Make an AMV. Buy a Powerbook.

This forum is for help with and discussion about your video hardware.

Postby Mroni » Fri Apr 11, 2003 6:54 pm

Ok here are some observations I have made.

1.Apples are ridicuoulsy priced. For the power they have it's really terrible.

2. Windows Xp's interface sucks compared to 98.

3.Apples Os is like from another planet and I am sorry It is nowhere as easy to use as windows.

4. There is nothing a powerbook can do that my compaq 3015 us can't.


5.Buy what you like it's your money. Nothing you can say will make me plunk out money on a mac.


Mr Oni
Purity is wackable!
"Don't trust me I'm over 30!"
User avatar
Mroni
 
Joined: 14 Aug 2001
Location: Heading for the 90s living in the 80s sitting in a back room waiting for the big boom

Postby dwchang » Fri Apr 11, 2003 7:16 pm

Mroni wrote:Ok here are some observations I have made.

1.Apples are ridicuoulsy priced. For the power they have it's really terrible.

2. Windows Xp's interface sucks compared to 98.

3.Apples Os is like from another planet and I am sorry It is nowhere as easy to use as windows.

4. There is nothing a powerbook can do that my compaq 3015 us can't.


5.Buy what you like it's your money. Nothing you can say will make me plunk out money on a mac.


Mr Oni


Not to be an ass Mr. Oni (in fact a compliment), but this is the first time I've seen you post something fairly non-flamatory and not ridiculous or off-topic. I applaud that, although I can see your next post saying something dumb or making fun of me..oh well..just wanted to say :).
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2002
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Bahamut God » Sat May 17, 2003 8:58 pm

As a mac user, I say make sure you really want a mac. They cost a lot more, but they really do some things better. However, they also can't do a few thing pc's can do.

They are better editors. FCP, if you can find a copy of it is a great program. No getting around that. However, unless you are going to make a dvd out of your file, it's hard to get out a high quialty internet verson of your video. The mac just does not exspect people to put out the kind of files amvers want to see. (they do good super compresion, where you get large files down to very small sizes, but you defently see a quailty problem. Not bad for stremed internet comericals, but a problem for amvers.

Also, the p2p scene sucks.

Getting over that, OSX is the most stable platfrom I have ever scene. I have only had a full system (had to restart the computer) once in the whole year and a half or so of running OSx. Indavgual programs will shut down more often, but never the whole system. Also it is kind of hard to get used to if you are used to a diffrent program, but one you get the hang of running OSX it's pretty damn easy. (I waited forever to go from os9 to osX because of the learning curve, but I'm glad I did now.)

All in all, I think it's better to have one of each. ^_^ (I'm more than likely going to get a pc some day.)
[Visit my Profile, it hates Bush!]
[Feel bad for someone who killed a kid]
"I'm telling you, I want to be a loser."-Khushrenada
I have a titley thing, and you might not. ^_^/
User avatar
Bahamut God
Wrong Kind of Special
 
Joined: 08 Jan 2002
Location: Los Angles Area Status: Charmed

Postby LSM53 » Fri May 30, 2003 9:53 pm

as soon as u mention Mac's and PC's in the same sentence, you are gonna start a quazi-religious debate among people, some people are pc fanatics (like myself) and will tell you that the only thing Mac's are good for is making fun of, and making fun of the people that use them

Mac users will say likewise, but you have to decide what you want, what your most comfortable with, many people can point out the good and bad of each platform. You need to decide what you want and what you are willing to sacrafice. Stabilty for less programs? More support and diversity for less money but at the cost of stabilty?

Its up to you
No one's perfect...well there was this one guy...but we killed him.
LSM53
 
Joined: 20 Feb 2003
Location: Ontario Canada

Postby the Black Monarch » Fri May 30, 2003 10:13 pm

I've heard that Windows 2000 is a really, really good OS. It's like Windows done the way Apple would make it... very stable, very efficient use of system resources, etc. Windows XP is almost as good as 2000 in those respects.

Mr. Oni, if you know what you're doing, you can make Windows XP look exactly like Windows 95/98/2000/ME/whatever in about 30 seconds. It's not that hard.
The only .org member to donate $1,500 and still have a donation status of "total leech"
User avatar
the Black Monarch
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV

Postby klinky » Fri May 30, 2003 10:25 pm

Keep in mind that Appl's OS's are not known for their great stability. They crash as well. Earlier versions had crap mutli-threading and memory support. Basically up until OS X, they'd been piling crap ontop of a OS built since about '85.

~klinky
User avatar
klinky
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2001
Location: Cookie College...

Postby the Black Monarch » Fri May 30, 2003 10:35 pm

Yeah, but the same was true of Windows until 2000...

Unless I've been misinformed, Win '95 was built on the same code as 3.1, which was built on the same code as DOS. The '98 kernel was much better, but still a buggy piece of crap compared to the improvements that were made to it in 2000.
The only .org member to donate $1,500 and still have a donation status of "total leech"
User avatar
the Black Monarch
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV

Postby kthulhu » Sat May 31, 2003 12:18 am

Windows 3.1 was a superadvanced graphical shell for DOS, essentially.

