Spectrum 48k :-) I have two words for you; Lunar Jetman. It still ranks as
one of the best games of all time for me. Everything by Ultimate was
awesome to be honest.
On Feb 29, 2012 10:44 a.m., "Jeff C Goodhall" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Older timer here :)
>
> Back in the 286/386 and 486sx/dx days Pc's were prefered in the UK
because they could be upgraded ALOT more and Games ( Doom, Duke3d,
quake, Age of EMpires) were on pc. Voodoo Grahpics cards Going from Visa,
to pci to Agp, the new cases, Hot spotting, AND most importantly the PC
had DOS! ( not windows always hated it since GEM)
>
> DOS 6.22 = My happiest days as a young teenager. ( happiest days as a
kid was when I was 5 years old and I got a Spectrum 48k)
>
> When the 386 hit the stores with all the add ons, mods, games and
everything else MAC could no compete ( in uk anyway) Hell I remember IBM
computers and Acorns being in some schools and homes.
>
> It's all about Fashion now. The argument about " upgradability" has been
destroyed and replaced with our want for "new things" upgrading is no
longer "cool" in the tech world something I blame MAC for.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Raymond E. Feist
>> To: feistfans-l
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 1:55 AM
>> Subject: Re: Possible copyright infringement noted...
>>
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2012, at 4:09 PM, BW~Merlin wrote:
>>
>>> I have never understood this argument that MACs are better for
multimedia and everyone I have asked have said "I don't know they are just
better". They use the same processors now (Intel) and the same graphics
cards (nvidia or AMD) and the same software (Corel or Adobe) which have
been used in Windows machines for years. For the same price point a
Windows machine will be much better equipped and yet this myth as I believe
it to be of MACs being better for multimedia work keeps persisting. Does
anyone know of a solid case where a MAC is better?
>>
>>
>> Today it makes little difference, for the reasons you've sited; the
predominance in Mac users tracks back to the days when there was a big
difference. Up until the adoption of Intel chips by Apple, the Motorola
chips were better graphics processors for really esoteric reasons. For
the neepers among us, if I get a fact wrong, feel free to correct. The
first issue was a "pipeline" issue, i.e. Moto's data words were shorter
than Intel's back in the day. So if a Mac dropped a data bit and got a
checksum = false, it resent 8 bits. If Intel dropped a data bit at the end
of a 24 bit word, it had to resend 24. Over the long haul, that added to
the time for rendering overhead. Secondly, Motorola Floating Point
Operations Per Second (Flops) were at a higher rate as part of the chip
design so at similar clock speed, Motorolas were faster. Lastly, the
design of the I/O between motherboard and graphics chip and the associated
busses were more efficient. So, back in the days of the early Motorola
68000s v. Intel 286/386 Macs were better for graphic use. Ask the old
timers about how long it took to do ray tracing.
>>
>> So, that's why the Mac developed more Mac users in that community.
Years of using Macs and by the time PCs caught up for graphics, why bother
switching?
>>
>> When the G4 and Intel Macs started to show up, the Mac pretty much put
Apollo and Sparc out of business. When a $5,000 computer could render as
fast as a $30,000 dedicated work station . .; .
>>
>> Today it would be a question of what you're more comfortable with. The
price is about the same because you'd have to beef up a PC in memory and
video upgrades to match at Mac out of the box, but after that it's which OS
you're happier with.
>>
>> Best, R.E.F.
>> ----
>> www.crydee.com
>>
>> Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by
stupidity.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
