"... should be inspirational, sexy, driving, provocative, nostalgic, sentimental..." said Eno. "And then at the bottom it said 'and not more than 3.8 seconds long."

Sounds like a description of a romp in the sack with me.

The calculator on the Mac I was using for my respiratory physiology exam stopped responding during the exam.


PCs 1, Mac 0

When Microsoft was doing the early demos of Windows 95, they didn't actually have a Windows 95 interface that worked. During one of the shows, there was a power drop on the backstage computers, and the "Windows 95" machine that was running the demo rebooted on screen - a Mac running Director as a graphics simulation of 95.

Chime for computer ON computer? Colour me glam

For me that sound evokes feelings of doom, like tendrils of Microsoft Madness are enwrapping me. It is the creaking shut of the haunted mansion's door. It is laughter emanating from deep within a tomb. It is the scream of an owl one brief moment before I am ripped to shreds.

Desribe him

All artists use Mac. PCs get in the way of the creative process with more complicated software, and having to confirm what you tell them three or four times before they will do anything.

Well duh, who'd use Windows 3.1 for something like that?

macdaddy357: All artists use Mac. PCs get in the way of the creative process with more complicated software, and having to confirm what you tell them three or four times before they will do anything.

Trolling?

Photoshop, Flash, etc. are pretty close to the same on Windows and Mac, barring keyboard shortcuts.

Well, except for the Mac versions sometimes lacking things like GPU acceleration or 64-bit versions.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I use a mac. For science. Hard science. It's reliable for months without rebooting, has UNIX-esque code at the core of it (enabling support for my linux apps), and has a solid laptop casing that won't fall apart like most cheap PC laptops.

So while you guys are arguing about how "Macs suck yo!," I'll be doing science... while reading Fark.

Back then Macs were actually better for creative stuff like composing music and graphics because of better use of RAM and processing power. Now? Not so much but the myth lives on in some people.

*clicks his right mouse button to do something*

Man, that feels good. Mac people don't feel this good ever.

tomcatadam: Photoshop, Flash, etc. are pretty close to the same on Windows and Mac, barring keyboard shortcuts.

But Photoshop was Mac exclusive until 1992, and that makes the Windows version wrong.

I used a close-up of some straight porn on a gay sauna site I was asked to design a long time ago.

/csb

SockMonkeyHolocaust: better use of RAM and processing power

Actually, OSX does a lot of very interesting things with RAM. These days, we've got so much RAM it barely matters, but OSX bridges VRAM into regular RAM if it runs out (it performs much slower than VRAM, obviously, but it gives OSX a huge area to store graphical information and cut down on disk i/o). OSX also has a system for "wired" memory- memory of recently killed applications that can be reassigned right to them when they restart.

Who the fark cares

I still haven't gotten over the hockey-puck mouse.

PC: 2 Mac: 0

tomcatadam: macdaddy357: All artists use Mac. PCs get in the way of the creative process with more complicated software, and having to confirm what you tell them three or four times before they will do anything.

Trolling?

Photoshop, Flash, etc. are pretty close to the same on Windows and Mac, barring keyboard shortcuts.

Well, except for the Mac versions sometimes lacking things like GPU acceleration or 64-bit versions.

The gap between mac and PC has grown ever smaller, especially with the huge amounts of web apps. The UX of Windows *finally* became acceptable with Windows 7 but mac still does a lot of things nicer or prettier.

Honestly I think Apple future is more invested in it's "novelty" products at this point than it's traditional desktops and laptops. They're a nice core business that's not going away, but I haven't seen them ever gain any sort of traction like the iPhone or iPad or do anything remotely interesting like Siri in a long time.

Barakku: The UX of Windows *finally* became acceptable with Windows 7

The Windows 7 taskbar is the most giant piece of ass that has ever assed its way onto my computer.

macdaddy357: All artists use Mac. PCs get in the way of the creative process with more complicated software, and having to confirm what you tell them three or four times before they will do anything.

The popups! MY F*CKING GOD THE POPUPS! I hadn't spent any time with windows in a few years, and spent a couple days with a windows 7 machine. The farking task bar needs to leave me the fark ALONE so I can farking WORK! I don't CARE that the owner of the machine is running an old version of Java. No I DON'T want to kick off an update that will cause the computer to reboot. I didn't want to an hour ago and I STILL DON'T F*CKING WANT TO!!!