Windows 95 could be considered a merger between DOS and Windows 3.1, with a new interface and updated code. It kind of hid DOS, but you could still shut down into it.

Windows 98 and ME are more of the same, although you can't shut down or boot into DOS with Windows ME unless you get a hack or use a boot floppy.

Windows 2000 and XP are based off of the Windows NT kernel, which is based off of Microsoft's share of the OS/2 code, some Unix standards, and a ported, updated version of the Windows API and kernel. In other words, it's not a terrible system.

Windows NT and Window 9x are two seperate code bases, although it appears with XP that the junky 9x one is dead.
I'm out...
User avatar
kthulhu
 
Joined: 30 May 2002
Location: At the pony stable, brushing the pretty ponies

Postby the Black Monarch » Sat May 31, 2003 11:58 am

Actually, I heard that Longhorn was ressurrecting a "fixed" version of the 9x code.
The only .org member to donate $1,500 and still have a donation status of "total leech"
User avatar
the Black Monarch
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV

Postby kthulhu » Sat May 31, 2003 4:33 pm

God forbid if it does.

I'm sticking to Windows 2000 for as long as I can. Once I can no longer use it, I'll probably look into jumping ship to one of the Unixes, or maybe even the MacOS platform.
I'm out...
User avatar
kthulhu
 
Joined: 30 May 2002
Location: At the pony stable, brushing the pretty ponies

Postby the Black Monarch » Mon Jun 02, 2003 10:40 pm

I'd use 2000, but my comp came with XP and I didn't feel like switching.

When I can't use XP anymore, I'll switch to the most recent Windows OS that uses the NT kernel. What I heard about Longhorn, which is not necessarily true, does not dictate the future of all Windows OSes.

I'm going to be a Windows user forever just because Unix and Mac won't play my dozens of computer games.
The only .org member to donate $1,500 and still have a donation status of "total leech"
User avatar
the Black Monarch
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV

Postby J89idsioss » Thu Jun 05, 2003 8:44 pm

Sounds like a religous debate to me. I've heard this a million times before. I'm getting a mac. I'm estactic to get a mac. But really, get what you want, both will do the job. I think all computers are horribly flawed along with most software, and the designers should step back and take a look at what they're doing. It's happened with apple before & same with microsoft. Hopefully thier self evaluation continues bringing us hardware & software that works. And hopefully we'll never see a computer that crashes when you remove the mouse, ever again. 8)
J89idsioss
 
Joined: 04 Jun 2003

Postby alternatefutures » Sat Jun 07, 2003 6:06 pm

Some info: Apple is NOT considering switching to AMD or Intel. If they move from Motorola the top contender is IBM's PPC970, of which Apple has purchased several hundred thousand, and some people are even saying to expect the switch this month. I give low odds on that, but Apple tends to keep things hushed up until the last second, so its possible (in which case my condolences to everyone who bought a Mac recently). If Apple can maintain its prices with dual PPC970 solutions the balance of computing power could shift dramatically. The current Motorola chips lag behind AMD and Intel solutions, even in dual configuration. The situation if Apple sticks with Motorola will become critical when AMD releases the Athlon 64 later this year and Intel releases Prescott early next year.

The only thing the Mac is actually better at is in the print industry, as it has better color matching between what's displayed on the monitor and what comes out from the printer. Since you don't print out AMVs, there's no advantage to the Mac, save FCP. Of course, the PC has programs to match FCP: Vegas and Avid Xpress Pro.

For OSes, stability between XP and OSX are at parity, maybe OSX is a tiny-weeny bit more stable than XP, but it's nothing to brag about. Both of these OSes bog down their systems, OSX more so than XP. For stability and speed you want Win2K. Otherwise, use what you know.

Anyway, if you think Apple will move to an x86 architechture you're dreaming. Apple wants control over the hardware its OS runs on, and the idea of bargain basement manufacturers selling machines made with shoddy components that run OSX is not something they want to deal with. The main reason you hear more about XP problems is the varying quality controls across PC manufacturers. If OSX was allowed to roam free you'd hear the same complaints.
alternatefutures
 
Joined: 14 May 2001

Postby J89idsioss » Sun Jun 08, 2003 1:43 am

I agree, good thing for them that hasn't happened yet.
J89idsioss
 
Joined: 04 Jun 2003

Postby the Black Monarch » Mon Jun 09, 2003 6:03 am

alternatefutures wrote: Athlon 64 later this year and Intel releases Prescott early next year.


This "Athlon 64" that you speak of... don't you mean the Opteron?

Prescott is just the P4, only with a smaller die size.
The only .org member to donate $1,500 and still have a donation status of "total leech"
User avatar
the Black Monarch
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Location: The Stellar Converter on Meklon IV

PreviousNext

Return to Video Hardware Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest