mac kills my inner child

[rizzix]

hmm... o well... i'd like to point out right now.. apple is trying to keep everyone happy. they currently have good relations with m$, the opensource UNIX/Linux and are working together to improve things.. speaking of which watch the WWDC thats comming soon.

[Dark Matter]

Hey! Leave Macs alone! You guys are all freaking retarded (apologies to people with learning disabilities). Mac rules, okay? Here's the real truth: Windows crashes, Mac doesn't. Macs are faster. I understand why you'd disagree, since the standard speed of a PC is 2.4 GHz and most Macs are only 1.25. Well, the truth is the Mac only needs 1.25 GHz. Since it's operating system uses only the most efficient files ever made, it doesn't take so long to load or bog down the processor. Windows, on the other hand, is so jumbled and frayed, that it needs more code, and more processes running simultaneously to "maintain" the operating system, which drastically slows down your machine. Mac is secure. Ever wonder why nobody writes antivirus or spyware removal software for the Mac? Because if they did, their software would only take up less than a megabyte. Apple computers are immune to all types of trojans (including spyware), and more than 99.9999% of all viruses ever written---and these malicious files are in the thousands. Windows, on the other hand, since it's just a cheap clone of Mac OS, is full of security holes, and isn't so lucky. In fact, a few months ago, even though I had Ad-aware installed and ran routine checkups, my computer was so full of spyware that: I couldn't use the internet because my screen would fill with the most annoying pop-ups ever, and my CD burner stopped working. My printer kept malfunctioning, and practically every spyware file I had ever deleted kept coming back. What if I had a major project due the next day, and I couldn't get it into class? Oh, I also got hit with a worm several months earlier and had to reformat the whole drive.

I'd never have to worry about that with the Mac. Sure, it's more expensive, but it's worth it. At least I know it's going to work. One thing I love about the Mac is that you never have to defrag it, like you do with Windows. It always runs at top speed.

To contradict that anti-mac film, I've found that Windows doesn't always shut down when you want it to. It gives me a message: "This program has stopped responding. It may be busy, waiting for a response from you, or it may have stopped running." If I keep trying to shut down, it freezes. Come on, I don't need that. On a mac, my files are always secure. Ever download a program on Windows and its icon appeared as a blank screen, and then you couldn't use it? Sound familiar? Never happens on the Mac, because the Mac works.

As for gaming? Unfortunately, I have no argument. You win that one. But I have a console (PS2) for my games, and I just love it, because you can rent games, you don't have to install them, the console doesn't freeze, and it's faster. Believe me, I've tried gaming on a PC, and guess what? The graphics sucked, and it was slower than hell. In fact, I'm working on an asteroids game in DirectX right now, on a PC that's as good as they're going to get. The only frames I use are the ship, the bullets, Mars, and about 50 asteroids. If I have too many asteroids on screen at once, it slows down, because the crappy Pentium 4 processor can't handle that many polygons. It's really too bad that there aren't many games available for the mac, because the graphics would rock. All graphics pros do their work on a mac, for two reasons: Good graphics, fast reliable processor; and if they're working on something that requires that much work, they can't afford a crash. They need a computer that works.

So, I accept your appology, and I can only hope you'll join me one day. Until then, I'm Mac and I'm proud.

[templest]

Although I, who just recently purchased a G4 1.25 Ghz PowerBook, has to completely dissagree with most of your points.

1) Windows is not a cheap clone of Mac. If anything, Mac OS X is a cheap clone of BSD, which is a good clone of Unix.

That's why the validity of your gaming argument towards the performance of graphics rendering falls short. Macs, sorry to say, although being amazing for working with graphics, design, ect. Suck at the games. I just installed Quake on the laptop and meh, it runs just the same as it did when I had my old 800Mhz AMD Duron Processsor with 128 MB of SDRAM RAM.

Here's the thing... Macs are basically a UNIX clone. Therefor, when you run Mac OS X, you are basically running a really cool looking copy of FreeBSD.

It's a shame that companies like Adobe and Macromedia don't just recompile their Mac OS X source for Linux. It's the same thing, only compiled just for macs with some bits so that it works integrated with the GUI, that can easily be re-written.

