Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

This is a continuation of this thread http://forum.fleetops.net/index.php?showtopic=2608&st=45 (http://forum.fleetops.net/index.php?showtopic=2608&st=45) on the MAC vs PC side, since a mod wasnt availible to split the topic.

well at the end of the day Mac's have no real clear benefit to the end user all they are, are overpiced machines that charge on looks rather than performance

and if you dont believe me go look at half a dozen websites that prove apple fabricates the results of benchmarks to gain customers an theyproved that by switching to intel processors says it all doesnt it?

to be honest to spend the money of a mac on a pc u can get a ******* 100% better machine so **** MAc PC all the way

ps. the only reason apple is alive btw is the ipod and even that is overpriced so id consider switching to mac carefuly they arent that good a company

and as for what ewm said bout bill gates  being the better business man

wasnt it steve jobs that just saved apple from death about 5 years ago with teh marketing of the ipod ??

Well than what duss it look like when a Vista mushean crashes? Sins all windows musheans are basted of the same base technolagy why would it be difrant?

Exuse me thats true 4 of 11 if you dont count spy whare/add ware/mall ware/root kits/vireses, thare hier refesh rates, thare less need for systom resoreses, The feact that have have spint more time on user interface, the fact that thay exsept forn formats much easyer, and the fact you run in to minamal erores o and thare 64bit color depth. Thare computers all so can hold more ram. and with makes thare fucher looks good not so with Windows.

Intell is not windows thay formal used IBM prosesers and IBM has fallen on hard times.

I storngly disagree.

Do some reserch in the the company man.... Mac was making a fast come back long be for Ipods came out.

No not at all look up the facts Ipod did not come on the seen till later. Microsoft gave a grant to the apple computer company th help tham stay alive. Most likely thare was a dark business dell behind it.

It's not often I'll comment in a thread not relating in the least to ships or arguing with Ryan.

The Mac is obsolescent, and is no match for a modern PC.

- Videocards are MUCH more sophisticated for PC's.
- Nothing is released on the Mac due to PC's superiority
- Name me all the modern games you can play on a Mac.
- PC's are more adaptable, moddable and upgradable, where Mac is not
- Apple cheats on their performance tests.

Ewm, will you drop the refresh rate thing already. Apple uses LCD monitors, that do not have a refresh rate.

No **** man, you think Steve Jobs wanted to keep using IBM chips. He hates IBM. IBM has not realy fallen on hard times, they have sold there PC division and are a server focused company now.

At the end of the day it comes down to one thing

PC: Good machine with good price
Mac: for people who think that owning a computer is an extention of there **** and need to show off  

Look I am a computer nechnistion I know of what I speek.

Rhaz
Thats not true. You have it reversted.
Yes the vido card for PC are beater thats true.
Thare are meny aplications that are made for mac that are not made for PC
Yes I know PCs have better vido cards. and thay are morcomin place. - thays why thare not meny games for MAC.
Thats not True.
Thats not True.

You live in a nise fantisy.

cts006
When I sat the refesh rate I am not tolking about the moniters I am tolking about the opratingstiom. PCs oprating stoms is set at a very low refesh rate.
Well from what I have heard that PC duvishion was lossing munny thats why thay sold it. I am glad thay did be cuss of thare past thay sold puch card mushen to hitler in WW2 for the know perpuse of proseing jews. Thares all so the fact that Mac wont to keep its own idenity and wonts to keep as defrent from PCs as posabule.

4 of 11
You get what you pay for.
Just be cuss we love the fact that we have a better computer/ oprating systom is nuthing to be ashamed of if fact is some thing we are proud of!

(http://www.geeksquare.info/media/imaclove.jpg)

what was you on about with the hitler jew thing? and macs suck thats it, they looks nice and i wish my computer had the style of a mac, but thats coz the comp i am on atm is a tiny brand comp it looks cheap, buth that is the only thing of a mac i like.

During WW2 the IBM company made a deal with hitler to buy puch card musheans to proses jews after WW2 IBM colected the munny that Hitler promesed tham. more info: Click Here (http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/)

Its all about what you use tham for PCs suck for evry thing exspt for net working, cost, and games uther wise macs are beater.

(http://images.apple.com/switch/images/indextopwidepowermac20050726.jpg)

well if thats the case no body buy anything from germany either, i think the romans killed a lot of jews so screw over the italians aswell any other coutnry we should sanshion?

Shut up about better design and OS and that crap

I custom built my pc and it looks a hell of a lot better than any mac ive ever seen

Go check out the ******* Thermal take Armour case u ******* ****

and if you were really a computer techie which i seriously doubt you wouldnt be advocating the modability or upgrade options on macs as they really do not exsist


we are computer tech's im studdying to be a network engineer so dont chat **** boy

At the end of the Day id prefer a Windows box with a nice Athlon Fx or Intel Conroe any day over a ******* mac peice of **** that cant do anything


and as for macs not lying on there tests hahahahaha ur an idiot just google it and ull come up with at least a couple of thousand hits

Eufnoc
Well for me it shose the nacher of that company I dont like tham not be cuss of that but the pont thay naver apoligised for it or tryed to donate the amount of mony thay got from hitler to Isral or holicost relefe/egucation organisations.

