Allen said:
I think the person who started the rumor may have been the developer of Photoshop.... backed up by say... Quark? Maybe more of others in the multimedia business, but I don't know of?
Again, back in the day...YES they were better. Nowadays? Nope. Although Photoshop is one of the fastest Mac programs out there.
Nah man, you being up with it should know that Macs have stomped on any PC when it came to competing with graphics not too long ago. Macs are not inferior to PCs when multimedia is involved.
Oh, but they are inferior. There are a lot of Multimedia apps, etc that come out on a PC that never come out on a Mac, and then there are some that just plain come out sooner on the PC...new DivX codecs, for example, is usually released a few weeks earlier on a PC. And when they come out on the Mac, there are some little things that just aren't quite as good as they are on the PC. Now, this isn't the fault of Windows or Mac OS, but the fault of the programmers. And this is just an isolated example.
Why do you think all the major companies use Mac for movie productions? When the movie, Titanic, was developed using Linux systems, everyone went ... "WOW!!! It's not on a Mac!!?!?" That is when the world realized the PC world also had a chance in multimedia production.... it just needed constant improvments (such as W2K, XP, better Photoshop for PC, & etc etc). You know the almighty Photoshop that you may use every day started out from Apple Mac, right? Quark was also developed on a Mac system (think magazine publishers).... both extermely popular multimedia products.
Well, so many special effects in movies are done by Macs because of one company: Pixar...owned by...APPLE. And since they are out there, people use them. But more movies than just "Titanic" were rendered on non-apple machines. I believe that "Toy Story" was rendered on high end UNIX boxes. And I'm pretty sure that "Final Fantasy the movie" was not rendered on a Mac. And that's the most visually impressive CG movie to date. Not that it matters, because you can render the same scene whethere you do it on a PC or a Mac, or a high end Unix box. The only thing that will vary is the TIME it takes to render that picture.
Most scientists (on average) are more familiar with Macs than they are with PCs (ask a chem scientist, biology scientist, etc... a non-computer majoring scientist... who has used both PC and Mac and see if they think PC is much easier for them to use than a Mac).... If ANYTHING, PCs are coming up to par with Mac quality in terms of ease of use and stability (think W2K = stability, XP = stability & ease of use, and Linux stability & power)... NOT the other way around.
First of all, Windows is way easier to use than a Mac. It just makes more sense. Why?
Macs, by default, only have 1 mouse button. So if you want to do something besides the default action by clicking your mouse button, you're forced to either...
a-hold down CTRL
b-click through a few menus
On a "stock" PC (with 2 mouse buttons and a scroll wheel), doing a simple task such as scrolling to the bottom of a web page is much easier. On a mac, you'd have to move the mouse...hold down the "down" arrow...move the mouse over the image...hold CTRL...click your mouse...and save the pic. On a PC, you scroll the wheel, right click...save as. Easier. Faster. Better.
I could go on all day about how PC's are actually easier to use than Macs....for newbies, to advanced users, and everything in between. "Macs are easier to use" is just another legacy lie. They were easier than PC's in the 80's and early 90's...but with the release of Windows 95, that all went out the window.
As for the scientist thing...I do know that a lot of scientists use a lot of OS's...most of them use Windows, Macs, and Linux. There are a few Mac-specific programs out there for scientific use...so they are forced to use Macs for those specific apps.
Take any serious reviewer of BOTH OS systems (one who actually knows how to use BOTH Mac and PC systems) and they will tell you that Mac is still on top of PCs when you do any serious multimedia production. I think you're just being a hardcore PC defender and Mac basher, but there are lots of folks like that out on the internet. Don't get me wrong, I'm a PC user as well and back it up whole-heartedly ... but I will give due credit from what I have read and heard about the Mac communities. Macs are no slouch when put up against the PC folks.
You've got me all wrong, man. I just base things on the facts. And the facts show that PCs are better right now. And yes, I do know how to use a Mac...probably better than most Mac users. They actually call me with their problems. I'm no Mac pro, but I definitely know them. And I'm not an all out "mac basher". OSX is actually good. OS's 7-9 had a lot of issues...some of them laughable for the time they were released (for ex: PISS poor multitasking). I DO give credit where credit is due...and while OSX was a HUGE improvement over OS9, it's still no Win2k/XP.
If Mac could be easily cloned like a PC, then I would not mind trying it out... there ARE benefits with Apple hardwares... less "incompatibile" peripherials are developed compared to the wide range of PC peripherial parts. And obviously the downside of Apple is cost.... Plus, what's the deal with that one button mouse? I think that's crap from Apple to give away.
Haha, nice, a fellow "one mouse button" hater. Actually there WERE mac clones out until a few years back...I forget the name of the company...but Apple stopped allowing it BC everyone was buying the cheaper/better clones.
Yes, there ARE benefits w/ apples hardware (they run cooler, and they have more IPC than an Athlon or a P4), but that still doesn't matter. The best PCs are still faster, and dollar for dollar PCs are faster.
As Kooldino has touched base on, PCs can be WAAAY more powerful than a Mac system.... many many proofs have been shown around the world already. Not to mention... MORE FUN!!! Although, I also don't think owning a Mac is cool... but hey, we're talking social acceptance now!! haha.
