Uncool To Be a Mac User in These Tough Times?

tacosareveryyummy said:
Agreed, which is why I generally stay out of these threads. Why does it really matter which is better? Let people use whichever they like the best. The only real issue I see with Apple stuff is the cost.
Click to expand...

the reason these threads can't be avoided is because apple fans think their computers are the best and feel the need to justify it to themselves because they know it's not true.


again, there's two sides:


"apple's the best"

and

"no it's not, there are plenty of other viable options"

there's no "windows is the best"
 
Mavvok said:
there's no "windows is the best"
Click to expand...

That's because windows is what it is and nothing more. IMO windows does everything I need and even if it does suck ass it still doesn't justify paying an extra $1000 for a freaking piece of fruit no matter how good of pies it makes.
 
To me the whole PC vs Mac debate ended when Apple gave in and switched to Intel chips. Was a good fight until then though.
 
TechieSooner said:
Please provide a link, or quite simply STFU.
Click to expand...
A link to what?

TechieSooner said:
Now my gut feeling is you tried to say they get like dog crap after a year too, and you yourself aren't actually running them. You'd have get jumped on for that, no doubt. But again, without a link...
Click to expand...
This sentence is borderline incomprehensible. You're suggesting I don't run...my own Windows machines? Huh?

And, again, a link to what?

Mavvok said:
strange, i'm pretty sure Protools and 99% of all the other avid owned products are windows compatible, logic only RECENTLY became apple only
Click to expand...
Pro Tools is terrible on Windows. It's not a Windows issue specifically, but Digidesign's invested so little in Pro Tools for Windows, and it clearly shows. As a result, the large majority of studios are still using Macs. Again, it's not because OS X is superior but because the Windows version of Pro Tools is simply inferior.

I've seen studios swing either way on Avid. Some use Windows; others use Macs. Seems to boil down mostly to a company's preference and the preferences of the editors they employ.

As for Logic, it's been Mac OS-exclusive for six or seven years now...not that most music production studios are focused around Logic or anything.
 
I own 2 Macs and 3 Windows-based PCs so it's obvious I'm not biased at all (they're only computers :rolleyes:) but I'd have to say, the Mac forums generally have much more savage fanboys from what I've seen.

At the end of the day though, what I really want to know is if her curtains match.
 
phide said:
A link to what?


This sentence is borderline incomprehensible. You're suggesting I don't run...my own Windows machines? Huh?

And, again, a link to what?


Pro Tools is terrible on Windows. It's not a Windows issue specifically, but Digidesign's invested so little in Pro Tools for Windows, and it clearly shows. As a result, the large majority of studios are still using Macs. Again, it's not because OS X is superior but because the Windows version of Pro Tools is simply inferior.

I've seen studios swing either way on Avid. Some use Windows; others use Macs. Seems to boil down mostly to a company's preference and the preferences of the editors they employ.

As for Logic, it's been Mac OS-exclusive for six or seven years now...not that most music production studios are focused around Logic or anything.
Click to expand...

it may come to you as a shock but in 2009 alot more studios are using systems other than protools.

i know, hard to believe huh, oh and we have something called serial ata, and multi core processors, oh oh oh and BROADBAND INTERNET!
 
phide said:
A link to what?


This sentence is borderline incomprehensible. You're suggesting I don't run...my own Windows machines? Huh?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I would clarify but I honestly don't know where I was going with it... It's like I don't even remember that portion at all :(

phide said:
Pro Tools is terrible on Windows. It's not a Windows issue specifically, but Digidesign's invested so little in Pro Tools for Windows, and it clearly shows. As a result, the large majority of studios are still using Macs. Again, it's not because OS X is superior but because the Windows version of Pro Tools is simply inferior.
Click to expand...
Exactly. ProTools was originally for Mac. And I would agree 100% in that industry where you have a need for that software (IMO ProTools is one of the best softwares) you run Mac.

Also note, the ONLY reason is not because Mac is better, but because the Windows version sucks. (Just emphasizing what you said).
Otherwise, what studio wouldn't want to save a grand or two?
 
