Debate and Discussion

Mac/PC/Linux
megan_rose at 5:45PM, Feb. 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 199
joined: 3-7-2007
It's a decades-old battle. People are fiercely loyal to both sides. Countless nerds have chewed each others legs off in anger over this debate. But since this is the internet, and you cannot physically chew each others legs off, let's have this battle.

Which is better? In particular, which is better for making comics? Why?


My 2 cents: I use a PC at home, and a Mac at work. My graphics look much nicer at work, but it could be because the monitors are nicer. I hate the mouse that the Mac has, and I like PCs because they're cheaper. (Cost is certainly a factor in making a webcomic. Who here is super rich? I see no hands.)
I have never liked using the Gimp, so Linux is not really a viable option for comics making (for me anyways).

So, what do YOU think?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:59PM
isukun at 6:15PM, Feb. 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I use a tablet PC for drawing, like recording my TV shows on the computer and absolutely despise the shoddy piece of shit known as the iPod (funny how my Zen has lasted three times as long all four of the iPods my family has owned in the past few years and is still going strong) and the even shoddier software that goes with it. I also prefer being able to run just about everything without needing an emulator or dual boot.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Backstaber at 9:20PM, Feb. 5, 2009
(offline)
posts: 54
joined: 11-19-2008
Well, I am a person speaking from a very baised perspective towards PC's since I've grown up with them and have never used a mac, or Linux. (with the exception of my friend putting it on his iPod, it broke it XD)

I gotta say that PC's are just overall easier to use, but that's likely because as I said, I've used them my whole life. One of the major factors are the games I play, which most aren't likely to be on a Mac or on Linux. I was actually thinking about putting Linux on my computer after a failure of my OS (my fault), but stopped after I found out Linux doesn't support my gaming. It was promptly dropped, not to be touched again, and I went ahead and got my OS fixed. XD

Yeah, I'm biased. :P

As for comic making? I guess it would depend on the system you are using. For example you can upgrade your PC with better graphics cards and other hardware to make it run better then a Mac if you wanted to. So again, I'd root for the PC.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:15AM
ozoneocean at 10:38PM, Feb. 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,005
joined: 1-2-2004
Welllll… We've traditionally had a ban on doing the vs thing there with regard to PCs, Mac, gaming hardware or whatever else.

But because it's so quiet at the moment I think we could let this on slide -NO GAMING Vs DEBATES THOUGH… That's what the game forum is for.

—————————————-

Computers are computers. As long as you have the programs and the hardware you need, that's all you need. The brand names and marketing philosophies of the companies that make your stuff aren't as important as whether it does what you WANT it to do. ;)

To talk about the platforms specifically, Macs are handicapped in one big area which is lack of choice- typically you get everything in a bundle and there's no deviating from that.
But it depends on the type of Mac you get. With a nice power-Mac tower (or whatever it is) you can open it up and change around some of the hardware if you want, upgrade it. With that and the min-Mac thing you also have your choice of peripherals: you can have whatever monitor you like et.
With the all in one iMacs you're stuck with the monitor that comes with it, as with the laptops This was a big disadvantage in the case of the iMac a while ago because they were sold with extremely low quality monitors. It's also a problem if your monitor breaks.

-Because with a lot of Macs, changing the insides isn't part of the deal, you're always slightly behind on the race for technological advancements. What's in a Mac might sound good, but you can typically have the same parts in your PC a year before and cheaper. This isn't so bad however because the parts they DO stick in the macs are usually (not always) guaranteed to be fairly high quality and they're tested thoroughly to WORK with the OS

With softwear you're not as limited as you once were because of the bootcamp ability. You can run Windows at slightly slower performance than on a non-emulated PC, but in doing so you have full access to all Windows programs. It just means that you also have to buy a copy of Windows…

The major advantage of Mac products is the very user-friendly OS. This makes it easier to get started on things without taking ages to install everything and set things up all the time.

——————-
With a non-Mac PC you have a choice of OS, the most popular being Windows. And apart from that all else is choice too.