4 of 11
Why sould I. I thot that was the pont of this thread and its true?

Well cleerly you have not seen alot of macs.

Well you shere use alot of 4 leter words.

I do admit it has ben awile sens I have worked as a computer technition but as for as I know and as for as I see thay both can upgrade just as much.

So much hate in you so meny 4 letter words I dont see how useing 4 letter words and insolts gets your pont acrose.

You still have to persent fact to that conclution.

Well if that was true I would have heard about it by now. If you realy wont to persent evadenst I wont stop you in fact I will incerge you to do so.

(http://www.itechtips.com/uploads/apple_amd_logo.jpg)

ok

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/24/ap..._cheating_over/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/24/apple_accused_of_cheating_over/)

thats one perfect example there

and what do you mean Macs are just as upgradable they bloody well are not , what can u upgrade the hard drive and ram thats about it maybe the graphic card too but i havent seen any Processor upgrades u can get or motherboard switches ?

not to mention the fact that they release upgrades to the OS that you actually have to pay for

and i have seen alot of macs more than my fair share in my time ive gone from using Imacs all the way through to the G5 so dont tell me i havent used them

And to be honest i want you to buy a mac now so you realise how much of an idiot you are when you realise that you cant do anything you want to do on the thing and you spent something like twice the price of a pc for half the performance  

That is desterbuing I trust the register. Well that agument is moot now eny way sens thay no longer use IBM perosers.

Well last I have seen Pc suffter from the same ishows. When I tryed to up grade my dell the max my muther bord would take was a 2gb I was and am runing 1.8 gb. and the power suply pervited from dell did not let me put to much more in to the computer a hard drive and a new CPU maby. I did instoll a fier wire card unfochintly Windows XP is not grate with fier wile so the hard dives I have dont not work well on my PC but on macs thare fine.

Yes well its better than haveing to down load folty upgrades. You can be shere if you are paying for tham thay will have a biger sens of libailty if thay dont perform as promised.

Have you used the new ones? and I did not say have not used tham I sed clerly you have not seen meny.

I have owned a Mac be for and was very happy with it.


(http://www.itechtips.com/uploads/tigerx-os-ss_tiger_unleashed-thumb.jpg)

i have used the new ones an am unimpressed ive used teh notebooks alot but i prefer my Ferrari 3400 any day of the week it just plain out guns them performance wise


and where do u get off on the faulty upgrades name me one faulty upgrade cause i sure as hell never got one?

At the end of the day Mac's arent a good investment

you say your dell had a problem see this is where if u were really a techie u woulda done something about it

you coulda got a PSU for about £40 off the web and then u woulda been able to do what ever the **** you wanted

and firewire works perfect with WInxp i use it for my Ipod all the time so dont gimme that crap

and to top it all off you coulda got a new motherboard for £30 and got a new Intel P4 or what not for like £100 so tell me u can do that on a mac ?

http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=112749&page...table&zoomIdx=8 (http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=112749&page=8&type=table&zoomIdx=8)

oh there is more

Cens thay use the same prosesors I find that strange thay use the same ram same muther bords same hard drives... What am i mising


Well I have not eather that is true in the past the parts wher a bit difrant so if you used a part that was not oked by the appal computer comany you mite have probloms tbut those days are behind us.

Well being a graphic artist I think thay are very very good investment.

I do I looked at the dell form looked at uther froms of people how had the same computer as I did and no one has a sultion.

Ya I consinter a new power suply but than I would still have to get a new muther bord and prosor than whould wont more ram by that pont I thot I mite as well get a new computer. and yes if you cool down computers thay do run faster. but that still would not help me with upgrading ram aand uther computer componits. But thanks for the tip.

Yes as far as I know thay are very sinaler to PCs now.

(http://www.ooops.pl/makowskiundpepe/images/the-cult-of-mac.jpg)


That site duss not tuch core dule prossors.

Bottom line Macs are over priced for what they offer you can even see that now but go waste ur money on it  

Well being in the graphics I need one I have used a Pc for a long time and fownd that macs are so much better for that. and now that thay used intell thay are evin better.

(http://www.uberreview.com/uploaded_images/beer_pcur-707421.jpg)

well if you say so but all the benchmarks say otherwise for performance

and the fact that the pc's are more cost effective says it all

and proof ofcourse is the fact that business dont use macs they use windows instead :P

dude just go buy a PC that uses intel, and why do you keep posting those images? :blink:  whatever advantages that a mac has over a PC is gonna be negligable at best.

Well thats not ben my exsperise Macs color display and refresh rates are not maginal at all thay are very notisasabule.

(http://www.uberreview.com/uploaded_images/macmini05-742676.jpg)

ok dude stop with the pictures its just getting annoying theres no need

secondly think what you will but CTS has proof that the mac monitors alone are crappy compared to other brands and to top it off they tend to be twice as expensive  

Thanks for the tip I was un aware of that fact.

The only thing i can contribute is the following link; Accept it from me with a smirk and a sarcastic grin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=67867270 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godwin%27s_Law&oldid=67867270)

EDIT: happy flaming and good luck in your holy quest for righteousness

hahaha thats funny  

sad but true, we already had a reference to the nationalsocialists

What is this about the refresh rates... It does not matter that OSX comes with its refresh rate set higher than Win XP, since Apple doesnt even sell a monitor that has a refresh rate with there mac's.

"Much of the discussion of refresh rate does not apply to LCD monitors. This is because while a phosphor on a CRT will begin to dim as soon as the electron beam passes it, LCD cells open to pass a continuous stream of light, and do not dim until instructed to produce a darker color." - Wiki Refresh Rate

you know reading this today just wanted me to post this here


http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34491 (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34491)

Well thare is a bug with this new swich to the new prosser made by intell that has messed up macs abulty to run some apilcations. It you whate for a wile untill thay werk the bugs out macs shers will go back up.

It makes no sens that mac is doing well and than for no reson faile... Well man thares a reson for every thing you just got to put 2 and 2 to gether.

cts006

What is this about the refresh rates... It does not matter that OSX comes with its refresh rate set higher than Win XP, since Apple doesnt even sell a monitor that has a refresh rate with there mac's.


ewm90- Well if I look at a Pc screen that has not had its refreshrate changed I get a head ake. If I look at a Mac I fell fine at all times.

cts006
"Much of the discussion of refresh rate does not apply to LCD monitors. This is because while a phosphor on a CRT will begin to dim as soon as the electron beam passes it, LCD cells open to pass a continuous stream of light, and do not dim until instructed to produce a darker color." - Wiki Refresh Rate

Well evin when macs only had CRT moniters the refrash rate was as hi as it is now. Macs have all ways had a hi refresh rate dating back to when the mac was called a appil.

Heres a pro appal link to make up for the nagitve one :P  http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computerac...apple-imac-24in (http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/hardware/2164647/apple-imac-24in)

You dont get what the link said do you .........

it was tracking the usage of computers across the net and Macs have less than 5% what does that tell you if 80+% use Windows XP

Macs suck they arent popular,  

Well thats becuss PCs are cheeper and becuss thay are used in the work place more becuss or thare price. People buy what thay know.

+ Pcs are good for games sluitafing thare controle.


Macs have menny fuchers that PCs dont thay just are not takin advatige of be cuss of thare price. You pay for what you get.

No cause you can get cheap macs aswell now so its not just price

Its becuss of the fact evry one is used to PC all the aplications that people are used to run on PC thare is evadise to suport this mac has ben making a ig recovery.

But eny recovery will be slowe becuss people dont like chage.

why does ur signiture say vote for change if ppl dont like it? :P

i like the PC as it is more compatible in this day and age. macs are useful for video editing and stuff but i think the average joe will prefer the PC

That a discution for a nuther thread.

ashaly thats not trow mac exsepts more mac forun formats like the Pc format. Pc duss not exsept mac fomated things if a file duss not have the  dos exe after the file name the file cant be read.

and than thares the fact that mac runs windows.

Look Ewm you just cant accpet that macs have under 5% of the Pc operating system market compared to over 84% Windows Xp

If macs were so good they would have at least 30% the rest could be attributed to cost but they dont

Now im sorry but the discussion is over

I'm a bit biased in the PC direction since all but three Mac's I've seen have either been useless junk without processing power or have melted (yikes).
Anyways, popularity doesn't always prove worth, but in this case...
80% is a pretty large amount, see. And there's the issue of certain Macs not running a few of my CDs (the ones which I had projects for school on... thanks, Apple, for bringning the OS 9 iMac into the world) and the annoying mouse/keyboard. I never have gotten used to that keyboard. It hurts my fingers and makes me typo it up.

The few good macs have been quite fun to play on, games like Diablo and Warcraft and Starcraft and Deus Ex (yes, they're available on PCs as well), and they do have nicer eye candy, but I really am a PC fan. It's fun to have a giant bulky tower next to your monitor, you know? Oh, and I can position the fan to blow warm air on me during the winter.

You guys just dont look at the facts and dont under stand markiting and how the biz works yet.

When a company grabs a hold of the market like miroft has its call a monopaly wich is ilegal but PCs hi power lowers got tham off. If a company is as big and powerfule as PC is the compatishon.... well what compation.

thay can pay the best ad aginsys top doller wich mac cant match.

