• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mac vs PC

You know, I think I'm done trying to ask you to approach this reasonably. For all your asserting the ridiculous bias in the anti-PC Mac perspective, you're basically using pedantic, emotionally-laced deflection and assertion of your own.
 
kookbreaker said:
No, but he compared them to the Sony Walkman in a way that it was obvious that he thought it was a bad thing to compare it to, and then he declared the iPhone to be a failure before it even came out.
Click to expand...

So that would be a "no" then on having any examples of anybody ever saying that iPods were a sales failure. One of your original major examples of the trash talk that PC fanboys are constantly hurling towards Mac.

By the way, do you have a link to whatever Ballmer said? I tried to Google "Ballmer ipod walkman" and all I found was Ballmer talking about the Zune on its release and saying that iPod was the "Goliath" to Zune's "David" and that it would be really hard to beat them in sales. That Ballmer--always dissing Apple!

kookbreaker said:
Ballmer goes way beyond 'a little trash talk' and Apple is not his only target. At this point it is mostly amusing because he is so often *wrong*. yet here he is the president of the world's largest software company.
Click to expand...

And, again, that the CEO of Microsoft should trash talk the competition is really neither here nor there, is it? The question was about Mac/PC fans in the broader community.

kookbreaker said:
:rolleyes:. Yes, it is an LCD, they do technically contain glass -safety glass that is surrounded by assorted films that that pretty much mean they aren't going to cause injury if it falls on the floor.
Click to expand...

So it's totally obvious that they have glass screens which was why you wrote:
kookbreaker said:
the iMac do not have a glass screen!
Click to expand...
There must be some idiom here that I'm not quite picking up.

They have glass screens. The glass can shatter. That was Enderle's sole point. Your claim was incorrect. You appear to be incapable of acknowledging when you are simply factually wrong, however.

kookbreaker said:
Except it was baseless, and he did not attack monitors of PCs. Seems like Apple is singled out.
Click to expand...

Except that, as we have established, it's not baseless. And Apple is only "singled out" because that is the machine he is reviewing and he is comparing it to its predecessor.

kookbreaker said:
The only frothing I see is your flaming defense of a very poor review from an extremely biased 'pundit' who is also known for his hatred of much that is not Microsoft (ask Linux users about Enderle). I think my point is made.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. I have to hate this review not because it says anything incorrect or unreasonable but because we "all know" that the reviewer is a very very bad man. So it doesn't actually matter if he makes a perfectly reasonable point, the review still counts as evidence of an evil, evil attack on Mac because that's what he always does. Except this time, when he gets extra sneaky by making a perfectly reasonable comment. That bastard.

Here's an idea; if he's always attacking Macs unfairly, why not find a review where he actually does make an unfair attack on Macs? If he does it all the time it must be pretty easy to find ONE example, no?
 
GreNME said:
You know, I think I'm done trying to ask you to approach this reasonably. For all your asserting the ridiculous bias in the anti-PC Mac perspective, you're basically using pedantic, emotionally-laced deflection and assertion of your own.
Click to expand...

GrenMe, you're just completely misreading my posts. Try rereading them.
 
Yoink said:
Ah, I see. I have to hate this review not because it says anything incorrect or unreasonable but because we "all know" that the reviewer is a very very bad man.
Click to expand...

No, because what you are calling a 'review' is nothing of the sort, at least not of the iMac. It was a series of unfounded and baseless bashings with a not-so-subtle implications that Apple was going into negative territory with its new products and thus heading towards failure.

Read the entire article. It is not a review (at least of the iMac). It is mostly an attack on Apple. A review implies he got a machine and worked with it. He did not do so. He looked at some pictures of the iMac, decided he didn't like it, and then made up a irrelevant thing to complain about. He was not only wrong (the iMac is actually quite stable).

So it doesn't actually matter if he makes a perfectly reasonable point,
Click to expand...

It is not a 'perfectly reasonable point'. The glass is not going to shatter and cut up your kids feet as you flee an earthquake. There are a million things to worry about in an earthquake before you worry about what the glass in an LCD is doing. Calling this a 'perfectly reasonable point' is beyond silly.

the review still counts as evidence of an evil, evil attack on Mac because that's what he always does. Except this time, when he gets extra sneaky by making a perfectly reasonable comment. That bastard.
Click to expand...

Nice try. But he was taken to task for this idiocy in 2005 and was proven wrong.

Here's an idea; if he's always attacking Macs unfairly, why not find a review where he actually does make an unfair attack on Macs? If he does it all the time it must be pretty easy to find ONE example, no?
Click to expand...

From the same article:

"The Lisa was a bone headed product that showcased how little Apple actually knew about the business market and both offerings showed what can happen if you focus too much on form and not enough on function."

uh - the Lisa was about function over form. I mean, take a look at it. Lisa was all about technology and was hardly boneheaded, it just had little appeal,was way too expensive and when the mac came into being it became irrelevant. Oddly enough it sold well with some upgrades and price changes as the Mac XL.

(Plus, isn't going back to 1984 a bit of a stretch? Isn't this like complaining about the limitations of DOS in 2005? Why not bring up the Apple III?)

Continuing:

"Remember that Apple exists largely because Xerox didn't want to take a risk with a graphical user interface and a mouse. "

Please. Repeating computer's urban legends?

In the same article he predicts the shuffle and Mac Mini to be failures. Or rather he predicts that the shuffle will steal sales from the iPod, thus cutting down on Apple's profits (and leading to their DOOM!). Didn't happen.

For the Mac Mini he says: "Most people expecting a $500 Mac will find they are paying as much as twice as much than they intended if they buy Apple peripherals and at least half again as much if they buy from third parties. "

Ummm, the Mac Mini worked with USB PC peripherals. It was not meant as a stand-alone start-up Mac and was not marketed that way. That was the iMac's realm.

Oddly, he seems to likes iWork. OKfine, but he takes a swipe at Apple in the review - hinting that Apple exists only at the whim of Microsoft.

And he ends with prognostications about how Apple will be struggling because of his issues (some real, mostly imaginary) with the products. The predictions are poor with apparently little thought behind them. He was shown to be desperately wrong: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/oct/11results.html
 
Last edited:
HarryKeogh said:
Only a PC user would think that.

It's obvious that the unanimous consensus is "get a Mac".
Click to expand...


ok mac fanboys
is it the OS
or the hardware [that is mostly pc based]

and if the OS is the big think
why not a hackintosch
and save the cost of a mac box
[ I am mostly thinking about high end desktops 4 core
with 8-16G and multi HDs and a better video card]
but people do hacks on every kind of computer
from little atom powered netbooks
to normal laptops to mid level desktops too

can intel mac's be overclocked ??
hackintosch's sure can be
many report home built hackintosch's costing 800 to 1200 usd
beating a mac costing 2500 and up
with hard numbers from a test like geekbench to back up their claims


btw I have owned 3 mac's an original with the sig's inside the case
to a midlevel desk top power pc to a G4 laptop the wife still is useing
but she wants a newer box with CS4 on it
and I am balking at apples prices vs the same speck pc
and I am no fan of job's MS or intel

but mac's fanboys look to me care more about looks and fashion's
then speed or overall costs
and even the used ones are way over priced
 
Last edited:
nota said:
HarryKeogh said:
Only a PC user would think that.

It's obvious that the unanimous consensus is "get a Mac".
Click to expand...

ok mac fanboys
...
<snip>
Click to expand...

fail.jpg
 
The promotion and encouragement of building hackintoshes is starting to concern me just a little... Do people not realize that hackintoshes are breaches of the Mac OS EULA, as well as US copyright law? Or do they just not care?
 
SkeptiChick said:
Do people not realize that hackintoshes are breaches of the Mac OS EULA, as well as US copyright law? Or do they just not care?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for everyone, but based on comments I have heard it would seem to go beyond simply not caring. Many people think they are entitled to use OS X in any way they see fit, actually arguing that Apple has no right to impose licensing restrictions. In my opinion, this smacks of a serious inability to grasp the basic concepts of copyright.
 
uruk said:
I repeat again. There are very few Macs used in the 3D animation/film effects industry. All the major 3D animation software vendors, Just one now really (autodesk), do not provide a whole lot of support support for Macs. The reason being that there are no high end graphic workstation cards for Mac.