Mavvok said:
strange, i'm pretty sure Protools and 99% of all the other avid owned products are windows compatible, logic only RECENTLY became apple only. The reason most video editing studios use mac is because they've been using them since the dawn of time, it's a case of being familiar with a certain platform, granted back in the day mac's had real kickass hardware. SCSI and powerpc processors. but now they're just overpriced glorified dells.
Click to expand...

As phide pointed out, Pro Tools isn't very good on Windows. As for video editing, I have seen exactly one Windows based Avid in the wild, /[ever.]/ And as for Final Cut Studio, well, I unfortunately can't use those install discs with my Windows 7 machines. :)

And you're right, it is inertia, a similar inertia that has kept office software in the domain of Windows. The absolute best version of Office is the one on Windows, and other solutions like OpenOffice still do not come anywhere close.

That same inertia has helped keep Hollywood hooked on Mac media software is the same one that's kept it hooked at least partly on UNIX based operating systems. After all, top end visual effects software was written for the IRIX OS way way back in the day (the OS that Silicon Graphics machines used). IRIX and SGI died away years ago but it helped maintain a foothold in UNIX when the torch was passed onto other UNIX based systems like Linux and OS X.

Either way, there is still are still very legitimate reasons for why certain people and industries will prefer either OS X or Windows. They are just tools. I myself am relatively new to the Mac, only seven years on that platform versus over twenty with Microsoft, but since OS 10.4 I have had a preference for the OS X GUI. I have my reasons, mainly a cleaner, more consistent GUI, fewer drilldowns in menus and submenus, enforced consistency among applications with things like keyboard shortcuts, various workspace tools like Spaces and Expose, application popups and alerts not stealing focus when I'm using another application (one thing I truly dislike with Windows), the list goes on. It doesn't mean that I can't get work done on Windows, nor does it mean that I hate it (I LIKE Vista and I think that Windows 7 is even better) but I and many others do have a preference that is backed by real life usage and not "drinking the kool aid".

And as for the hardware, I have no love lost for PPC going away. Maybe its because I jumped on the train only in 2002, but at that point it was a case of Motorola falling behind in updating their G4 CPUs and using the hacky solution of cramming multiple CPUs into a case to boost performance. At least my G4 tower was a tank, damn thing ran as fast as the day I bought it with no OS maintenance or reformats, and no hardware issues outside of a bad stick of RAM that I myself bought (and replaced :) ). IBM's G5 was a mess in comparison, as I hear nothing but issues with failures after several years of usage. It was a similar CPU to the ones used in the XBox 360, HMMMMMM.....

Anyway, I'm glad they're Intel now. No more needing to splurge big bucks on a Mac Pro tower, you can get tons of performance in an iMac now (and before anyone mentions the price, keep in mind that is it price competitive with Dell and HP's all-in-ones, and that it uses the same panel as this $1100 monitor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824002168 ). The Mini is still crap, the 17" Macbook Pro is a terrible value IMO, but the iMac really gives you a lot for the money.

Anyway, I don't want to get dragged into a multipage discussion on the subject so I think this is all I have to say on it. Like I said earlier, people should use what they're comfortable with and the right tool for the job, but to insist that the other tool is bad without real experience is very presumptuous and not just a little arrogant, imo. Ditto insisting that either Windows or Mac users are "drinking the kool aid" because of the platform they are using. There are fanboys that use either platform, absolutely, but I'm positive that there are a hell of a lot more users that have made their decision for very good, informed reasons.
 
TechieSooner said:
Exactly. ProTools was originally for Mac. And I would agree 100% in that industry where you have a need for that software (IMO ProTools is one of the best softwares) you run Mac.

Also note, the ONLY reason is not because Mac is better, but because the Windows version sucks. (Just emphasizing what you said).
Otherwise, what studio wouldn't want to save a grand or two?
Click to expand...

Up until the day they finally updated it to the i7 Xeons, the Mac Pro was still $500-$1000 cheaper than an identically specced Dell or HP eight-core Xeon workstation. The place you save is if you decide to go with a Core 2 Duo system instead of a Xeon, and that is Apple's fault for not offering a headless Core 2 Duo machine with PCI-E expansion (dammit). Based on pre-i7 Mac Pro pricing, I'm positive that a similar machine by Apple would price out very favorably.