What do you think it is that PCs crash so much and MACs dont? If you have a prodect that sell well no need to chage it.

One day you guys will get it.  

Actually u dont look at the facts. Everybody here has been telling you that PC's usually have better stats for a cheaper price so I dont see the dillema here. Its a fact that as it stands Macs have no chance in hell of ever taking a fair procentage of the market, they need to change something drastically.
Now when I compare PC's to Macs I do not mean Windows XP vs Macs OS. Yes most comps have Windows XP and it is not as stable as one would want, however people make it sound like the thing crashes all the time while actually it rarely does. Its instability is largely exaggerated :) Though if you are against MS and monopoly of the market & unstability there is still Linux OS, which is VERY VERY stable. I dont know Macs OS, but Im pretty sure Linux is more stable than what they have :D
As far as I know there are no other OS available for Macs ;)
The thing that wins it for PC tho is the simple fact of upgradability of EVERYTHING and the price of course ^_^
The way I see it, if Macs EVER want to have a larger percentage of the market they will need to change their mentality drastically. Cause u just cannot offer **** that is less efficient and more expensive and expect to take over a market  :omg:  If that wasnt enough there is the whole unupgradability thing and of course 1/2 of stuff that is released doesnt work on Macs  -_-  They would also need a big company behind them which would release software exclusivly for Macs, and I mean good software, that would make people think twice about which thing to choose. But as it stands, Macs have no chance in hell against PCs....

Well I think it was 1 out of 12 how instoll servis pack 2 computer gets messted up so bad thay have to reformat and its not just the crashing its the vireses, spy whare, ad ware, root kits, mall ware, and the fact that the User interface has not chaged much ever sins win 95.

Yes it is win VS mac os uther wise the computers are same.

Thare are as meny OS avilabule for macs as PCs.

Its as easy to upgrade a Mac as it is a Pc thay are the same inside.....

Not trow Windows has a strnagl hold on the markit. Ther stangal hold may fail in a few new OS win thay figer out back werd capatibality as thay no it is not posabule for ever.

 

Ewm you still are talking out of your arse

1, I have service pack 2 and ive had this install on my pc since august 4th ( previous vista b2) and i have had Zero crashes, zero spyware, Zero viruses

So tell me in what way that XP Sp2 makes everyone crash im sorry but i dont even need Anti virus or Anti spyware with the way things work

2,There are not MANy Operating systems available for mac because theres only MAC OS thats officially supported

3,Its not as easy to upgrade a mac because if you have an IMAC u cant upgrade i to run the latest OS because they want you to buy a new machine for it

4, I dont understand what you have said but If you think its just cause windows has a strangle hold on the market you would be wrong

the way i see it is that MACs actually do more advertising than WIndows and thats a fact when it comes to TV I see one windows Ad a week Macs i see regularly
 

another thing with the macs is the laptops - they're seen as a stylish item to have and thus its a "must have item" with certain ppl along with the ipod and little dogs in a bag.

i agree with baron regarding the stabilty of windows and linux, many of the crashes i've encountered in my years with XP are due to mistakes on my part not XP but they're easily fixable and if i'm at loss on how to fix it there is a massive community who do know things about windows XP. i also tried linux redhat for a while and it was indeed very stable however i had problems with compatabilty which are probably sorted by now. thats the thing with PCs - the possibilities are limitless with hardware and software. of course the viruses and adware problems are still there but with the right security software and common sense they can be avoided and the main reason macs dont have virus issues is cos the hackers don't target them due to fact not that many ppl have Macs compared to those who have PCs.
the user interface of windows has changed cosmetically in the last OS but thankfully it still works the same way so people who are both experiance and new to windows don't find themselves getting lost in the computer.
a question to some ppl who may work in the computer industry - what is the current standard for server OS in offices? windows or linux? any macs doing this work too?

well server based operating systems are mainly

Windows
Linux
Solaris

no one ever uses macs for servers


also mac laptops are proven to be unreliable they have way too many issues to even start talking about them

thought not. the only macs i've ever seen are in schools for media and art classes. can't say i know anybody with a mac yet.
the laptops are shite, my mate got 1 for christmas and he hated it, traded it in for a dell 1 that was 100 times better than the fancy white mac laptop.

does anyone remember the old claris works on the ancient apple macs? classic software! :D

I think the stability issue is pointless my girlfriend bought a mac and it crashed four or five times within the first month of owning it.  

She probly had a soft whare conflict downloaded a crupt program if she removed files linked with the program every thing would be fine.

Mac are relibal the programes people put in to tham are not all ways.

Try comand+option+esc than use fore quite to the problom program.