OS X 10.3.4 is beutiful, and I plan on ditching my gentoo box for nothing more than gaming, and as back-up PC.

PCs really do have better performance than a G4. C'mon, over-clock an AMD 3200+ to 8.3 GHz and tell me your 1.25 Ghz Mac is faster.

There's where your virus argument falls short, again. Since it's UNIX, only linux viruses' would work for it, and let's face it, whens the last time you saw a UNIX/Linux/ or BSD virus? That's mainly the reason why Apple migrated to the "Darwin" kernel. Have you seen how many viruses there are for Mac OS 8.6? It's insane!

Why did you have to revive this thread? It was fine just the way it was. :-/

[Dark Matter]

templest wrote:

1) Windows is not a cheap clone of Mac. If anything, Mac OS X is a cheap clone of BSD, which is a good clone of Unix.

That's why the validity of your gaming argument towards the performance of graphics rendering falls short. Macs, sorry to say, although being amazing for working with graphics, design, ect. Suck at the games. I just installed Quake on the laptop and meh, it runs just the same as it did when I had my old 800Mhz AMD Duron Processsor with 128 MB of SDRAM RAM.

Here's the thing... Macs are basically a UNIX clone. Therefor, when you run Mac OS X, you are basically running a really cool looking copy of FreeBSD.

It's a shame that companies like Adobe and Macromedia don't just recompile their Mac OS X source for Linux. It's the same thing, only compiled just for macs with some bits so that it works integrated with the GUI, that can easily be re-written.

OS X 10.3.4 is beutiful, and I plan on ditching my gentoo box for nothing more than gaming, and as back-up PC.

PCs really do have better performance than a G4. C'mon, over-clock an AMD 3200+ to 8.3 GHz and tell me your 1.25 Ghz Mac is faster.

There's where your virus argument falls short, again. Since it's UNIX, only linux viruses' would work for it, and let's face it, whens the last time you saw a UNIX/Linux/ or BSD virus? That's mainly the reason why Apple migrated to the "Darwin" kernel. Have you seen how many viruses there are for Mac OS 8.6? It's insane!

Why did you have to revive this thread? It was fine just the way it was. :-/

Yes, windows is a cheap clone of Mac OS. The Apple MacIntosh was the first computer ever to provide the user with an easy-to-use GUI. Until then, everything used a command line. In fact, as soon as Microsoft caught on, Apple sued them for piracy and copyright infringement. They settled out of court for $192 million.
Secondly, gaming on a mac is superior. Although the games themselves are low in numbers and dated, it is a proven fact that all applications, gaming or otherwise, run faster on a mac than a PC. The only reason your version of Quake hasn't improved, is that it CAN'T improve. It was designed for an 800 MHz PC. Aside from changing the code and the file format to create a Mac OS X version of the game, they aren't going to go through the trouble of updating the drivers to increase the performance of the game. People who bought the game years ago had to suffer, so why shouldn't you?
Thirdly, as far as I know, there is no such thing as an 8.3 GHz CPU. I have no idea where you heard that; PCs only go up to 3.4 GHz, and that's as good as it gets.
Currently, I know little about older versions of Mac OS (such as 8.6), so I'll let you win that one for now.
But the fact remains that Macs are just better in every way. Except games.

[SuperGenius]

are you insane? gaming on a mac is far worse, due to the sheer lack of games. Look at the top computer games. How many of them are for mac exclusively? How many have mac versions? very few.

[templest]

Quote:

Yes, windows is a cheap clone of Mac OS. The Apple MacIntosh was the first computer ever to provide the user with an easy-to-use GUI. Until then, everything used a command line.
Secondly, gaming on a mac is superior. Although the games themselves are low in numbers and dated, it is a proven fact that all applications, gaming or otherwise, run faster on a mac than a PC. The only reason your version of Quake hasn't improved, is that it CAN'T improve. It was designed for an 800 MHz PC. Aside from changing the code and the file format to create a Mac OS X version of the game, they aren't going to go through the trouble of updating the drivers to increase the performance of the game. People who bought the game years ago had to suffer, so why shouldn't you?
Thirdly, as far as I know, there is no such thing as an 8.3 GHz CPU. I have no idea where you heard that; PCs only go up to 3.4 GHz, and that's as good as it gets.
Currently, I know little about older versions of Mac OS (such as 8.6), so I'll let you win that one for now.
But the fact remains that Macs are just better in every way. Except games.