BTW, I'm curious to see how the price difference in the pro workstation area works out once Dell and HP get their i7 Xeons up for sale. Apple is still the only one selling them as far as I know. Either way, the value proposition still works out well for Apple considering the benchmarks I've seen comparing the new Nehalem equipped Mac Pros with the old ones.
 
The one she got is AMD powered with an ATI onboard graphics chip; this Woot one is more powerful, actually, with a real Core 2 Duo but weaker with that Intel 4500 onboard graphics chip. 4GB as opposed to her 3GB, so... this is a better machine overall I'd say.

Bleh... this thread is getting long in the tooth.
 
Mavvok said:
it may come to you as a shock but in 2009 alot more studios are using systems other than protools.
Click to expand...
So far this year, I've been in 13 (possibly 14) different post-production studios. The primary DAW for all of them? Pro Tools. Last year? Same deal. That's not to say that every post house's primary DAW is Pro Tools, but it's a sure bet that more than 95% of them are using a Pro Tools HD system (or one or more older Mix|24 systems on OS 9) in some way. Percentage of them using Pro Tools on PCs? None as far as I could tell.

When you get into the really high-end mix studios for film, Euphonix stuff gets used pretty heavily, but even then a Pro Tools HD system is often involved in some way. It tends to be just one of those inescapable things.

Music studios tend to be a little more adventurous when it comes to software simply because client sessions aren't necessarily going to be PTS. You're likely to see a greater range of software options available just to accommodate clients.

TechieSooner said:
Sorry, I would clarify but I honestly don't know where I was going with it... It's like I don't even remember that portion at all :(
Click to expand...
Alright then :)

TechieSooner said:
Also note, the ONLY reason is not because Mac is better, but because the Windows version sucks. (Just emphasizing what you said).
Otherwise, what studio wouldn't want to save a grand or two?
Click to expand...
Most engineers I've met have tended to be fairly die-hard Mac guys for one reason or another. Most are "fluent" in both Windows and OS X, so I doubt there would be anything keeping them firmly on Macs when/if Pro Tools Windows gets better, but I still don't see it happening there. Studios are going to be unlikely to switch gears on things that are running smoothly already.

As for the cost savings, I couldn't say what the "typical" cost savings would be from switching Mac hardware out for PCs. When your DAW alone costs $12-$20,000, saving a few bucks here and there on the machine driving it probably isn't exactly all that critical.
 
I have a black macbook that I got for 800 bucks.. good deal.. I only use it for carrying around to classes and traveling. But at the end of the day I prefer to use my PC. Both are great systems and the reason why I chose the macbook is it's portable and apple does a good job on the mobility laptops. I'm no fanboy so I like to have best of both sides.
 
Serpico said:
As phide pointed out, Pro Tools isn't very good on Windows. As for video editing, I have seen exactly one Windows based Avid in the wild, /[ever.]/ And as for Final Cut Studio, well, I unfortunately can't use those install discs with my Windows 7 machines. :)

And you're right, it is inertia, a similar inertia that has kept office software in the domain of Windows. The absolute best version of Office is the one on Windows, and other solutions like OpenOffice still do not come anywhere close.

That same inertia has helped keep Hollywood hooked on Mac media software is the same one that's kept it hooked at least partly on UNIX based operating systems. After all, top end visual effects software was written for the IRIX OS way way back in the day (the OS that Silicon Graphics machines used). IRIX and SGI died away years ago but it helped maintain a foothold in UNIX when the torch was passed onto other UNIX based systems like Linux and OS X.

Either way, there is still are still very legitimate reasons for why certain people and industries will prefer either OS X or Windows. They are just tools. I myself am relatively new to the Mac, only seven years on that platform versus over twenty with Microsoft, but since OS 10.4 I have had a preference for the OS X GUI. I have my reasons, mainly a cleaner, more consistent GUI, fewer drilldowns in menus and submenus, enforced consistency among applications with things like keyboard shortcuts, various workspace tools like Spaces and Expose, application popups and alerts not stealing focus when I'm using another application (one thing I truly dislike with Windows), the list goes on. It doesn't mean that I can't get work done on Windows, nor does it mean that I hate it (I LIKE Vista and I think that Windows 7 is even better) but I and many others do have a preference that is backed by real life usage and not "drinking the kool aid".