Ewm thats not true what u just said because ive seen alot of blogs on macs crashing for no reason and nothing to do with software  

aye the iMacs in my old school used to crash sometimes and that was using apple's own video editing suite and nothing from the net since they weren't used that much..they sud have done tho come to think of it, websites banned on the PCs in the school weren't on the iMacs ;)

I have heard no reports of macs crashing for no reson and I track tech news prity closly if that was the case I whould have heard people complaing but I dont. I hear people prasing thare macs.

I have used alot of macs non crashed for no reson. I all so interned as a computer repare person I had no computer Macs crashing for no reson.

you must be one of the lucky ones then ewm :woot:  

I am I am very lucky becuss I see the power and inportes of appal computers.

do you also see the power and importance of the more common PC?

Yes I do thay both have thare uses. Thay are made for difrant tasks.

well no thats a lie cause practically everything you can do on a mac you can do on a pc so ..........

thats true....PC are indeed superior :woot:

If it was a software conflict it was within the stock Mac software because she has not in stalled any thing on it that did not come with the computer.

SHO260
Well thay she must have dleeted some thing that she shouldent have or chaged a seting that cosed the computer to have problom such as seting the VR mimory to hi or some thing elss that made it not work.

4 of 11
Not trow one of the best vido apilacations final cut pro only runs on mac and evin the programs that run on Pc dont run as well as the ones that run on mac.

Frodo
What ever cow man.

Im sorry but Buying a mac just for final cut pro is stupid unless you work in the movie business and i know you dont ewm

 

Well I know you dont becuss final cut pro is the mane program used for vidoe. I have takin some video class.

Ewm do u actually read what i post or do you just reply in ewmlish with what you think i say ?

Look I dont do Video editing and i know you dont either so you can scratch that as a point to getting a mac  

Do some reserch man. I learnd the basics of DV speshal efects on after efects on a mac. I am inthe graphics word and spind time arownd 3d artist VD artists and more. Pleace dont prech tp me about what is better for vidoe editing I know what duss what.

Dont underestimate me be cuss of my spelling. Meny of this earths gratest minds where dislexsic.

the PC is much better for editing, especially now with the powerful processors and graphics cards. I've been to the editing studios of UK television channels and they have a few imacs but everything is mainly done on PC. it can not be denied that the PC with any OS is better all round nor can it be denied that the iMac is rubbish and sales figures are on the drop. if the Mac had summt better then the PC then they would have grabbed a bigger slice of the market, Microsoft can not be accused of sabotaging the Mac either. the mac fought well but its just not good enuf.

Oh shut the **** up ewm seriously you dont even read what i post and then you just reply with your own bullshit seriously

this is the kinda **** that made me flame you before

What kind of horse **** is this that I missed 3 pages.

Ewm, tell me one good reason why after effects is better on a Mac than a PC.  

I just speek the truth.

Frodo it is true that PCs have better vido cars with makes tham better for rindering movies. But MACs have hier bit rates and more colors than PCs do. Macs all so use much less ram in thare OSs than windows used wich meens more can be load at one time than can be loaded on PC.

MACs and PCs use the same proseser.... IMACS are not for editing..... some perfer MACs for editing some like PCs you have to see what works for you best.

Oh my God when will you learn

What gave you the Idea that Macs have higher Colour bit rates thats a lie what can you get on a mac ? 24bit 32bit ?

Same as a ******* pc is what it is

And dont give me crap about Ram, If you own a pc and you want to spend money on editiing you can get up to 4gb ram alot cheaper than you could if it was on a mac

 

You can get up to 16Gb if you buy a server mobo... and Apple ram is no better than PC ram. If anything its the same **** sold by apple, not to mention apple doesnt even use the ram with the higehst bus speed.

Thay get 64 bits at lest 2x what windows gets.

Look stuff up be for you post some thing man.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301341 (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301341) < offishal site for MAC osx tiger systom requerments

Its the same man dude same price. Mac OSX tiger used 256MB min to run At least 3 GB of free disk space

Windows offisal site for Vista requierments: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvi...e/vistarpc.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx)
512 MB min to run win XP 1GB recomended. 40 GB HD + 15 GB free.





 

Yah, and ive seen XP run decent on an ainchent laptop with 128mb of ram, dont try and bullshit a bullshit.

Ewm you keep pushing this 64 bit video capability i just curious what does that allow MACs to do that PCs can not?

OK F U c k you ewm where do we begin

1, The human eye cant even tell past 24bits
2, What the **** are you talking about Vista isnt the current OS windows XP is and windows XP runs at 256mb so STFU

and another thing PC ram is cheaper than Mac ram ever figure that one out ?

