Mac Vs Pc

posted on September 27th, 2006, 4:52 pm

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

[Lt.Cdr.White]

posted on September 27th, 2006, 9:02 pm

Last edited by Lt.Cdr.White on September 27th, 2006, 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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?

posted on September 27th, 2006, 10:04 pm

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

posted on September 28th, 2006, 12:04 am

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

posted on September 28th, 2006, 5:33 pm

what is e-SATA Mr cts006?

posted on September 28th, 2006, 7:59 pm

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.

posted on September 28th, 2006, 8:06 pm

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.

posted on September 29th, 2006, 7:32 pm

Ultra ATA is just IDE.

posted on October 8th, 2006, 9:28 am

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

posted on October 8th, 2006, 12:49 pm

I did not know you wher a mac fan Doca Cola

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/

posted on October 8th, 2006, 6:34 pm

I did not know you wher a mac fan Doca Cola

not a fan, but quite impressed

posted on October 8th, 2006, 7:21 pm

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.


, 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).

[DOCa Cola]

posted on October 8th, 2006, 7:43 pm

Last edited by DOCa Cola on October 8th, 2006, 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

, 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

[Acreo Aeneas]

posted on October 8th, 2006, 7:48 pm

Last edited by Acreo Aeneas on October 8th, 2006, 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

[DOCa Cola]

posted on October 8th, 2006, 7:59 pm

Last edited by DOCa Cola on October 8th, 2006, 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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)