PC VS MAC On Photoshop

Unit 5302 · 08-25-2002, 01:11 PM

SECTION A: On the boxes I have actually run since 1998, I've spent a whopping $750. My current box will run just about anything out there, smooth I'm sure, picked it up for $500, added $150 of extra's to it. Where's your $650 Mac? Prior to my current box I got in early 2000, I was running an overclocked Pentium with 72MB RAM on Windows 95. Picked it up for $100.

SECTION B: Chris, what 1.0GHz computer are you comparing to? Even a Celeron is faster than your Mac at 1.0GHz. It's just a blatent lie, and quite sickening. The only possible answer is your friends went to a discount store IE Best Buy, and bought an E Machine with no RAM, a weak, integrated Motherboard, Bigfoot HDD, and bottom line processor. Even then there is no way now that I think about it. You're running on a 66MHz FSB, which means every computer running at 1.0GHz from the factory has a tremendous advantage over your Mac, unless it's a WAY overclocked Celeron.

How is this scientific comparison done? I've run programs on a 233MHz Mac before, and it was nothing short of a crunchy turd. I'm shocked the old thing will even support your cable modem.

SECTION C: All I see is a bunch of Mac is better, Mac is better, but there isn't a shred of evidence to support that I've ever seen. You linked me up to about a dozen Macintosh pages on their home site, and I gave my technical anaylsis. It's Macintosh at least 1-2 years behind PC's. At least. You can't blame anything on Motorola. According to you guys, they build the fastest processor. It's like you've just decided to pull about a dozen arguments out of your hinder and you think that I'm going to go for them.

To reiterate what you've said.

SECTION D: Macintosh O/S's are the best because:

1. They are more stable (False, Skyler has been running XP for 9mo straight)

2. They are more user friendly (Maybe for the brand new user. Overall, I'd have to say false. Mac O/S's are based on server software, and is far more limited than Windows.)

Macintosh O/S's suck because:

1. They can't multitask.

2. They are very slow.

So which is it, are they the best or do they suck? Make up your mind okay? I can't fault your arguments that the O/S sucks, but I certainly can give examples why it does suck.

SECTION E: Macintosh's are faster than PC's:

1. Their processors are much faster. (The advertised calcuation speed of the Mac is peak speed, not overall. There is no basis to support your position. If the benchmark shows the PC kicking the Mac's ***, you blame it on part 2 (Macintosh O/S's suck because

2. Clock speeds mean nothing. (As I explained before. They do matter. If they didn't, why are Mac's now at 1.25GHz??? How about the old arcitecture G4 1.0GHz vs the base G4? Which one is faster? Oh! So clock speed does matter?!!)

SECTION F: Macintosh's are better bang for the buck:

1. PC's break down more, requiring you to spend more money over the long haul. (In truth, the Mac becomes outdated so fast in performance, that it's unable to run the intense software on the market. That and the fact you can usually buy about 3 PC's for the price of one Mac. There is no advantage you could possibly argue here.)

Macintosh's are more expensive, thus less bang for the buck:

1. Since Mac is so much more expensive than the dime-a-dozen PC's, that's why their marketshare is weak. (Nope, their computer is weak, unless you get the very fastest model they make, in which case the price is astronomical)

Again, make up your mind. Is the Mac cheaper (it's sucicide to argue this) or is the Mac far more expensive?

SECTION G: Macintosh's are smaller in the market, but will gain ground

1. Because of so many PC competitors, it's been hard to establish a niche. (Whatever. Look at VAIO. They came into probably the most competitive market in the United States, and they were able to rock it gaining excellent marketshare with inferior computers.)

2. Because Mac's business practices are poor. (Apple has OUTSTANDING business practices. It's the only way Mac has even been able to remain selling at all. It certainly can't do it on the computers merits. Most people look to Apple absolutely in LOVE with the way their management works. For god's sake most of investors agree with me, look at their fricken stock price!!!)

3. Because Mac's are more expensive. (Go back to SECTION F, I can't figure out whether you're in agreement that Mac's are too expensive or whether you think they're cheaper??)

SECTION Mac Supporters Don't have a leg to stand on: So while you Mac users can't make up your mind, and when you do the PC users have dozens of real life application benchmarks we can point to where even the twice as expensive Mac system with dual processors is far slower than the single processor releases from AMD and Intel. Where you point to stability, we have just as many testimonials about Mac being unstable far more than the PC's as you do about the opposite, and this argument is your main weapon. Where you point to what will be a growing Mac presence in business, we point to an established business community relying almost solely on PCs because they are faster, cheaper, and better. Where you point to industries that are set in their ways using a Mac, I point to false advertising, people set in their ways, and Mac offering HUGE discounts to capture marketshare. Do you really think schools were purchasing Apple products on the basis of performance, and ease of use? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.... continued HAHA's for quite some time, just use your imagination like that concept is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

Mac's have a presence in schools because they set their price soooo low, and offered computers that were basically outdated when they hit the desks to gain a niche market. They hope people won't find out about Windows. They pray people will become hooked on a Mac in school. Uh-oh. Too late. Now buyers are exposing kids to PC's much earlier. Thus Apple dropped back it's campaign and PC's are beginning to trickle into the once Apple dominated market. It's already begun.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
2FastLX....I need some photoshop help!!!	tireburner163	Blue Oval Lounge	16	12-20-2002 08:20 PM
Photoshop Request.	Coupe Devil	Blue Oval Lounge	9	11-23-2002 11:33 AM
Photoshop guru's - Let's see your creations	2FastLX	Blue Oval Lounge	20	01-23-2002 05:52 PM
I need help with PhotoShop 6.0!	6T9PONY	Blue Oval Lounge	18	12-28-2001 10:36 AM
Photoshop Guys!!!	Stang_Crazy	Blue Oval Lounge	21	10-28-2001 10:39 PM