And as for the hardware, I have no love lost for PPC going away. Maybe its because I jumped on the train only in 2002, but at that point it was a case of Motorola falling behind in updating their G4 CPUs and using the hacky solution of cramming multiple CPUs into a case to boost performance. At least my G4 tower was a tank, damn thing ran as fast as the day I bought it with no OS maintenance or reformats, and no hardware issues outside of a bad stick of RAM that I myself bought (and replaced :) ). IBM's G5 was a mess in comparison, as I hear nothing but issues with failures after several years of usage. It was a similar CPU to the ones used in the XBox 360, HMMMMMM.....

Anyway, I'm glad they're Intel now. No more needing to splurge big bucks on a Mac Pro tower, you can get tons of performance in an iMac now (and before anyone mentions the price, keep in mind that is it price competitive with Dell and HP's all-in-ones, and that it uses the same panel as this $1100 monitor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824002168 ). The Mini is still crap, the 17" Macbook Pro is a terrible value IMO, but the iMac really gives you a lot for the money.

Anyway, I don't want to get dragged into a multipage discussion on the subject so I think this is all I have to say on it. Like I said earlier, people should use what they're comfortable with and the right tool for the job, but to insist that the other tool is bad without real experience is very presumptuous and not just a little arrogant, imo. Ditto insisting that either Windows or Mac users are "drinking the kool aid" because of the platform they are using. There are fanboys that use either platform, absolutely, but I'm positive that there are a hell of a lot more users that have made their decision for very good, informed reasons.
Click to expand...

Having over 13 years experience using both, often side-by-side, for video production, photo editing, design/layout, etc ... I can say that this is a very educated and accurate post. You can't lump all product from a single company into one stereotype. Each product should be individually evaluated to determine its value, not just, "oh, it's a mac so it's overpriced" or "oh it's a pc so it's crappy and cheap." And not only should you evaluate it based on raw specs and versus direct competitors, but also based on your individual needs and budget. Sometimes a Mac can really be a good value. Maybe not for you, but perhaps for another. Maybe looks are not important to you, but maybe they are to someone else. I hate many of Apples proprietary and unethical stunts such as the new shuffles, display port on the new macbooks, lack of firewire without even putting an extra USB in its place, etc. But because those products piss me off doesn't mean all apple products do. The new iMac is actually quite a nice value at $1500, and you won't find a Windows all-in-one with that nice of screen for anywhere near that price without adding something external.
 
The professional market really is a whole different game altogether then the retail. Considering the software usually costs many times what the hardware does anyways, it definitely is more important to consider what platform the software is running on over other considerations.
 
its uncool to be a mac user period, because of the fart sniffing. its not attractive.
 
What is Vista's problems? There are many that we all agree exist.

The main ones are #1, its slower then XP. Duh. Well considering every OS has been slower on the same hardware then the previous OS, this is no BIG surprise. Hardware advances, so they advance software with it. The biggest problem with Vista is the jump is how slow it is. Why is that? Its bloated. Why is it bloated? Security.

#2, annoyances. Its a frustrating OS to work with because it asks you stupid question ALL THE FRIGGEN time! It also fundamentally works difference, but has a similar interface. That sometimes works against the users who work with older apps. Why is it annoying? Security!

Now, Vista is not the most secure OS out there, but its better. It was made during the internet scare panic phase when all of our mothers was paranoid about Viri's they heard about on the news. Security was what the people demanded, and damn it if MS didnt try to give what the people wanted. Just like our airports today, you cant have BOTH security and have it not disrupt the flow.

Before anyone says OSX is MORE secure, read about Pwn-2-own and STFU. 5 seconds for OSX. The only reason OSX is not infested with buggies is due to its low population. Why make Trojans for a PC thats only being used by elitist artsy tree huggers? What valuable info can you steal from them?

Also, look at what Windows has to do. In the grand scheme of things, it needs to support not only MILLIONS of different hardware components, but in BILLIONS of configurations. It also needs to support millions of different program in billions of configs. To build an OS that will work with all those variables is very very difficult. One that Apple wont even touch. They only need to design an OS that will run on THERE hardware and licensed products. Consoles are fast for the same reason.

Given how limited OSX is (in hardware, software, and its users) its sad that its STILL not secure.
 
Gibbage said:
What is Vista's problems? There are many that we all agree exist.

The main ones are #1, its slower then XP. Duh. Well considering every OS has been slower on the same hardware then the previous OS, this is no BIG surprise. Hardware advances, so they advance software with it. The biggest problem with Vista is the jump is how slow it is. Why is that? Its bloated. Why is it bloated? Security.

#2, annoyances. Its a frustrating OS to work with because it asks you stupid question ALL THE FRIGGEN time! It also fundamentally works difference, but has a similar interface. That sometimes works against the users who work with older apps. Why is it annoying? Security!

Now, Vista is not the most secure OS out there, but its better. It was made during the internet scare panic phase when all of our mothers was paranoid about Viri's they heard about on the news. Security was what the people demanded, and damn it if MS didnt try to give what the people wanted. Just like our airports today, you cant have BOTH security and have it not disrupt the flow.

Before anyone says OSX is MORE secure, read about Pwn-2-own and STFU. 5 seconds for OSX. The only reason OSX is not infested with buggies is due to its low population. Why make Trojans for a PC thats only being used by elitist artsy tree huggers? What valuable info can you steal from them?

Also, look at what Windows has to do. In the grand scheme of things, it needs to support not only MILLIONS of different hardware components, but in BILLIONS of configurations. It also needs to support millions of different program in billions of configs. To build an OS that will work with all those variables is very very difficult. One that Apple wont even touch. They only need to design an OS that will run on THERE hardware and licensed products. Consoles are fast for the same reason.

Given how limited OSX is (in hardware, software, and its users) its sad that its STILL not secure.
Click to expand...

Correction: Vista is only slower than XP on machines older than maybe 2-3 years old. On current machines, Vista is actually faster than XP. As for the annoyance, a prompt a day hardly constitute as an annoyance. If people are getting prompted left and right to the point where they're getting annoyed, it means they're:

1. installing their machines. At this point UAC should be turned off until you're done, then fire it back up. Or..

2. Get off the goddamn porn site and maybe you won't be prompted to install malware all the time.
 
The difference with Justin is that she looks very kissable with that curly red hair...Justin...I don't think so.
 
no......companies use paid actors in commericals they spend alot of money on...


hint: all commericals are staged ^_^
 
Azhar said:
Hmm.. someone hasn't come out from under their rock for awhile I see.
Click to expand...

Think what you will, but people that reinstall Windows 2-3 times a year because of hardware upgrades are NOT in a position to vow to the long term stability of the windows OS.

My household is pretty much split down the middle so I have no dog in the fight for the most part (1 Vista64, 1 XP Pro, 1 OSX Tiger, 1 OSX Leopard, 1 WHS) and I've used every vintage of windows including the Win7 beta.

Personally and professionally, I still continue to see situations where the only feasible solution to repair a stupid windows problem is to reinstall. I don't see that on the OSX side.
 
I have a job in the entertainment industry. ALL commercial's are staged. Even those taste test ones that use "real" people. The key is having the FACTS in line.

What most likley happened is the situation happened with a non-actor. Gave someone 1000$ to buy a notebook with X guidelines. They re-created that situation, using the FACTS with a more camera friendly actor that would be more visually appealing, and didnt sweat like a pig in heat in front of a camera.

The thing is, it does not discredit the commercial, since the facts are correct. In that you CANT get a 17" notebook from Apple for less then a grand, but you CAN get many many Windows based notebooks for less then a grand. At least there not making false claims, like Apple does with its BS being "twice as fast". Apple commercials have been picked apart many many times, yet all they can cry about is the use of actors? Lol. Talk about getting desperate.
 
brentsg said:
Personally and professionally, I still continue to see situations where the only feasible solution to repair a stupid windows problem is to reinstall. I don't see that on the OSX side.
Click to expand...