There are only one or two native 3D animation programs for the Mac and no one in the industry would really consider them "Professional". Autodesk does have Mac ports for Maya. But good luck trying to find Maya 2010 for the Mac right now.

I have read many trade magazine bemoaning the condition of Macs in the 3D animation/film effects industry.

Print and film editing are another story though.
Click to expand...
I currently have Maya 2010 for Mac. (I got it before you posted.)

243294af12de885969.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodesk_Maya...oh, yeah it is a really professional piece of software. Oh...sorry. I really am. I don't mean to embarrass you. I will declare that 1+6=67 just to make you feel better.

I have read many trade magazine bemoaning the condition of Macs in the 3D animation/film effects industry.

Print and film editing are another story though.
Click to expand...

Yeah...that really makes sense..:rolleyes:...okay the truth is the world works in such a way in which...and brace yourself...Windows users will use Windows Avid for industry standard film work in Windows, and...get this..Mac users will use the industry standard MAYA for CGI on a Mac. OMG!!!!!!! CRAP!!!!

There are very few Macs used in the 3D animation/film effects industry. All the major 3D animation software vendors, Just one now really (autodesk)
Click to expand...

There are many that I can't recall right now, but they are actually almost as many as are on Windows, because most CGI is developed on Windows and OSX and then rendered on Linux systems.

There are companies that make CGI software for MAC. Sorry..you are embarrassed, and I will let you run off and clean yourself up.



BTW...The issue is that you said that only Autodesk is making things easy..it is a dead give away that you know nothing of CGI and are actually not telling the truth. Autodesk is the one company that only have a handfull of software available for OSX, and that is how I know you are not right here.

So tell me..how does it feel to be called out and exposed as not really honest infront of everyone on this thread by someone who actually knows the software? Also I have a subscription to 3DArtist and 3DWorld, which are the big two. I know because they cost me $30 a month to get.

EDIT: BTW...Linux is the most used...for rendering because you can run +1000 computers without buying the OS for each. And my pwnage of you a complete. Goodbye.
 
Last edited:
I will write this...the truth is that most CGI and 2d desing software is available for both systems, and so it really comes down to telling a company that you know how to run software...which means you will get the job regardless of what OS you run.

uruk> I really want you to defend youself, because I actually was able to debunk you without doing anything, being that I work in CGI and so I want you to defend the notion that Maya 2010 isn't available on OSX even though I have it, that and the large number of CGI software available for..well..all systems. Autodesk is really the only one that is Windows specific, and yet you tried to say they were the only one to...port...to Mac? Please defend this. I was simply trying to defend that people can make choices based on their own needs, but you....wanted to be an absolutest, and now you need to defend it.

Debunk my image that proves I have Maya 2010 on a Mac, or admit you were wrong. Only two options, and I look forward to your post.
 
Last edited:
There are modified kexts/kernels but you can use the vanilla OSX kernels if you use the EFI patch. There is one major thing that stops a straightforward installation of OSX on a PC and that is the TPM (trusted platform module). It is a chip that is in all Apple computers. OSX checks for that chip and if it is not there it will not install. Since the Intel migration from Apple it has been quite easy to make a hackintosh especially with specific parts. And some people have found certain netbooks like the Dell mini 9 that work flawlessly with OSX installed.
 
Vic Vega said:
What kernel does it use?
Click to expand...

It uses the same kernel, but it's been hacked.

The down side to the Hackintoshes is that you can't use the system updater, you have to be careful of what updates you do install (as some kernel updates will screw the system), and altogether it becomes a matter of running a less secure, less stable, and less updated version of the OS. From an IT professional perspective, that really gets the nervous twitch I have going something fierce.
 
Policenaut said:
There are modified kexts/kernels but you can use the vanilla OSX kernels if you use the EFI patch. There is one major thing that stops a straightforward installation of OSX on a PC and that is the TPM (trusted platform module). It is a chip that is in all Apple computers. OSX checks for that chip and if it is not there it will not install.
Click to expand...
OS X doesn't use the TPM at all, and in fact not all Macs even have one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom