresponsive.
So, while for single applications or single tasks, the PC may be faster, the Macintosh gives you the ability to work on many things simultaneously which in the end leads to greater productivity.
The price issue between a Mac and PC really is a non-issue. Yes, you can buy the parts yourself and put together a comparibly equipped PC for less money, but if you are buying a pre-built top of the line workstation PC (which gives you comparible warrantee and service guarantees) the prices are going to be equivalent.
Having said all this, I need to buy a desktop machine soon. I would really prefer to buy a G5, but I am concerned about AutoCAD.
PC vs. Mac. PC's are ok, but they can't multi task as well, and have more problems with viruses. Mac's are expensive because they equal higher quality. Apple controls every part of the computer, to make sure it's quality. Anyways with a Mac you can run four systems at once, on a PC only one. On the mac I can run OSX, Classic, Linex and virtual PC. It's sometimies anoying jumping between programs from my Mac and the school PC's, but becides that it works well.
It really is personal opinion. I'm from Mac Country-- Hense I'm a mac user. Anyways... macs like to be design friendly... which means stylish etc. But then there are advantages to PC's. I don't know them. All I know is that Mac's are easier to program for- but that is unrelated to this discussion.
they both do different things well...i for one have no preference. we know that mac offers a good design platform, and formz works great on it. however, if your into digital fabrication, consider a pc. rhino and autocad tend to be the preferred base-level programs in this arena, and aren't offered on the mac, not to mention zcorp software, mastercamm, etc etc etc.
Yep, I use both now. Why bother fretting over which is better? Computers are pretty darned cheap these days, so why not use both? I bought a used PC (3.0GHz P4, 512MB, 128MB graphics card, 120GB 7200rpm, including a monitor) for $650 CAD. My PowerBook was $3000 CAD. I use them alternately: model on the Mac, render on the PC, presentation layout on the mac, internet/e-mail on the mac (I don't let the PC on the Internet!), Rhino for CAM on the PC. I flip back and forth all day. I network the two directly using the Mac's ultra-easy Windows file-sharing over a direct Gigabit ethernet connection. In fact, I don't even keep anything on the PC; I work directly off the Mac through this internal network. And now I have a 21" monitor with 2 inputs so I use both with minimal desk space (purchased for $130 CAD plus a $30 USD fix-up).
I've stopped arguing about which is better. It's all about the specific job you're doing at the moment, and one is inevitably better than the other. Overall, who cares? Are you that close-minded that you'd pledge yourself to a side? That won't make you very computationally agile.
(PS And my server at home runs FreeBSD. TAKE THAT!)
mac or windows?
admit it to yourself, optimk, you are in denial.
arrr, there i do it again!
"The argument on which machine is faster is futile. Macs are faster and more stable when used for Graphics or Complex mathmatical equations becuases of how they process data"
says who, except you??? - maybe that was true during the pentium 3 era, but check out the latest pentiums with H/T, the latest (my fav.) AMD Opterons and the like.
I need to shut up today on this thread
haha, yeah this thread is going down the drain.
sameolddoctor, it sounds like PC's work out better for you and you should stick with them. In addition to my Mac, I do also own a Dell for other CAD/SolidWorks stuff I do. I see that some missed my point. I think its a shame that we have to choose Apple or PC. The whole industry is so money driven, and I see Microsoft as the biggest culprit through its market pressure/lawsuits. Seriously, why should we have to have TWO personal computers??? If MS is the devil so is Autodesk. AutoCAD was made for Mac's until '96. I'm sure they took Apple for dead back then and stopped developing as a business decision. I understand but Apple is much different today, no good reason why AutoCAD isn't on OS X now. Autodesk doesn't want to invest the money into something new when they already have a cash cow with AutoCAD on windows. It just makes it easier on them to have everyone on one platform. Again, we are the fools for buying into it, like AutoCAD is the best thing ever. BLAHHH!
gray and noci, what you say about Apple is true. This is not the same company that was 20 years ago. Months before Apple went public for the first time ('79 or '80), Steve Wozniak, one of the founders, distributed a large chunk of his ownership amongst other Apple employees. When he got rich, he made sure everyone else got rich too. After he quit Apple, he became a 6th grade science teacher. Its a shame few people like that exist in today's corporate world. Today, Apple corporate is greedy and nasty as the rest of them. In that regard, Apple is no better then the others with one big exception. Apple's lawsuits are warranted. Apple is the innovator so people often copy Apple products and lawsuits are in order. Current lawsuits against bloggers are warranted too. People SIGN a nondisclosure agreement and then share information. One of my friends is getting sued by Apple for releasing the next generation operating system. I feel for the guy because he will have a VERY hard time finding a job in the industry in the future, convicted or not. Microsoft on the other hand uses politics and market pressure to dominate the market. Through lawsuits and buyouts it has become a monopoly. Either way you look at it, monopolies are good for one thing and thats making money, not innovation and making things better. Competition stirs innovation not limits on use. Its hard to innovate when you have to pay out the ass to get Microsoft to license you some of its code. Now Microsoft is getting patent cazy with parts of XML (open source) so it can lock down another revenue source. Profit should not drive product development because in the end you get an inferior product that is full of holes (Viruses/Spyware/Poor Ease of Use) and in the end we are fools because someone sells us crap and takes our money. Its especially worrisome when you have no other choice but to buy that product (monopoly.) It is for this reason why it is important for open source to succeed. Mainly for IBM to be victorious in its 3 Billion dollar suit with SCO.
Second, although software choices are somewhat limited, I don't see this as a real argument. Just because Windows has some thousands and thousands of programs doesn't make it better. Most people use: word proccessing, web, AIM, e-mail, and only a handful of other programs, all with Mac versions/counterparts. Other Windows-only programs, like AutoCAD can be had with the help of VPC. Granted VPC is something you have to buy. Again, I don't think arguing about price is relevant. I bought a Mac but I don't have to buy antiantivirus/updates for it. It has other perks that only a modified PC would have (read: add $$$ aka Mustang/M3 comparison.) Just because it lacks Rhino, there are other important aspects of OS X that should be considered as well. If you prefer PC just get a PC. Hardware is not as limited as people think. Apple only designs and puts together, only 4 or 5 companies in the world have adequate tooling to make personal computers. Doesn't matter if its Dell, HP, Sony, Toshiba or Apple, they get made in one of the 5 in Asia. Almost everything that works in a PC will work in an Apple. Not only is your iPod made in China, it also has a Toshiba HardDrive inside ;-)
As for Microsoft owning 49% of Apple, don't know where you got that. hahaha, kinda funny. To escape some of the heat from the antitrust suit, Microsoft invested $150 Million into Apple via non-voting shares in '97 and it created MaBu, which is the second biggest software developer for Apple after Apple itself. As for the mouse, don't know where you got that either, if you know your computer history correctly, it should be noted that it was Apple that brought this wonderful mouse/point and click interface to the world. So in essence every Windows computer is based on this Apple operating system from long ago.
no more posting for this week - any more typeing and I'll have full blown carpel-tunnel syndrome
zepplin,
thanks for your previous post, full of useful and real information.
i think this thread is officially biting its own tail now. arrr.
sameolddocter: http://www.jmusheneaux.com/6000j.htm
There are hundreds of tests just like this.
Mac wins on intensive graphicss apps. PC wins on everday normal performance.
.. i would've modded zep's post as "5; insightful" if we were on /.
i second what you say about apple's role as "the innovators"; as the victims of permanent plagiarism waging a justified in-court war against copycats their actions are surely justified, but what about curbing people's ability to express themselves in journalism?
a more lenient handling of before-macworld-online-exposures of hyped products would be appropriate; c'mon folks, people will still crowd the mac stores in droves drooling over the products. i know *i* drool all over their designs, whether i love the functionality of the prodcuts or not *lol*
noci
i think that companies other than apple would protect release
of information just as vigorously if not more so especially when
it comes to new product release....companies use those events
to raise their stock price, create a buzz around the company,
make an event popular and basically try to control the release of
that information to get the max effect...when people release info
prior to the company's concented date it makes the above less
eventful...especially when it comes to jumps in stock prices i'd
imagine releasing that info is basically the same as insider trading...
just a thought..i think any company should pursue people that
are unable to wait...companies have to release the info to people
ahead of time in order to release it all at the same time...publishing
dates, and other prolonged schedules requires companies to release
confidential info...people who receive this inof shouldn't release it..
and only release it to benefit their own image/magazine whatever...
point taken, lars-
yet...... apple lives of "the buzz" created by mac watch sites. it's kind of a dangerous (in terms of the scenario you described, which is totally valid), but symbiotic & important relationship.
apple should not forget that, lest the mac-blog-crowd turns against the creature it feeds. i believe precisely this is in part happening right now: pro-mac, pro-creative blogs re-evaluating their headline policy.
and this is not happening because noone thinks that hard-fact whistleblowers bound by NDAs shouldn't be persecuted- no, it's taking place because apple's policy might have wide repercussions such as journalists' sources not being protected if the nfo-site under scrutiny happens to be a "blog".
thus, a lot of people were shocked. some kind of unholy dynamics developed around the whole case.