What the fark? It's November 24th, 2011. Windows 95 came out August 24th, 1995. Who farking cares about it anymore?

advres: SockMonkeyHolocaust: Back then Macs were actually better for creative stuff like composing music and graphics because of better use of RAM and processing power. Now? Not so much but the myth lives on in some people.

*clicks his right mouse button to do something*

Man, that feels good. Mac people don't feel this good ever.

The one button mouse is a myth that obviously lives on as well. Apple mice have had two buttons and a scroll for years. And before that you could use any mouse with any number of buttons or keyboard shortcuts. I use a Kensington expert mouse which is actually a track ball for years on my edit system.

I guess you can't untrain stupid.

We knew this about a month after 95 was released. Why greenlight now?

Also, I had to look up today's date, but knew the release date of "Chicago" without checking it.

Sad, really.

Macs guts are the same as PCs these days, they just charge you a ton more to feel good about the logo on the back.

Old news is over 15 years old. i didn't care about then or now.

cirby: When Microsoft was doing the early demos of Windows 95, they didn't actually have a Windows 95 interface that worked. During one of the shows, there was a power drop on the backstage computers, and the "Windows 95" machine that was running the demo rebooted on screen - a Mac running Director as a graphics simulation of 95.

That sounds like an urban legend. I have some of the very earliest builds from when it was called Chicago and still had a lot of Windows 3.1 elements in the interface. It seems very unlikely that they would have needed to simulate it on a Mac.

the_sidewinder: AcneVulgaris: macdaddy357: All artists use Mac. PCs get in the way of the creative process with more complicated software, and having to confirm what you tell them three or four times before they will do anything.

The popups! MY F*CKING GOD THE POPUPS! I hadn't spent any time with windows in a few years, and spent a couple days with a windows 7 machine. The farking task bar needs to leave me the fark ALONE so I can farking WORK! I don't CARE that the owner of the machine is running an old version of Java. No I DON'T want to kick off an update that will cause the computer to reboot. I didn't want to an hour ago and I STILL DON'T F*CKING WANT TO!!!

So you are blaming Windows for Java being annoying?

/I don't let Java on my systems
//Unless it's a VM

Java was one of many, many popups, and windows need to keep a lid on that shiat.

Sim Tree: laivincolmo: I'm probably in the minority here, but I use a mac. For science. Hard science. It's reliable for months without rebooting, has UNIX-esque code at the core of it (enabling support for my linux apps), and has a solid laptop casing that won't fall apart like most cheap PC laptops.

So while you guys are arguing about how "Macs suck yo!," I'll be doing science... while reading Fark.

Look at you still talking when there's science to do. When the science gets done, will you make a neat gun, for the people who are... still alive?

Speaking of which Portal 2 is on sale for 66% off right now on Steam.

laivincolmo: I'm probably in the minority here, but I use a mac. For science. Hard science. It's reliable for months without rebooting, has UNIX-esque code at the core of it (enabling support for my linux apps), and has a solid laptop casing that won't fall apart like most cheap PC laptops.

So while you guys are arguing about how "Macs suck yo!," I'll be doing science... while reading Fark.

This is a weird comparison. Macs are not in any sense of the word "cheap." It's a little unfair to hold them up against bargain bin laptops and say "Look! Look! Macs are better!"

t3knomanser: The Windows 7 taskbar is the most giant piece of ass that has ever assed its way onto my computer.

What?
It's the exact same as the XP/2000/classic Explorer one, except it has the option of minimizing to the size of icons and combining immediately rather than when the taskbar is filled. Oh, and pinning applications to the main bar rather than a subsection.

hawcian: Macs are not in any sense of the word "cheap."

The Macbook Air, while not cheap, is (in comparison to other Ultrabooks) quite modestly priced (for Apple) and is of quite higher quality.

bingethinker: Why not? If people are going to constantly crow about Macs costing more, it's okay to point out why they cost more.

You're operating under the false assumption that the only laptops cheaper than Macbooks that are comparably spec'd are the garbage ones.

When, in fact, there are plenty of cheaper laptops that also have the same, if not better build quality and superior components. After that, it comes down to OS and look/design preferences, but nothing truly objective at that point.
MBA excepted, of course.

The "reason they cost more" is largely the Apple Tax. Their margins are markedly higher than those of other companies.

tomcatadam: macdaddy357: All artists use Mac. PCs get in the way of the creative process with more complicated software, and having to confirm what you tell them three or four times before they will do anything.

Trolling?

Photoshop, Flash, etc. are pretty close to the same on Windows and Mac, barring keyboard shortcuts.

