OSX for pc
- Started
- Last post
- 79 Responses
- beingdevious0
im so sick of this crap. apple vs pc, mac vs pc, linux vs pc blah blah blah blah blah. screw you guys. pcs are simple. they can be upgraded, unlike macs, they arent TRANSLUCENT like everything else apple infected.. and flat out, they WORK. im sorry windows XP sometimes crashes for the lone tweaker or cry baby out there. ive been running my PC for almost 4 months strait in windows XP. I havent restarted it, nor has it crashed. I dual boot linux on my webserver, for security reasons and stability *worries* the only time i ever came close to crashing this thing was when i was programming in VB and made a code error. MY fault!. PCS are faster... oh look whats that? the AMD athlon 64! do macs support 64-bit architecture, NO!!! do PCS, YES!! does linux--oh wait another yes!! sorry for being crude, but after losing all of my work to a G4, i resent macs. i always will. PERIOD!
- sparker0
seems to me, really the argument is more windows verses aqua...
pc cases are pretty interesting now, so that negates the physical "style" issue, hardware is hardware, so that point is moot...
os x is (primarily) unix (bsd), so the point about osx being a 'special' os is moot...
the only thing left is people like aqua more than windows....
seems like a pretty shallow reason to pick a workstation to me. especially with skins, themes and such in linux/unix environments and to a degree in windows.
there are plenty of little apps out there that provide similar function across multiple platforms.
but, like i said, i like both...i don't see what the big deal is between them...why does it matter?
- stimuli0
You fucking robot Sporty...
Give Microsoft a few months and they'll have ripped off Panther anyway, just like all the rest of the Apple OS. And badly.
Oh dear, I feel the nature of this thread turning...
- pascii0
MY POO IS BIGGER than yours
- gavinnosler0
kpl,
The article was taken down LONG before the G5 was announced. CNet even wrote an article about Adobe's article. By the way, the file name for Adobe's article was pcpreferred.html. I think that says it all right there.
It is a known problem (check Macromedia's forums and Tech Notes) that OS9 can't handle most semi-complex Flash movies. (Meaning animating large vectors or bitmaps. Semi-large shape tweens lag very badly on OS9.) OSX handles it much better due to Apple fixing memory issues OS9 has, but it still can't get it as smooth as a PC does.
Every single person I know who runs XP rarely has a problem. It was a big deal when my computer crashed at work (which was the first time EVER, which I mentioned earlier.) If your computer is crashing all the time, I'm sorry to say it's most likely due to problems created by a user who isn't knowledgeable enough to realize what he/she did wrong.
- kpl0
So, if there are computer problems, blame the victim?
Oh well. Glad to know your pc and hyperbole is working great for you, gav.
Let me know when you can handle flash tho. (whoa horsie.)
- gavinnosler0
sparker,
I think the issue means more to web designers. Our company has decided recently to keep Mac development to a minimum. It's just not worth spending thousands of dollars so the Mac users can have a site function the same and run as quickly as it does for PC users. This decision was made by Mac users. The owner of the company is a Mac user. It's all business, not computer preference.
- Meeklo0
GGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK FIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHHHTTTTTT!!!
He he he :)
- brundlefly0
great so you push text files around....I am sure that is stable....it's text.
I think the design community here is talking about large format graphics and said programs that go along with them.....
the g5 is a 64 bit architecture...as is AMD, intel hasnt joined the fray as yet....we must wait for 2005 before they do according to their site
- sparker0
wait? what does web design and platform dependence have in common?
a site is a site is a site. the technology exists across platforms...that is the point of open-standards.
xhtml and css are the same on either os.
i'm not sure if i understand the reasoning behind that. not that i don't agree with you...financially, macs aren't worth the cost in studio settings...since the same work can be done on any platform. but, for web work, a clearly planned, well designed and coded site wouldn't care if you were on pc, mac, linux, unix or some firmware system. as long as a web browser was in use.
this is why web standards are so important. poorly functioning sites are not an operating system problem they are a designer/developer problem. as long as web designers/developers use outdated markup techniques and poorly written code, then sites will break.
ah, but that is another tangent entirely.
:)
- mrdobolina0
being that patriotic about commercially-made products is unhealthy and shows the users uber-consumerism.
- Mimio0
OSX is nice. You can install Apache, MySQL, PHP etc. on a local machine and make your own in office staging server for client sites. Perfect for small offices that don't like the Micro$oft licensing model. In that respect Apple machines are cheaper.
- whiteSneaks0
i doubt that. my poo is quite large and i may start throwing it if i have to.
- sparker0
you can do that, freely, on a windows box or linux box as well.
sorry, point is moot, again. merlin server install for windows allows installation and configuration of apache, php, mysql and misc tools on windows desktops...making them work as servers.
the osx license is really no different than a pc license, xp on one machine, os x on one machine...that is the way of the world. take into consideration that macs cost double that of a similar, if not better quality pc and you're "cost effective" solution just went the way of the do-do, mimio...
- Meeklo0
I know there is pc users out there that might try it..
why not?you still get to use that nasty box, but with a better more stable OS,
what can be so bad about that huh?:)
- gavinnosler0
I think you know that the same browser on a different platform don't always render things the same, so is what you're saying that with XHTML and CSS, a carefully developed website will look and function the same on both platforms? This is true if you're only considering browsers that support standards pretty well. Wired.com did an excellent job of cross-browser, cross-platform XHTML, however they sacrificed aesthetics for a few users, which I think is perfectly fine for a news site.
If you code in XHTML and lay out your site with CSS, you're giving up aesthetics for about 5 percent of your viewers, and people seem fine with this. However, with an HTML site, if don't even look at your website on a Mac and cut Mac development costs, there's a chance you're giving up minor aesthetic defects for 1-4% of your viewers (and saving money), but people aren't fine with this.
I guess that doesn't have anything to do with what you were saying, but I think it's an interesting observation.
- whiteSneaks0
the os is my main problem with apple. i use a pc by choice. for a third of the price i get everything i need and then some. XP is a very stable platform security is an issue because of the hordes of people who work at attacking it. if apple held more than a tiny chunk of the market they would have security issues also.
just my thoughts
- kpl0
"take into consideration that macs cost double that of a similar, if not better quality pc"
g5 dual 2ghz: $2999 base
dell dual 2.4 Xeon w/ similar specs: $2,904
- gavinnosler0
Mimio,
But doing development without a right mouse button would be such Hell!!! :)