I have been using Vista (32 and 64) for almost 2 years now and I still have not run into a situation where I needed to reinstall yet. On XP it was a regular occurrence.

Just my experience.:)
 
I can vouch. I put in new hardware all of the time but I rarely reinstall windows. Ive been known to make an XP install last through 3 or 4 motherboards... without a repair install. I once went over a year without an XP Cd, you would really be surprised at what can be fixed if you actually try.

If you stay away from viruses, spyware, etc... (and dont plop in new motherboards or run overzealous memory timings) there really isn't much that goes wrong with windows. Definitely nothing that can't be fixed.
 
brentsg said:
Personally and professionally, I still continue to see situations where the only feasible solution to repair a stupid windows problem is to reinstall. I don't see that on the OSX side.
Click to expand...

It's the same on the OSX or Linux side, especially when you have to deal with friggin people who clicks yes to everything and find that they've gotten a bunch of pop-ups all of a sudden.

Recently we got someone who opened the attachment with a malware/trojan. She said that she didn't see it do anything after she double-clicked on it. But she called and asked why her browser was crashing.
 
Jakalwarrior said:
I can vouch. I put in new hardware all of the time but I rarely reinstall windows. Ive been known to make an XP install last through 3 or 4 motherboards... without a repair install. I once went over a year without an XP Cd, you would really be surprised at what can be fixed if you actually try.

If you stay away from viruses, spyware, etc... (and dont plop in new motherboards or run overzealous memory timings) there really isn't much that goes wrong with windows. Definitely nothing that can't be fixed.
Click to expand...

I agree. I rarely have to do a repair install to fix a problem. It would probably be easier, but a lot of time I can fix the problem with a little bit of work. Or at worse case I have to go to a system restore point. But very rarely do I ever have to pull out a windows cd to do a reinstall unless the harddrive is going and some of the data on it got corrupted. At which case it might be clone the harddrive over to a new one then a repair install to get it back up.
 
Mac folks always moan about Vista and XP but I know 3 people that have bought Macs recently.

Guess what the first thing was they did with them? Yep, thats right they installed Windows on it.

Of the 5 people I know that own Macs they all run mostly in Windows when they use them.

Mad.
 
Enduring_Warrior said:
The difference with Justin is that she looks very kissable with that curly red hair...Justin...I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I know Apple users will bring up that stoned girl (Ellen) in defense...but I will agree that the Apple girl, looked pretty good.
 
Uh, doesn't one expect actors and actresses in ads? Ads are rainbows. That's just how the world works. People work hard in college to secure such acting work, etc.
 
xorbe said:
Uh, doesn't one expect actors and actresses in ads? Ads are rainbows. That's just how the world works. People work hard in college to secure such acting work, etc.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I don't understand what the issue is. Wasn't it obvious that she was an actress? Although she is an actress, the ad is still true--you can't buy a mac laptop for under $1000.
 
Who cares if she is an actress?

The people in the Mac ads are also actors. So are the ones in the erectile dis-function commercials.
 
Fanboy fail if the laptop was so great of a deal they would not have had to give her a gag contract. One problem Apple may be negative but does it use deceitful message? They admit their bias.

20+ acting jobs and not cool enough to own an apple yea right.

From TechFlash

"Lauren" turns out to be Lauren De Long, a Los Angeles-based actress. We contacted her via phone to ask what she actually thinks about her HP laptop -- which one critic describes as "the epitome of what people dislike about PCs."

She declined to comment, saying she had signed a confidentiality agreement and wanted to check first to see if she was allowed to speak to the press.
Click to expand...
 
Holy shit are Apple peeps that obsessed? They contacted the actor? Maybe trade that over priced lap top for some therapy?
 
MetalX said:
Holy shit are Apple peeps that obsessed? They contacted the actor? Maybe trade that over priced lap top for some therapy?
Click to expand...

It's great how Mac commercials can lie about Vista left and right but as soon as MS makes a commercial that speaks the truth they do everything they can to try to discredit MS because they want to make themselves feel better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top