... and who says that only the corporations should feed the public with the information (be it about products or whatever) they see fit?
it's happening all of the time- viral / meme / guerilla marketing strategies are the pest of the 21st century, disguising product advertisements as news items to make it onto popular blogs.
remember
- ilovebees.com?
- the new mini cooper snoop ads (nutty prof building a robot in his backyard) ?
- "uncanny marine creatures found" - advertising a stupid ego shooter by catching people off guard?
.. to name but a few.
the boundaries of traditional nfo-flow have long since been blurred. it's about time apple & co. realize that and stop being so anal.
like they put it themselves:
[http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/]
"Welcome to a life less orderly."
"Lose control. Love it."
i don't really get this whole thinksecret thing. someone chose (as in voluntarily elected) to sign an NDA at apple, and then chose to break that by leaking confidential information. this is absolutely not the same thing as reporting on overheard conversations at the pub, and is categorically not 'whistleblowing'. whistleblowing is when someone breaks some kind of corporate nda to disclose criminal acts by the employer. information wants to be free and all, and i like to hear rumours about what apple's up to next, but i can't see how apple is in the wrong here (although I agree that they aren't making any friends this way).
I dont know anything about powermac G5s, but the Imacs that I tried were just horrible.
I've have used both macs and pcs extensively, both professionally and in school. I have to say that I prefer the mac operating system especially in one regard: multi-tasking. OS X is a seamless multi-tasking environment when equipped with sufficient RAM. I can't say the same for windows. Take for instance the simple task of optimizing a pdf. On a mac, I can ask acrobat to optimize a pdf and while it is working on it, I can check email, surf the web, or work on a photoshop file seamlessly with very little performance degredation on either task - and this is on a 1 GHZ powerbook with 1GB of RAM. Even on our dual xeon's with 1GB RAM in the computer lab, trying to do the same multi-task operation is choppy and unresponsive.
So, while for single applications or single tasks, the PC may be faster, the Macintosh gives you the ability to work on many things simultaneously which in the end leads to greater productivity.
The price issue between a Mac and PC really is a non-issue. Yes, you can buy the parts yourself and put together a comparibly equipped PC for less money, but if you are buying a pre-built top of the line workstation PC (which gives you comparible warrantee and service guarantees) the prices are going to be equivalent.
Having said all this, I need to buy a desktop machine soon. I would really prefer to buy a G5, but I am concerned about AutoCAD.
noci, and let us not forget the bush admin disguising their thoughts about policy as "actual reporters reporting on news."
PC vs. Mac. PC's are ok, but they can't multi task as well, and have more problems with viruses. Mac's are expensive because they equal higher quality. Apple controls every part of the computer, to make sure it's quality. Anyways with a Mac you can run four systems at once, on a PC only one. On the mac I can run OSX, Classic, Linex and virtual PC. It's sometimies anoying jumping between programs from my Mac and the school PC's, but becides that it works well.
It really is personal opinion. I'm from Mac Country-- Hense I'm a mac user. Anyways... macs like to be design friendly... which means stylish etc. But then there are advantages to PC's. I don't know them. All I know is that Mac's are easier to program for- but that is unrelated to this discussion.
they both do different things well...i for one have no preference. we know that mac offers a good design platform, and formz works great on it. however, if your into digital fabrication, consider a pc. rhino and autocad tend to be the preferred base-level programs in this arena, and aren't offered on the mac, not to mention zcorp software, mastercamm, etc etc etc.
vectorworks can kiss my ass...actually it's beating me up and abusing me right now. I never thought I'd say this but, "I love AutoCad"
Yep, I use both now. Why bother fretting over which is better? Computers are pretty darned cheap these days, so why not use both? I bought a used PC (3.0GHz P4, 512MB, 128MB graphics card, 120GB 7200rpm, including a monitor) for $650 CAD. My PowerBook was $3000 CAD. I use them alternately: model on the Mac, render on the PC, presentation layout on the mac, internet/e-mail on the mac (I don't let the PC on the Internet!), Rhino for CAM on the PC. I flip back and forth all day. I network the two directly using the Mac's ultra-easy Windows file-sharing over a direct Gigabit ethernet connection. In fact, I don't even keep anything on the PC; I work directly off the Mac through this internal network. And now I have a 21" monitor with 2 inputs so I use both with minimal desk space (purchased for $130 CAD plus a $30 USD fix-up).
I've stopped arguing about which is better. It's all about the specific job you're doing at the moment, and one is inevitably better than the other. Overall, who cares? Are you that close-minded that you'd pledge yourself to a side? That won't make you very computationally agile.
(PS And my server at home runs FreeBSD. TAKE THAT!)
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.