Seriously ewm stop protecting the Macs they have nothing going for them its all alot of bullshit for people who are thick

 

well i do 3d modelling and i also do video editing and my mate does video editing in uni.

now i wont lie he will tell you for video editing he prefers mac, mainly cuz he just finds them more unreliable and less prone to crashing. and i believe cuz he finds final cut pro and adobe after effects just a lil bit easier to use.

but he will tell you any day a PC is better though for sheer compatiablility and 3d party support. you know i read that for every one mac program your find 1000 windows versions. mac have to do most of the work themselves cuz no1 really develops for it and they dont give you much uprade options either and so you know, even though the MAC now uses intel chips, due to the fact most programs have not yet be re writtern in the new extensions the mac has to emulate so is 4 times slower then its current IBM younger brother!!!

lets see who can make a better PC or Mac with 700 pounds yhea EWM

Run more color hirer refedh rates. it lets you alicate more ram to systom aplications and less to the Oprating systom. It lests you run your aplications in a very stamable invierment evin more so than linex. Macs have a biltin intagrated FTP program that is much easer to use than pulling ftp stuff up in the browser wich window duss not. Mac has a font crictor list wich displays all avlibal fonts for each type face alll windows has is a the alfa numaric key pad. Mac is much more frindly to PC meda than PC is to Mac meda. MACs are eser to fix when and if some thing gose rong. Macs have a Far superer UI than windows is useing that is verchaly the same as WIN 95.

Thares a few exsampals for you SHO260.


cts006 you are refering to Windows XP not Microsoft Windows Vista Beta 2 that I was tolking about.

Acording to wikipedia vistas Color management.
Windows Color System features a completely redesigned Color Infrastructure and Translation Engine (CITE) at its core. It is backed up by an enhanced color processing pipeline that supports bit-depths more than 32 bits per pixel, multiple color channels (more than 3), alternative color spaces and high dynamic range coloring, using a technology named Kyuanos[20]  

First off ewm, "Run more color hirer refedh rates. it lets you alicate more ram to systom aplications and less to the Oprating systom." that statement is absolute bullshit.

Second of all, apple ahs been reduced to making there own FTP program as no-one else would, where as you ahve like 200 different 3rd party ones that are amazing for the PC. Mac more friendly to PC media my ***... It doesnt even come with a program for viewing fullscreen videos mac or pc media.

The win95 interface, whcich I actuly use since I always go back to the classic interface rather than the ugly XP one. Is still around because it works, its light weight, and people like it. I was also refering to XP as you mentioned it above and it is the current version of windows, sine vista is like 6 months off.

Do you just want me to slap you and call you a Dumb SOn of a B|tch?

What the **** are you talking about it does not have higher refresh rates nor does it have something special by allocating my ram to teh Programs as ******* XP does that anyway

secondly What the **** are you talking about more stable than linux any sane person who uses pc's will just slap you for that comment your an idiot

There is FTP through Explorer and it works fine ive never had a problem with it


Shut the **** up about media formats you talk **** if u want to run Mac formats make sure u have quicktime and such on your PC

and i hate teh Mac UI its horrible and crap Xp's is efficient remember the term

" if it aint broke dont fix it " well thats why the UI hasnt changed for windows because its the most popular OS and it needs to remain the same so companies dont have to retrain staff with using the pc's

and for the love of god IT DOES NOT MATTER IF U HAVE 64 BITS AS U CANNOT SEE IT WITH THE HUMAN EYE
 

I just showed vea the ofishal site that it is true.

Not true thare are ahost of uther Ftp programs you can use made by 3ed party.

Yes thay do how elss would thay run Ituns vido....

Not acording to UI exsperts. How clicks start to shut down a computer?

Oh please shut up ur talking ****

Clicking to shut down the PC i have a shortcut on my desktop so Shh!

 

and so you know mate, in VISTA its just one click to shut down the pc, how many is it on the mac, oh wait hold on whats this off button on my pc,

lets mac the one keyboard button press :P

*COUGH* Alt+F4 than Enter, *COUGH*

here is a question for EWm, without buying a 3rd party mouse how much does an original wired infra mouse for a mac cost from Apple???? 60 pounds....
how muh does a PC one cost thats infra red from microsoft. 14.99 and if u want a wireless mouse then your look at 100 pounds that comes with a featureless keyboard to boot. should we compare that to a LOGITECH set?

and here is one, how many fingers does it take someone with a mac to right click with a 1st party mouse...
for my pc it takes one...

he wont reply cause he knows there is nothing to say  

O please 4 of 11 I have uther tings than fleetops in my life I had a apontment to go to.

redmanmark86
Look I stated befor MAC stuff duss cost more. and yes thay dont have a 2bunton/ weel mouse thares nuthing new about that. But if you buy a new mouse after buying your computer from a 3ed portty thares no problom.

Actually they do have a two button wheel mouse and it costs 3 or 4 times that of a PC version

look Mac stuff is overpriced for a reason its crap and they dont get enough customers so they throw all the costs into one machine they cant bulk order and sell that way cause not enough people buy them

i wonder how much it really costs Apple to build an iMac

You would make a pore volcan your logic si flowed.