About your GUI comment... You've never herd of a little company known as "Xerox" have you?, goof.

About your 8.3 Ghz PC, have you ever herd of a little something called overclocking and liquid nitrogen cooling systems?, goof.

As for the games thing, that's pure bullshit and you know it.

"It was designed for 800 MHz PCs". Dumbass, just because it was made to run on low spec machines doesn't mean it'll degrade in performance the faster your box is, it gets FASTER. Let's look at the theory of conservation of energy for a second:

I put more power in, I get more power out,
I put less power in, I get less power out.

And 800 MHz machines cannot out perform an 8.3 GHz machine, no matter how hard you try, It's 100 times faster, no matter what point you try to grab the concept from, this will not change.

And at that speed gap, no matter how grossly the programs are codded, they'll still perform faster on a faster machine.

EDIT: Don't tell me you're one of those people that call it "MacIntosh" and not "Macintosh". Macintosh as in the apple, dumbass. It's not like it's the "Intosh" version of a "Mac" PC.

RE-EDIT: What the hell? They "Won't go through the trouble of updating the drivers to increase the performance of the game"? Heh, I guess all those patches that came out for it where just a waste of time then, eh?

[Dark Matter]

Quote:

About your 8.3 Ghz PC, have you ever herd of a little something called overclocking and liquid nitrogen cooling systems?, goof.

As for the games thing, that's pure bullshit and you know it.

"It was designed for 800 MHz PCs". Dumbass, just because it was made to run on low spec machines doesn't mean it'll degrade in performance the faster your box is, it gets FASTER. Let's look at the theory of conservation of energy for a second:

I put more power in, I get more power out,
I put less power in, I get less power out.

And 800 MHz machines cannot out perform an 8.3 GHz machine, no matter how hard you try, It's 100 times faster, no matter what point you try to grab the concept from, this will not change.

And at that speed gap, no matter how grossly the programs are codded, they'll still perform faster on a faster machine.

EDIT: Don't tell me you're one of those people that call it "MacIntosh" and not "Macintosh". Macintosh as in the apple, dumbass. It's not like it's the "Intosh" version of a "Mac" PC.

RE-EDIT: What the hell? They "Won't go through the trouble of updating the drivers to increase the performance of the game"? Heh, I guess all those patches that came out for it where just a waste of time then, eh?

Well, if you plan on gaming on a seven thousand dollar server, than be my guest.
And yes, I was right about games not running more efficiently on systems faster than they were designed for. While your little algorithm theoretically works, it does not work if the game only gives you so much power, no matter how much you put in. Remember the Nintendo 64? It was the first video game console to have a 64 bit processor. But since the game designers didn't have the graphics they needed to create 64 bit games, all the games only used 32 of the bits. Just like your Quake game will only use 800 of the 1250 MHz of a G4 processor. Dumbass.

Oh, and last I checked, patches were files designed to fix bugs or treat faulty performance. You know, like when you run Windows update?

[Catalyst]

im sorry, but thats not how things work

800Mhz is the clock speed, 800 million cycles per second
at 1.25Ghz , its 1.25 billion cycles per second

any calculation being done the cpu will be faster

[SuperGenius]

agreed, but consider this. On my p4 system NES games on the emulator still look like... NES games. A game is only as good as it's design. If a game is designed for a mediocre system a good system will not be able to run it much better, because there is no room in the game's code for extra stuff like more polygons.

[Paul]

Lol, but on ur computer, GBA games will run faster and better than on mine.

[templest]

Quote:

Oh, and last I checked, patches were files designed to fix bugs or treat faulty performance

You said it yourself kid, "treat faulty performance". hah! make an argument before you start arguing.

[Dark Matter]

WTF?

[templest]

"0wn3t" 8)