PureBasic Forums - English

Shannara wrote:I'm eyeing to buy one of those bacause of what you said, there are hardly any apps for the OSX.

Not true. The only thing you are going to have a hard time finding for OSX are games.

Anybody who have done video and computer art know that mac is the only way to go. That have been the main use for a Mac since 94 (as far as I know). So it has many uses, but only for those creative enough to use it for the special fields it's targetted for.

This is another Mac Myth that I find curious. Exactly what makes anyone think that a Mac is "better" for graphic artists and design work? I know a *lot* of graphic artists, photographers and designers as I work with them every day and the vast majority use Windows. The same industry standard software for graphic design is available on both platforms, and if anything more is available for PC. PCs are typically more bang for your buck and the software tends to be cheaper.

I loved my Mac when I had it (even if it did cost me almost $4000), and I think OSX is an absolutely top-shelf OS. It is a damn shame that OSX is locked into Mac hardware!

Interesting myth of a myth there Back in 1992 - 1996, MAC was the only system used for video editing, audio editing, and graphics (especially since Photoshop, premier and lightwave was mac-only at that time .. .. ..).

So nope, not a myth. Mac was the only OS with decent photo/video/audio editing at that time. So it was a software issue, plus compare the same software on the MAC and PC, it works much better and FASTER on a mac of a slower speed then the PC.

Hmm.. I really havent found any myths yet. Game-wise I agree on the scarcity of. But app wise? Most apps on the mac are trashy 2nd-hand after thoughts or clone of a clone of a clone. :/

Another good thing about OSX is that it is NOT mac hardware locked As with recent court cases, if the EULA/license is not on the outside of the box (to read), you do not have to agree with the license when installing as it was not agreed apon (impossible) at the time of purpose. So if you click "Agree", you are not bound by it. It is the license itself that "binds" the os to a specific hardware, not the os itself

Shannara wrote:Interesting myth of a myth there Back in 1992 - 1996, MAC was the only system used for video editing, audio editing, and graphics (especially since Photoshop, premier and lightwave was mac-only at that time .. .. ..).

*sigh*

First, you're talking about 10+ years in the past. Your earlier comments were made in the present tense and I'm talking about the here and now, not 10 years ago. So once upon a time it might have been true that Mac software was more available and/or better for image/video editing but you sure can't say that now. Read on

Photoshop - true it was developed and first released on the Mac, but the first Windows version was in April of 1993.

Lightwave was never Mac-only. It was developed on and only ran on the Amiga until the mid 90s when the x86, DEC, SGI, etc versions were introduced.

As far as I know the big platforms for serious video/audio work back in the early-mid 90s (and maybe still today) were DEC and SGI.

So nope, not a myth. Mac was the only OS with decent photo/video/audio editing at that time. So it was a software issue, plus compare the same software on the MAC and PC, it works much better and FASTER on a mac of a slower speed then the PC.

Again with the past tense - who ever said we were talking about the late 80s early 90s here?

The myth is that the Mac is the best platform for such things. The truth is that it's surely capable, but a user's opinion has to decide what is "best". There is excellent software to do almost anything in the world available for PC and Mac.

Hmm.. I really havent found any myths yet. Game-wise I agree on the scarcity of. But app wise? Most apps on the mac are trashy 2nd-hand after thoughts or clone of a clone of a clone. :/

On one hand you're arguing that Macs are the only way to go, then you turn around and say that nothing decent has ever been written for them.

Coming from a user of current (1999+) Mac computers and a heavy user of OSX I can say that in the here and how (that is January, 2005) that there is, for the most part, Mac software for *most* things.. It is *not* the end-all be-all platform or OS for audio/video editing, though it is capable. There isn't the level of software that there is for Windows, Mac still only holds less than %10(?) market share, but making blanket statements about how Macs are the best or worst just doesn't wash.

Another good thing about OSX is that it is NOT mac hardware locked As with recent court cases, if the EULA/license is not on the outside of the box (to read), you do not have to agree with the license when installing as it was not agreed apon (impossible) at the time of purpose. So if you click "Agree", you are not bound by it. It is the license itself that "binds" the os to a specific hardware, not the os itself

Uh. What?

Please point me to a place that I can buy a copy of OSX to run on my PC natively (IE without some hardware emulation). Right now in order to run OSX you have to buy Mac hardware - that is my only beef with the OS. If Apple started shipping an x86 version I missed the press release and need to get my behind down to Best Buy

http://www.ebay.com has OSX cds for auction. But as for natively, grab Darwin

Thats what I was thinking about concerning Lightwave, Amiga Thanks for pointing that out.

I have yet to find a PC (current day) run the same software faster then the fastest Mac


But thats besides the point of this thread, atm Mini Macs rule, and I'm going to buy one as soon as PB is up to snuff

I have yet to find a PC (current day) run the same software faster then the fastest Mac

You havn't looked very far then. Don't trust the benchmarks from Apple the're bias and have been compiled using specially written libs and the test machines (allegedly) had the cpu set to a special dev mode to increase speed too. We have the new dual cpu g5s at work and they run sloooooww compared to a high end pc.

I have yet to find a PC (current day) run the same software faster then the fastest Mac

wow! like kale said: Open your eyes man!!!
you think you can get a mac that run faster than a DUAL amd 64 3400+ ?
thats 6800mhz in total[ i know its not calculated that way] with 1 gig of ram?

yeah its a pc. i am actually having a look at it for bying something like that if
i ever find a dual athlon 64 board..
i doubt ANY mac would run software faster than that..
btw you can get a quadro 64 bit too..

and also the normal 1*3600mhz processors with some ram will run much faster than ANY mac in games, apps and WHATEVER you like man..

i agree macs look's pretty. But dont come and say this bullshit..

I should of expanded on my previous comment, That should read "pc of the same "speed" as the mac counterpart" .

And I trust Apple's benchmark the same as I trust Intel and Microsoft ... none of them are reliable Third party is the way to go!

Tom's Hardware, PC Extreme, Sharkey, etc.

ok i can understand the expand. Though im still not sure. But at least its better and more understandable now

I know some of you do not like Slashdot (based on previous posts I have seen) but there is an interesting public response to the topic [url=http://slashdot.org/articles/05/01/14/1 ... 172&tid=95]“Spam and Spyware Too Much for Some Usersâ€

well there is some simple things to do about adware and malvare..:
Virus scanner [of course] and a spyware scanner with a RESIDENT function.
The new microsoft antispyware [former Giant antispyware] has a nice resident/system watcher that does not require much of the system. And yes, it finds the most. Futhermore i have spyware s&d and Adaware.
But actually the new ms antispyware is really nice. All free, and if you have them and run them once in a while [run first time on install, then let the ms antispy have its Security Agent on, and run the others once every month or every 2 month.]..

You can say what you want, but you are covered good for spyware then..