What would people pay more for crap? Macs are exspisve be cuss thay cost more than PCs to make. Well Thare are people that buy tham and for a good reson.

I exsplaned whay PCs have controle on the markit its not becuss thare better is becuss thay are cheeper and people lern to use tham at work people buy  what thay know.

I am shere if mac had come out with a cheeper computer and sold it to the busness world we would be looking at steeve jobes in bill gates shouse.

No you dont understand Macs do NOT cost more than Pc's to make

but Apple doesnt make enough money on the whole so they put all the costs into each machine where as PC just bulk sale aka Dell

get your facts straight and learn some basic business

Do you have eny proof of this?

It may have chaged resintly with the new prosers.. now  thay PC cotup to MAC thay are idincal to PCs inside This was not all the case in the past MAC had new tech 1st the DVD player, USB, Fier wire, internal zip drive, and meny uther things.

learn basic business... I just sed the same thing to you in a past thread....  

With the crap they use, probably one hell of a lot less than they sell it for.

As I stated just now thay use technolagy be for PC gets it.....

MAC has ben defining the role of computer inavtion sens its conseption. My pont is if MAC uses cheep technoly than PC uses it after MAC has made it popler what dus that say about PC????

No they dont thats a bloody lie Ewm they dont release stuff before PC

Dvd was at the same time and PC got Usb first if i remember rightly cause firewire is an apple thing and usb was the counter ;)

Internal zip drives who the **** would want one of them i used to have zip disks and they were terrible Jazz disks on the other hand were useful too bad they died out

so dont talk ****  

No I remiber DVD was on mac beform it was solded on PC. USB or wire wier is not nesaseral native to one OS or a nuther its just that MAC incorprated it be for PC.

Zip disks are more relibal and more potabule and cheeper. Flash drave took over whare zip disks left off.

Do you know anything at all seriously get your facts straight

Firewire is an apple standard and wasnt available on the Pc for along time because Usb was mainly on the PC so dont talk ****

Zip disks were not better than Jazz disks and they wernt even that good either Zip disks were a waste of time , And dont talk **** about Dvd being on mac first cause i can guarantee you your wrong about that

ewm, how much are those mac guys paying you?

Well USB 1.0 was slow and was not good for transfering big files.

ummmm.... I not shere you have all the facts...

Omg here we go again

Ok Usb 1.0 was developed as an Industry standard and not soon after usb 1.1 was released that was as good as most people needed and now Usb 2.0 ***** on firewire

Firewire = 400mbs Usb2 = 480mbs

now firewire 800 is out too so thats going to be better than USb 2.0 but i suspect usb 3.0 would probs be released soon anyway so it wont really matter will it
 

FireWire - Still the Performance King!

Question: USB 2.0 is faster than FireWire...right?
Answer: No, actually FireWire is faster than USB 2.0.

Question: Hold on...USB 2.0 is a 480 Mbps interface and FireWire is a 400 Mbps interface, how can FireWire be faster?
Answer: Raw throughput rating numbers alone don't tell the whole story, as explained below.

The throughput numbers would lead you to believe that USB 2.0 provides better performance.  But, differences in the architecture of the two interfaces have a huge impact on the actual sustained "real world" throughput.  And for those seeking high-performance, sustained throughput is what it's all about (reading and writing files to an external hard drive for example).
 
Architecture - FireWire vs. USB 2.0
 
   FireWire, built from the ground up for speed, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer
 

USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower, less-efficient data flow control)
 
   Performance Comparison - FireWire vs. USB 2.0  
   Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and then USB 2.0 show:
 
    Read Test:  
   5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0
 
       Write Test:  
   5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0
 
   FireWire - Still the Performance King!
As the performance comparison shown above confirms, FireWire remains the performance leader.  And is the best choice for DV camcorders, digital audio and video devices, external hard drives, high-performance DVD burners and any other device that demands continuous high performance throughput.  

http://www.cwol.com/firewire/firewire-vs-usb.htm (http://www.cwol.com/firewire/firewire-vs-usb.htm)

 

Yeah but Usb ***** on fire wire because of the raw compatability where as firewire supports how many devices ?

Ya I do agree thay USB has its use it a very usefule option.

Infact its so good they put USb on macs because firewire is useless to the open market as no one uses it

Not true all most all graphic desinser use is I have 2 fier wire HDs. eny one how has to use large files aritecs, enganers, sintests, and uthers.

How many people use firewire HD's cause i dont know a single person i know alot of people who have Portable Hdd's and everyone gets usb for the ability to plug it into anything you cant do that with firewire

Well only people how have a need for the exstra speed would buy tham. Your frends dont seem to need the exstra speed good for tham thay will save  $$.

Ewm you dont know my friends do for a living to say that

I have alot of friends who work as Pc engineers and they all Use USb because no matter what the data can be transfered onto any pc where as firewire can not  

Well thay did not buy one so thay must not have felt the exstra speed was werth the price. Thare are alot of people how think it is. Ipods run on fier wier or USB thare is a good amount of people how use fiere wire. a Ipod is basicly a meny HD eny whay.

I have an Ipod 30gb video

and i use the usb cable because of the simple fact i can use it everywhere where as with firewire i cannot

now go post ur specs on the otehr thread

I don't mind if it's fire wire or USB 2.0 ... my PC has both. ;)

And wasn't the fact that many digital camcorders use
fire wire for data transfer a reason why many modern
PCs have not only USB but also fire wire?

yeah thats true but we were talking past tense and specifically why mac had firewire first :)

Bah, **** firewire for extrernal hard drives, now its all about the e-SATA.

what is e-SATA Mr cts006?

That would be External SATA, as many of you know the newer hard drives are being made as Serial ATA rather than IDE. SATA has a throughput of 1.5Gbit/s and SATA II 3.0Gbit/s. Compare that to IDE 133Mbit/s, or 480Mbit/s for USB 2.0, Firewire 400 at 400 Mbit/s, and Firewire 800 at 786.432 Mbit/s.  e-SATA is just the connector for SATA or SATA II on the I/O pannel of your motherboard, or a peripheral card. Allowing for external hard drives to be just as fast as internal ones.

As you're talking about ATA... I have a question:

What's the difference between Serial ATA and Ultra ATA? Because the controller on my motherboard seems to have both.

Ultra ATA is just IDE.

since apple decided to switch over to pc compatible hardware they are  equally in hardware concerns (but the price). they have nice case designs, too.
still, i had the chance to try mac osx - currently running it on a 'hackintosh' - a pc with hacked intel-mac osx. compared to windows osx it has much more style. it's hard to describe but the user interface is much more intuitive to use also cleaner and more logical to use as windows xp yet.

i also really like the way system drivers are used. practically you can rip out an hdd of one mac and put in into another and (as long as all drivers are available) it will boot without problems, without conflicts or endless 'new hardware found' dialogs and without obsolete device drivers slowing down your whole OS afterwards.

plus with darwine (wine for mac osx) you can run practically almost any windows application on mac osx (i haven't tried much with games yet, but i have heard many do).

apple *may* earn more money if the would create a mac osx version able to run on every regular pc than bundling it with their hardware.

to sum up my opinion: For office work, or creative work (graphics, sound etc) mac osx is better, or atleast more intuitive to use than windows. windows is still the best in gaming and hardware compatibility. in hardware concerns (not design) pcs are equally to macs.

DOCa Cola

I did not know you wher a mac fan Doca Cola  :D

On a more disterbing note I did read this:

Apple and Adobe at war?  "We think that this is a serious miscalculation by Adobe, although Apple only has less than 4 percent of the global PC market share, it is estimated that they represent between 40 and 50 percent of the shipments of Photoshop. Apple customers are remarkably loyal to Apple and if Mr. Jobs feels forced into going ‘head on’ with Adobe over Photoshop releasing an Apple equivalent then the market for Photoshop would likely collapse in a few months. Apple already demonstrated that the technology built into new Macs with Quartz Extreme and Core image would make developing a similar product to Photoshop trivial for Apple," The Business News Source writes. "Any loss in the media market will be for Adobe, not Apple."

MacDailyNews Take: Adobe needs an attitude adjustment. There's no excuse for making a large portion of your users - the very users of the platform that made your company, by the way - wait for so long to run your products natively.

To read more:
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/webl...d_adobe_at_war/ (http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/apple_and_adobe_at_war/)

not a fan, but quite impressed ;)

Hmm so far, the newer SATA II (300 mb/s) offer only a very slight performance boost to it's predecessor, the SATA I.

I currently have a SATA150 HD, and truthfully, it's faster than my previous UATA133, but not terribly faster.  I mean 150 mb/s vs. 133 mb/s, it's only slightly.  Of course, if I had adopted RAID 0 configuration, it would have been significantly faster with some downside.


:D, Darwine...man oh man, you can practically play any Windows game on there as long as your hardware meets/exceeds the game's requirements.  Although I haven't tried myself, a friend of mines last played several games on his G5 (SW JKA, SWGB, Battlefront I and II, and UT 2004).

but fleet operations... ;) someone already tried on linux with wine. armada 2 works. but cause of the fleet operations loader loading fails. wine support has low priority currently

Hmm...maybe I should test it out sometime on one of my spare systems with Fedora 4.  :D  

wine compatibility is on todo, but not for v3.
yea, feel free to try it. i have heard only one voice about that matter. so, it may actually work.
anyway, the current v3 loader has much cleaner code than the v3 pr version so the problem may have been gone with the final too. (if it really exists, but i think the guy who contacted me back then was quite capable)

:shrugs:

IDK lol, last time I used Linux was like RedHat 8 and Fedora 3 Core lol.