08-25-2002, 01:11 PM	#21
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	SECTION A: On the boxes I have actually run since 1998, I've spent a whopping $750. My current box will run just about anything out there, smooth I'm sure, picked it up for $500, added $150 of extra's to it. Where's your $650 Mac? Prior to my current box I got in early 2000, I was running an overclocked Pentium with 72MB RAM on Windows 95. Picked it up for $100. SECTION B: Chris, what 1.0GHz computer are you comparing to? Even a Celeron is faster than your Mac at 1.0GHz. It's just a blatent lie, and quite sickening. The only possible answer is your friends went to a discount store IE Best Buy, and bought an E Machine with no RAM, a weak, integrated Motherboard, Bigfoot HDD, and bottom line processor. Even then there is no way now that I think about it. You're running on a 66MHz FSB, which means every computer running at 1.0GHz from the factory has a tremendous advantage over your Mac, unless it's a WAY overclocked Celeron. How is this scientific comparison done? I've run programs on a 233MHz Mac before, and it was nothing short of a crunchy turd. I'm shocked the old thing will even support your cable modem. SECTION C: All I see is a bunch of Mac is better, Mac is better, but there isn't a shred of evidence to support that I've ever seen. You linked me up to about a dozen Macintosh pages on their home site, and I gave my technical anaylsis. It's Macintosh at least 1-2 years behind PC's. At least. You can't blame anything on Motorola. According to you guys, they build the fastest processor. It's like you've just decided to pull about a dozen arguments out of your hinder and you think that I'm going to go for them. To reiterate what you've said. SECTION D: Macintosh O/S's are the best because: 1. They are more stable (False, Skyler has been running XP for 9mo straight) 2. They are more user friendly (Maybe for the brand new user. Overall, I'd have to say false. Mac O/S's are based on server software, and is far more limited than Windows.) Macintosh O/S's suck because: 1. They can't multitask. 2. They are very slow. So which is it, are they the best or do they suck? Make up your mind okay? I can't fault your arguments that the O/S sucks, but I certainly can give examples why it does suck. SECTION E: Macintosh's are faster than PC's: 1. Their processors are much faster. (The advertised calcuation speed of the Mac is peak speed, not overall. There is no basis to support your position. If the benchmark shows the PC kicking the Mac's *, you blame it on part 2 (Macintosh O/S's suck because 2. Clock speeds mean nothing. (As I explained before. They do matter. If they didn't, why are Mac's now at 1.25GHz??? How about the old arcitecture G4 1.0GHz vs the base G4? Which one is faster? Oh! So clock speed does matter?!!) SECTION F: Macintosh's are better bang for the buck: 1. PC's break down more, requiring you to spend more money over the long haul. (In truth, the Mac becomes outdated so fast in performance, that it's unable to run the intense software on the market. That and the fact you can usually buy about 3 PC's for the price of one Mac. There is no advantage you could possibly argue here.) Macintosh's are more expensive, thus less bang for the buck: 1. Since Mac is so much more expensive than the dime-a-dozen PC's, that's why their marketshare is weak. (Nope, their computer is weak, unless you get the very fastest model they make, in which case the price is astronomical) Again, make up your mind. Is the Mac cheaper (it's sucicide to argue this) or is the Mac far more expensive? SECTION G: Macintosh's are smaller in the market, but will gain ground 1. Because of so many PC competitors, it's been hard to establish a niche. (Whatever. Look at VAIO. They came into probably the most competitive market in the United States, and they were able to rock it gaining excellent marketshare with inferior computers.) 2. Because Mac's business practices are poor. (Apple has OUTSTANDING business practices. It's the only way Mac has even been able to remain selling at all. It certainly can't do it on the computers merits. Most people look to Apple absolutely in LOVE with the way their management works. For god's sake most of investors agree with me, look at their fricken stock price!!!) 3. Because Mac's are more expensive. (Go back to SECTION F, I can't figure out whether you're in agreement that Mac's are too expensive or whether you think they're cheaper??) SECTION Mac Supporters Don't have a leg to stand on:** So while you Mac users can't make up your mind, and when you do the PC users have dozens of real life application benchmarks we can point to where even the twice as expensive Mac system with dual processors is far slower than the single processor releases from AMD and Intel. Where you point to stability, we have just as many testimonials about Mac being unstable far more than the PC's as you do about the opposite, and this argument is your main weapon. Where you point to what will be a growing Mac presence in business, we point to an established business community relying almost solely on PCs because they are faster, cheaper, and better. Where you point to industries that are set in their ways using a Mac, I point to false advertising, people set in their ways, and Mac offering HUGE discounts to capture marketshare. Do you really think schools were purchasing Apple products on the basis of performance, and ease of use? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.... continued HAHA's for quite some time, just use your imagination like that concept is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Mac's have a presence in schools because they set their price soooo low, and offered computers that were basically outdated when they hit the desks to gain a niche market. They hope people won't find out about Windows. They pray people will become hooked on a Mac in school. Uh-oh. Too late. Now buyers are exposing kids to PC's much earlier. Thus Apple dropped back it's campaign and PC's are beginning to trickle into the once Apple dominated market. It's already begun.