Well, except for the Mac versions sometimes lacking things like GPU acceleration or 64-bit versions.

The versions may be the same, but it really does make a difference. It's probably related to the limited number of hardware iterations that will run CS5, but there are OS-level software differences that matter.

It isn't that you couldn't do the exact same thing in the PC version. IT's that many people face deadlines and Adobe products are just enough better on the Mac side to make buying the more expensive hardware worth it.

/CS5 on mac is both 64-bit compatible and GPU accelerated.

tomcatadam: What?

The older taskbars weren't much better, but the Win7 one is a significant step down. It's just so damn cumbersome to switch applications, and there is still no way to bring all of the windows of an application to the front with a single click. The fade-in/fade-out garbage is distracting; bring the window I'm hovering over to the front? Awesome. Make every other window vanish behind it? ANNOYING AS HELL.

tomcatadam: Their margins are markedly higher than those of other companies.

Generally, when someone releases a product that they are able to sell for higher margins than their competition, we don't call it a "tax" we call it "profit" and it's the sign of a well run company with a good product. There's not a lot of non-Mac laptops milled from a single block of aluminum, but the result is a fantastic laptop worth more than an equivalent hardware package from another company.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Back then Macs were actually better for creative stuff like composing music and graphics because of better use of RAM and processing power. Now? Not so much but the myth lives on in some people.

*clicks his right mouse button to do something*

Man, that feels good. Mac people don't feel this good ever.

someones never used a modern mac touchpad.


Seriously afterwords you feel like a cripple going to anything else.

Hand Banana: cirby: When Microsoft was doing the early demos of Windows 95, they didn't actually have a Windows 95 interface that worked. During one of the shows, there was a power drop on the backstage computers, and the "Windows 95" machine that was running the demo rebooted on screen - a Mac running Director as a graphics simulation of 95.

That sounds like an urban legend. I have some of the very earliest builds from when it was called Chicago and still had a lot of Windows 3.1 elements in the interface. It seems very unlikely that they would have needed to simulate it on a Mac.

That does sound like an urban legend.

tomcatadam: The "reason they cost more" is largely the Apple Tax. Their margins are markedly higher than those of other companies.

Those margins pay for the software, among other things. System software updates, including major new features, were free and free to copy until the early 1990s when Apple was losing its way and eyeing the possibility of Mac clones and selling Mac OS for them in a bad imitation of Microsoft's model. Mac OS 8.0 and 9.0 were $99 each IIFC, and Mac OS X versions were $129 through 10.5. But at the same time, on the iOS platform, Apple went back to the software cost being hidden in the device cost. The iPad 1 has gone from iOS 3 to iOS 4 to iOS 5 for free. The Mac is coming back toward the same model, with OS X 10.6 and 10.7 being only $30, and the licensing on 10.7 being that you can install it on all the Macs you personally own for no extra charge. The Mac is also bundled with iPhoto, iMovie, and GarageBand, upgrades for which were together on a $79 DVD but are now separate $15 downloads on the Mac App Store. Most of Apple's other software is radically cheaper than it used to be. It's wait and see whether, under the Mac App Store model, if Apple will charge for future major upgrades of apps like iPhoto or simply make them eventually incompatible with hardware past a certain age.

skinink: "All artists use Mac. PCs get in the way of the creative process with more complicated software, and having to confirm what you tell them three or four times before they will do anything."It wouldn't have anything with a lot of artist being pretentious douchbags, would it?


Probably not.

Artist are pretentious douchebags as a rule, and they do like Macs, but that is probably coincidental. Which explains why the "Mac users are pretentious douchebags!" is really only a thing that exists in retarded arguments like this and rarely in real life.

I got news for you, Sally liking her Mac has nothing to do with her being pretentious, and everything to do with costumer satisfaction.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Back then Macs were actually better for creative stuff like composing music and graphics because of better use of RAM and processing power. Now? Not so much but the myth lives on in some people.


Oh one thing.

And maybe Windows 7 fixes this so ill give you that.

But have you ever seen a modern Windows system and a modern Mac system with similar specs sitting side by side?

I got news for you, one of them runs a hell of a lot faster, and its not the one running Windows.

ronin7: I got news for you, one of them runs a hell of a lot faster, and its not the one running Windows

There's a lot of benchmarks that one system beats another on and vice versa. I think it'd be very difficult to actually defend the claim that comparable hardware is going to significantly perform better across a wide variety of benchmarks under OSX vs. Windows.