Guess we are all Mac or PC then. kinda like Elvis or Beatles. Schwarzenegger or Stallone. Newcastle or Sunderland. On and on it can go.
Or it's like girlfriends. I think mine is great, but only because I have had time to explore her feature set and ignore all her little foibles. other people's mileage would probably vary :-) 2008/12/18 TJ <[email protected]> > * >> >> The fact that I can run Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, and Illustrator at >> the same time makes ME feel like it's more optimized. I can also run >> Firefox with 15-20 tabs open at all times, plus my mail client, my FTP >> client, some utility apps, a chat program, etc > > * > > What are you talking about? I do this NOW! On a PC, circa 2001, 2G of RAM > and I see no major problems at all! Really. I am not understanding this. > > I'll tell you my experience with a friend at a Mac Store.... This is a > mid-40's year old business man who runs a very successful business - he's no > dope. He walks over to a Mac and begins going through the menus, the > programs, opens up apps and clicks around a lot - keeps saying "isnt this > cool?" and I just let him go on and on. I probably heard "isnt this cool" > about 1/2 dozen times before I looked at him and asked "isnt WHAT cool? > What EXACTLY is cool John?" and with that, he looked at me and said "forget > it. you're just dont understand". > > Well, he's right! I DO NOT understand. If I did that with my PC, he'd > think I was psycho or something. > > This is what I dont get. The machines are the same. The hardware is the > same. The components are the same. The MEMORY is the same. > > Ah, forget it. I've got work to do. > > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Eric Brouwer <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The fact that I can run Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, and Illustrator at >> the same time makes ME feel like it's more optimized. I can also run >> Firefox with 15-20 tabs open at all times, plus my mail client, my FTP >> client, some utility apps, a chat program, etc. All at the same time. >> Never even a slight hesitation in performance of any kind. I can barely >> run DW and PS together on my PC. >> I LIKE PCs. Like the majority of us here, I make my money ON and WITH >> PCs. For my network administration stuff, I use an IBM ThinkPad running >> Vista. I even defend Vista. I don't have a fraction of the problems the >> masses like to report. It's a decent OS, in MY opinion. >> >> BUT, I enjoy the Mac experience a great deal more. Physics aside, yes, I >> do think the Mac "moves 1s and 0s" around faster. If you want me to say it, >> I'll say it. I PREFER the Mac experience to my Windows experience because >> of it's performance. >> >> How is my defense of Macs, saying their optimized, less accurate than the >> statement that they're simply generic white boxes? >> >> And I didn't realize Mac was the only OS burdened with updates. I could >> have sworn I've had to run updates on my PC once or twice in the past. >> >> On Dec 18, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Ken Schaefer wrote: >> >> OK – let's get back to basics here. Unless you believe in the Jobs RDF, >> then Macs still obey basic laws of physics. They don't move 1s and 0s around >> any faster than other electronic devices. They use the same graphics cards, >> hard drives, memory, LCD displays, CPUs and chipsets and so on that are >> available in every other brand. The design might be good, but I don't see >> what they have over similarly priced competitors (even Dell's getting into >> decently looking hardware these days). >> >> So, please explain, in some more detail, what exactly you find >> "optimised"? I have two Macs here at home (just for my own use), and plenty >> of others I come into contact with. I can't say I've seen anything >> spectacular about them (except that I need to install 100MB of updates each >> month). >> >> There's one thing to say "I prefer the way the OS works – it suits the way >> I think". It's another thing to say that an OS magically gets more Hz out of >> a CPU... >> >> Cheers >> Ken >> >> *From:* Eric Brouwer [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]> >> ] >> *Sent:* Friday, 19 December 2008 12:16 AM >> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >> *Subject:* Re: OT - Anyone VM a Mac Leopard OS on a PC? >> >> I was a COMPLETE anti-Mac zealot up to June of this year. Then I was >> forced to work on them at my new job. Now I'm begging for one of my own. I >> admit, there still seems to be a lot of voodoo and black magic going on in >> the Macs, but they run amazingly well. I can run far more apps with better >> response on a Mac of "lesser" raw tech specs than I can on any PC. >> >> Granted, I can't speak about the mac performance vs. a *nix >> based computer as I don't have the experience. Also, my experience with >> Macs is their G5 and Power Books, not the Macbook, mini, nor iMac. Far more >> expensive, to be sure, but a much better all around experience for me. >> >> So yes, in my experience, the Macs are very optimized IMHO. They just >> seem much more dialed in out of the box. >> >> On Dec 17, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Ken Schaefer wrote: >> >> >> Huh? I haven't noticed anything particularly optimised about the two >> Macs (one Macbook and one Mac Mini) I have at home, that I can't get in >> other brands... >> >> Cheers >> Ken >> >> *From:* Eric Brouwer [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]> >> ] >> *Sent:* Thursday, 18 December 2008 5:02 AM >> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >> *Subject:* Re: OT - Anyone VM a Mac Leopard OS on a PC? >> >> Agreed. Apple's are FAR from generic white boxes. They are HIGHLY >> optimized, extremely efficient architectures. >> >> On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Jonathan Link wrote: >> >> >> >> It's not whitebox, it's branded, that brand is Apple. When I purched my >> MBPro, I spec'ed similary equipped notebooks from HP, Dell and Lenovo. >> Apple was more expensive than some, less than others, and I had the option >> of running a true UNIX as was mentioned earlier. >> >> Apple is a Tier 1 manufacturer just as HP, Dell and Lenovo are. >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> "Joseph L. Casale" <[email protected]> wrote on 12/17/2008 >> 11:13:17 AM: >> >> >> > >Yes, but Apple is all about total control - if you limit the OS to >> > only running hardware you produce, then you absolutely know that it >> > is *guaranteed* to work with any hardware your customer owns, and > >> > you can spend your software time and resources in other directions, >> > rather than finding ways to make it run on any hardware ever >> > invented (which is part of MS's problem). >> > > >> > >That's the theory, as I see it, anyway. >> >> > This was exactly my point in the old justification towards the >> > expense of the platform. >> Sorry; I haven't been following the whole thread ... >> >> > Now its whitebox intel run-of-the mill stuff? Does this _still_ apply? >> It does if they say so. :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Eric Brouwer >> IT Manager >> www.forestpost.com >> [email protected] >> 248.855.4333 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Eric Brouwer >> IT Manager >> www.forestpost.com >> [email protected] >> 248.855.4333 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