This is both the major advantage of them and a disadvantage as well. It's an advantage because you can have whatever you like and can afford in performance and looks- your machine can make a mac lover puce with envy at it's style if you want to pay for that, and for performance you can have a bleeding edge system that is as fast and powerful as a personal computer is ever able to be at the time you buy the parts. Or, because the market is constantly changing and producing better parts, you can buy a machine not as powerful as it's possible to be, but more powerful that a top of the line Mac at much less of the price if you're going for budget Vs performance.

The disadvantage of that almost infinite choice is that the OS's have to be configured to work with so many different combinations of parts that are updating all the time. That sort of thing is a frequent cause for errors. It also means that the Onus is on the CONSUMER, not the PRODUCER to get the machine that fits their needs. That can be impossibly difficult for people who don't know much about computers, and even for people that do.

Windows is also a lot less user-friendly than Mac OS's. It's a lot easier to use than it was, but still not at the Mac level, so it can take longer to install some things and set things up how you need and want them to be in order to do your work.

———————————

So that's what it comes down to: informed choice.
-If you're quite computer savy and you want your money to go a lot further when purchasing a performance machine. Then a PC with Windows as the OS is the better choice. Linux isn't, you're limited in the hardware that will work with it and you have to be a LOT more savy.

-If you don't want to mess around, you just want something that will work properly, look nice and get going right away without requiring you to know much about the minutiae, Then a Mac with the latest OS is probably the right choice for you. Then all you have to do is choose the model that suites your needs. But your money won't go as far.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
isukun at 6:45AM, Feb. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I think the argument about user-friendliness is really more an issue of which system you are more used to. There are things that can be a pain to set up on the mac, as well, so that isn't a problem limited to the PC, and a lot of people who are used to the windows interface find the Mac challenging to navigate and a bit frustrating in some areas.

The bit about the open and closed architectures, though (you referred to it as choice) is really my biggest sticking point with the Mac and Apple in general. Apple eventually had to adopt the same sort of hardware and software systems as the PC simply because the PC market, due to its open architecture, actually promotes technological progress, while the closed architecture of the Mac line actually stifled it. That's still the case today and the reason why most of your advances in home computing start out on the PC and then migrate over to the Mac later.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Senshuu at 10:12AM, Feb. 6, 2009
(offline)
posts: 391
joined: 5-23-2006
I have both, and I use both. I like both too, for different aspects, but I kind of lean towards the mac right now because every basic thing you can do on Windows, such as installing, is much easier to do on the mac. (Also, my mac, which has about the same amount of power as my Windows machine, doesn't seem to hemorrhage whenever I change something.)

One isn't easier than the other, nor is one more challenging or harder to get used to (unless you boxed your mind in about how an operating system should work, or something). Therefore they're each as subject to faults and good spots. :D I made a stamp on DA saying all this succinctly.

As for Linux, I haven't had the chance to try it out yet.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:27PM
Hawk at 12:59PM, Feb. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
My choice in platform has been based on which machine I'm allowed more control over… and I can build and customize my own PC. The higher software and game compatibility of the PC is a great second reason for me to side with it. I know Linux would be even more customizable, but there are too many programs I would have to do without.

I don't have anything big against the Mac platform. I've used it a lot, for both school and work. However, I haven't really seen these alleged performance advantages that “I'm a Mac” guy keeps talking about. I've had Macs freeze and crash just as much as any one of my home PCs. I also think Apple has a tendency to sacrifice functionality for aesthetics.

The big gripe that I do have against Apple is the constant bending of the truth in their advertisements. If they'd focus entirely on promoting their products instead of trying to convince us how awful the alternative is, I'd find them easier to respect… because I know the alternative isn't as awful as they're saying.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
isukun at 6:59PM, Feb. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I have to agree with that. Dishonest advertising and mud slinging are two things which don't convince me to buy a product. Apple's got both in spades, not just in their Mac commercials, but even in the commercials for their other products (iPhone in particular).
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
ozoneocean at 9:16PM, Feb. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,005
joined: 1-2-2004
No liking something because of the marketing is as superficial as liking it because of the marketing.

We know marketers lie to sell products, that's their function, but it doesn't change in intrinsic value of the actual product one way or another.

For me the “closed” nature of Apple products turns me off. Like Hawk. But then if I hadn't been acclimatised to the choice and customisability offered by Non-Mac PCs running Windows for years and years, I doubt I'd miss it.

Open architecture in non-Apple PCs DOES encourage more innovation and advancement, but at what cost? Real advances in power and ability of the platforms DO NOT correlate to the theory! Moor's made up law of computer power is just something adhered to by an industry set on keeping itself alive by stoking consumer demand in cycles. lol!
-The fact is that the more ram you have on your computer, the faster your processor, the bigger your hard drive- whatever, the ability of your computer (and you) to make use of that extra power does not increase at a similar rate, it's slowed riiiight down.

As your hardware capabilities advance the software designed to make use of it continually removes those advantages: For example: your OS takes more processor power to function, it will use more RAM, and will take up more room on your hard drive. As with all other new programs designed to work with the latest iteration of your OS, and they won't do much more than before Take Adobe Photoshop products for example- despite phenomenal stride in hardware over the years, and many enhancements designed to take advantage of new technologies, the real working (not the potentail of the product or test performance, but the ability of the consumer to make use of it handling the same sorts of workload) performance difference of those products hasn't increased nearly as much as that of the hardware…
From my own work with different product versions on different machines over the years I'd say it wasn't much more than a 50% improvement in 10 years. While that's significant, Hardware has improved many thousands of percent over what it was 10 years ago.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
isukun at 7:13AM, Feb. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
You can't really base progress on one software application, however. Photoshop isn't the kind of program which needs to advance by leaps and bounds from generation to generation. It has a specific function which it has managed to do pretty well from the start. Other applications in the CS suite, however, have shown far greater advancements as the rest of the industry changes, though. Video editing tools can handle higher resolutions, better effects, and more advanced filters. Flash gets more complicated with each new version allowing more complex programming with more efficient output. There is integration coded into many of the applications. Unfortunately, adobe products are also a really bad example of software progression. It is pretty well known from stress tests that Adobe optimizes their software for the Mac market, but doesn't for the PC. Programs like Photoshop don't take advantage of many of the advances we've seen on the market in the last ten years.

Many of your 3D art applications like Maya, 3D Studio Max and so on benefit greatly from advances in hardware. Not only can they run the same routines better, but new advances in 3D modeling come easier. There are reasons these programs didn't always include hair modeling, physics engines, cloth and fluid dynamics.

The same principles that apply to those programs also applies to games. You can't tell me a game from ten years ago (or even five years ago) looked as good as the top games today.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Aurora Borealis at 7:35PM, Feb. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,289
joined: 3-2-2008
I really wish I could say. So far Mac is out for me (since I can assemble something that actually WILL be faster if I study the pc components and make a wise choice). All my attempts at linux so far were limited to booting knoppix from a cd few years ago (worked great, except lack of a proper hd access made it clog up the fairly small 256mb of memory I had back then pretty fast and it was locking up my only drive to run itself from it).
On the other hand each new version of Windows is more graphic hungry and doesn't bring anything really new other than a couple of fixes and a load of unnecessary junk, not to mention driver and old software problems.

Now, if we had this discussion in the 90s, I'd say, without thinking much… Amiga :D

Sadly Amiga's dead since about a decade now. But damn, Workbench was the BEST operating system in my opinion. Not to mention Deluxe Paint, which had more gradient options than Photoshop did at any moment and it even featured highly advanced perspective options (sadly it had only one undo, so it was easy to destroy something by accident). And man… symmetry tool, loved that. :D And never seen it anywhere else. :P

Yeah, drifting away, sorry :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:08AM
radarig at 9:13PM, Feb. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 1-12-2006
I think people should use what works for them and not obsess about why other people aren't doing the same. Just a thought, what what.
Hawk
The big gripe that I do have against Apple is the constant bending of the truth in their advertisements. If they'd focus entirely on promoting their products instead of trying to convince us how awful the alternative is, I'd find them easier to respect
Isukun
I have to agree with that. Dishonest advertising and mud slinging are two things which don't convince me to buy a product.
That's basic advertising; you apply social ideals to your product to make it desirable over another product. What I think is bizarre was that Microsoft let the competition dominate the air for, what, five years while Apple defined them however they wanted.

Hypothetically, if you were in a situation where your business rival gave you free reign to define them in any way you pleased, wouldn't you?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:58PM
megan_rose at 10:45PM, Feb. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 199
joined: 3-7-2007
I always have enjoyed the Mac vs. PC commercials with Justin Long and John Hodgeman, but they've never made me want to buy a Mac.
I think Macs are actually harder to use, but maybe this is because I was raised on PCs. Although, scratch that. My first contact with computers was all Macs, and I didn't use a PC until years later. But it was when we got a PC that I actually started understanding computers.
I tell you, though. I'm glad Mac mice finally have a second button. The single button thing drove me mad for a long time.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:59PM
ozoneocean at 12:04AM, Feb. 8, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,005
joined: 1-2-2004
isukun
It is pretty well known from stress tests that Adobe optimizes their software for the Mac market, but doesn't for the PC.
What? lol!

Maybe 10 years ago…
No, They work pretty much the same on both and sometimes better on Windows PC, not Mac PCs. the market has moved on a lot from what it was. ;)
-In fact, there is no 64 bit version of Photoshop CS4 for Macs, so you're forever limited to just less than 4GB of ram.

With games Isukun it's the same principal. Are you trying to tell me that superficial effects make a better game? the fact is that nothing advances as fast on computers as the hardware. Everything else is secondary by a long way. the biggest performance boosts you get are in those in between stages- when you're able to beef up your hardware to the maximum that the software is able to take advantage of, before it gets to the level where you need to replace the software altogether. And always, even with 3D, the boost you get is nothing like what you see on paper.

That's just how things seem to work: No matter how much you increase your closest space there never seems to be enough room to fit in all your clothes :(
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
bryan at 3:02AM, Feb. 8, 2009
(offline)
posts: 99
joined: 6-5-2007
Mmmm.

Mac and PC at home, and I have to remote into Sun Hubs all the time for work… so I guess all 3.

Jeez, I'm a nerd.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
isukun at 7:51AM, Feb. 8, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
That's basic advertising; you apply social ideals to your product to make it desirable over another product.

Actually, apart from political advertising, basic advertising is to sell YOUR product by pointing out the positive elements of YOUR product. Apple's commercials for the Mac rely solely on negative spin against the PC. Their commercials aren't about the Mac doing something well, but about the PC doing it poorly. there aren't a lot of advertisers who take that approach these days, so no, I'd have to say it isn't basic advertising.

Maybe 10 years ago…

Actually, the tests I was referring to were done back when CS2 came out. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any more recent tests which actually test equivalent machines (for some reason Popular Mechanics' tests take PCs with slower CPUs and pits them against macs with faster CPUs). Adobe will admit that a high end PC will run their software faster, but that doesn't mean the software is optimized for it. In fact, I can go down to the labs at my school and generally it is still better to use the macs for Adobe products and the PCs for anything 3D. Maya will run much better on the PC and After Effects still runs much smoother on the Mac and our PCs are more up-to-date than our Macs in terms of hardware.

Are you trying to tell me that superficial effects make a better game?

Actually, to some degree they do. Graphical advances have led to new types of gameplay in the past. They help to better immerse the player in the environment. Games are a form of entertainment and the visual aspect of the game is often an element of that. Of course, the graphics aren't the only thing that have advanced over the years. We've also seen games which make better use of AI, 3D environments, and real world physics.

And always, even with 3D, the boost you get is nothing like what you see on paper.

Of course not. Every system, Mac, PC or other, is going to have some overhead to deal with. Manufacturers are just going to give straight performance specs. That doesn't mean that is the exact performance you are going to get out of everything. After all, most benchmark specs are tested outside of your average user environment. The numbers will represent single applications, not what you would get when the system is trying to handle several things at a time.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Hawk at 7:05PM, Feb. 8, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
I've noticed a big difference in performance between Mac and PC when it comes 3D rendering software. At school and my current job I used Maya on the PC, but in between those when I worked on special effects for film, I used Maya on a Mac. It was quite clear that it did not run as well on the Mac as it did the PC. I'm sure it's because Maya is optimized for PC first. There's a reason why Steve Jobs' own Pixar uses PCs for their movies and not Macs.

I think for anyone who has a computer for personal use (and not something specific like 3D rendering or graphic design or gaming), then computer choice is entirely dictated by your own tastes and your wallet. I mean, if it's just email and a word processor, does any of it really matter? Most of what your average computer user does now could have been done on a Pentium 1. It's the enthused hobbyists and the professionals who have to choose. And half the time, their job chooses for them.

radarig
What I think is bizarre was that Microsoft let the competition dominate the air for, what, five years while Apple defined them however they wanted.

I think that's kind of what bothered me the most, even about Microsoft. MS went for years with very little advertising, but when they actually do it's to promote the various features of their product. But for years straight, Apple's had this massive Windows smear campaign running. So, when MS finally decided to do some TV ads for Vista, Apple was quick to run ads criticizing the fact that Microsoft advertised. The irony is that it's Apple spending the mountains of money on advertising.

I know it doesn't reflect product quality, and I do not own and probably will never own Vista. But when a commercial bends the truth it bothers me. And from those “Get a Mac” ads, I don't really learn anything about Macs and what I can do with them. I just learn about how mismanaged Microsoft is. Like Megan, they haven't turned me into a customer.

Aurora Borealis
Now, if we had this discussion in the 90s, I'd say, without thinking much… Amiga :D

Those were good days, weren't they? :) I remember when my friends were playing Carmen Sandiego with 16-color EGA graphics, and I was playing arcade-perfect ports and 16-bit games on my Amiga. And Deluxe Paint… that little app shaped my life. I rigged it into making animated cartoons for my school projects and it probably led me to getting the career I have now. I look back at the Amiga and Deluxe Paint II with reverence and respect. Too bad the platform died out.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
isukun at 8:32PM, Feb. 8, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
There's a reason why Steve Jobs' own Pixar uses PCs for their movies and not Macs.

I don't think it's because Pixar's software is specifically optimized for the PC, though. After all, they make their software in house and they can optimize it for whatever platform they choose. I doubt they would choose the Unix and then Linux platforms over the Mac platform unless there was just more to work with under the hood. They eventually made it compatible with the Mac and Windows platforms, but that was more in the interest of their clients than for their own use and most studios that use their software rely more on Windows and Linux.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
radarig at 1:16PM, Feb. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 1-12-2006
Isukun
Apple's commercials for the Mac rely solely on negative spin against the PC. Their commercials aren't about the Mac doing something well, but about the PC doing it poorly.
So? Since they started running those ads in 2006 their market share has gone from five percent to nine percent. I guess they're turning you off, but it ain't like its not working.

Again, if you had the opportunity to define both yourself and your chief competitor with scant retribution, wouldn't you do it on the terms most favorable to yourself?

Isukun
there aren't a lot of advertisers who take that approach these days, so no, I'd have to say it isn't basic advertising.
Really? Because this morning I saw an Alltel commercial where representatives of their competitors were flipped into a trash compactor due to their poor service plans. Compared to that, Apple's ads seem kind of benign.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:58PM
megan_rose at 5:43PM, Feb. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 199
joined: 3-7-2007
And Comcast spends more time bashing their competitors rather than saying why they're a good choice.
Most ads I see make some mention of “those other guys who suck who aren't us”.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:59PM
isukun at 6:11PM, Feb. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Because this morning I saw an Alltel commercial where representatives of their competitors were flipped into a trash compactor due to their poor service plans.

And that may explain why Alltel is merging with Verizon with a debt of $22 billion.

And Comcast spends more time bashing their competitors rather than saying why they're a good choice.

And they've been losing market share due to it. That's why they expanded to include internet and phone services. Competition from other providers, phone companies, and satellite services is cutting into their market share. Comcast thrives mostly in areas where they have no real competition apart from the satellite providers, but people have a tendency to be more skeptical of ads these days. Unlike the Mac, Comcast doesn't have the vocal fan base willing to mislead people just like their ads, so consumers are more likely to read about the lower quality HD, problematic internet, and bad customer service.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Product Placement at 6:48PM, Feb. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
My personal opinion is that Macs used to suck. Then Steve Jobs did a bang up job pulling his company out of the rut. The iMac was an ingenious. It appealed to a new market group. They were ridiculously idiot proof, relatively cheap and visually appealing. The idea of creating a large line of products that works in harmony with those computers, like the iPod and the iPhone and then make sure that these same products work (more or less) with the competing brands was also a brilliant idea. Everyone bought an iPod. The Macintosh brand is so strong now that it's considered a giant again. You can't deny their marketing success.

That being said, I am not a Mac user. I prefer PCs and always has. I don't own an iPod nor any other i product. I grew up while Macs were considered crap. The company was in a rut and nobody wanted their products. Thus I was embraced to the almighty superiority of PCs. I'm used to them and thus I prefer them. Despite that I've used Macs. I don't hate them and maybe if I can one day afford owning more then one computer, I'll consider a future iBook or a similar product.

I've never quite got the Mac vs PC conflict and I always felt like it was something that Macintosh made up. Since the beginning Mac advertisements have focused on attacking PC computers. I'm never a fan of shit bashing so I don't respect that kind of adverting. Also when you think about it.. what's a PC? Who's PC? It stands for personal computer. There's no singular company that makes them. There are several. They wary in design and quality. Some of the bigger names that we know are IBM, Packard and Intel. Some specialize in CPU production, other excel in graphic cards design. There are even more varieties when it comes to picking software for PCs. All in all, I see only one common identifier that brands different PCs as a singular brand…. Windows. Windows dominates the PC operating system market and thus I feel like this conflict should be about which operating system you'd prefer to use. Linux kinda belongs in that debate but I have no experience in it so I can't say anything about it. All I know is that it's a freeware, it was designed as a community project and that I've heard that many complain that it's complex to use.

Oh and I want to throw out there one more time my annoyance towards Macintosh's “We're better then PC” attitude ads. Those Mac vs PC ads are a classic example of the straw man defense. Since there's no singular PC CORP(TM). They're free to throw as much shit at their competitors, like they have been doing, without worrying about a lawsuit from those kind of developers. If… let's say… IBM were to make advertisements with the slogan “iMac SUCKS! Buy IBM! It has a capital I” we'd be looking at a slander lawsuit.

Also:
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
radarig at 7:55PM, Feb. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 1-12-2006
Isukun
And that may explain why Alltel is merging with Verizon with a debt of $22 billion.
Every mobile phone provider attacks its competitors en masse as collectively having poor service. And most of them are actually doing very well despite using this, uh, “totally uncommon” method of advertisement.

I'm sure you'll find something to disparage about any company that I list here that has recently used a negative ad, so I'll refrain. Apple is a particular case, though; it is a major company that only has one larger competitor, one that is so perceptively large that it doesn't have to (and often doesn't at all) respond to criticism. Apple makes money off of hardware rather than focusing on software, so it only needs to slake a slice of the pie away from Microsoft to be extremely successful. So, it ran ads emphasizing a popular conception of Windows, particularly after what is widely recognized as a bungled Vista launch.

In this situation, and especially viewing the resulting change in market share, that approach was completely correct.

I can accept that you find the claims in the ads dubious. But seriously, do you generally believe every ad you see to be 100% in good faith? Personally (and this is just me) I always assume that advertisers are trying to get me to give them my money.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:58PM
ozoneocean at 8:32PM, Feb. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,005
joined: 1-2-2004
isukun
Actually, the tests I was referring to were done back when CS2 came out.
And I was referring to what the Engineers themselves having been saying. A few of them are quite active on the Adobe forums, especially when CS4 hit the shelves and had so many disasters… -_-
Apart from what they say, all else depends on your equipment. -As you said yourself, tests on unequal hardware can skew results in particular ways. :)

-For game content of your post;
The gist I get is that, yes, indeed there is no direct one for one relationship between improvements in hardware and that in software.
There are corresponding improvements, but they lag.

And I contend that this is a symptom of the true cause and objective for the continuous technological development:
-Simply part of the consumer product cycle, steadily maintaining demand. NOT to “Improve” the technology, and indeed, real improvements and innovations are slow and would likely happen without the fuel of the product cycle: Through research and development in universities, which is where things like the internet really bloomed, and where the next stages are being pioneered.

In that case the world would be quite happy as a Mac only place… :)
We'd probably use a lot less resources and cash building, packaging, advertising, buying, transporting, and disposing of all the multiple competing components that the Windows PC business model encourages there to be…
radarig
Apple is a particular case, though; it is a major company that only has one larger competitor, one that is so perceptively large that it doesn't have to (and often doesn't at all) respond to criticism. Apple makes money off of hardware rather than focusing on software, so it only needs to slake a slice of the pie away from Microsoft to be extremely successful.
Isn't it true though that Apple really competes with other PC makers? And in that case its size is pretty comparative to the rest. I think it's about the 3rd biggest isn't it? The difference is that they make their own proprietary OS, but that's really not that big of a difference when you think about it.

Actually, when you think about it, it's a wonder they haven't been raked over the coals for anticompetitive practice the way MS was. Consider:
MS got into trouble for bundling various aspects of software together, discouraging competition. That included things like their own media player and Web browser. But they've also been warned against making their own antivirus programs and bundling them too. And yet Apple gets away scot free with doing exactly the same and many, many times worse since they tie the hardware to the OS like they do.

I wonder how they get away with that…?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
Hawk at 10:04PM, Feb. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
ozoneocean
But they've also been warned against making their own antivirus programs and bundling them too.

Seriously?!

For quite a while now I have firmly believed that Microsoft owes us all a good, free antivirus program. Many of the viruses we get are the result of Windows' own security holes, and I think it's robbery that we're forced to buy an additional program to protect ourselves. An antitrust law prohibiting them from providing the protection Windows users deserve is like forcing Windows to be the virus-riddled mess Apple says it is.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
DMH at 11:10PM, Feb. 9, 2009
(offline)
posts: 213
joined: 11-12-2007
I have a really old PC right now that my dad is still surprised actually works. Apparently it should have broken down two or three years ago. I haven't used a mac since year six (They got a bunch of notebooks for free back in 2000. I always got on the blue one). Ever since then, because my high school had PCs, they're my main experience.

But I've been really curious as to which I should pick, because I know it's now time to get a new computer, but I've been wondering whether to use Macs or PCs (Linux scares me for some reason). Thanks for starting this thread up Megan, it's helping me a lot.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:12PM
Senshuu at 4:29AM, Feb. 10, 2009
(offline)
posts: 391
joined: 5-23-2006
DMH, get a mac and load Windows on it. :D
What I'm gonna do when I get the money.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:27PM
isukun at 6:09AM, Feb. 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Every mobile phone provider attacks its competitors en masse as collectively having poor service. And most of them are actually doing very well despite using this, uh, “totally uncommon” method of advertisement.

That's funny. Most of the ads I've seen don't specifically call out the competition and berate them. In fact, it's been more of a trend lately to focus more on the positive elements of your own service, like speed, clarity, range and customer service.

Apple makes money off of hardware rather than focusing on software, so it only needs to slake a slice of the pie away from Microsoft to be extremely successful.

Apple's only real product these days is software. The hardware in their systems is made by other people, so what they sell in their ads isn't the hardware, but their OS. That's why the focus on slinging mud at WINDOWS and not the PC architecture.

In this situation, and especially viewing the resulting change in market share, that approach was completely correct.

Not necessarily. Both markets are expanding and there really isn't any proof that the reason behind Apple's recent expansion has anything to do with those ads and not simply more exposure due to devices like the iPod. As I said before, people tend to be more skeptical these days and with the way the economy has been going the last few years, they research products before they buy them. This is especially true of any expensive consumer electronics. Apple has also continued to run less dubious ads and print ads for their desktop and laptop systems, which seemed to be working just as well for them BEFORE the Mac vs PC ads. All they really have to do in today's market is get people to remember their name.

real improvements and innovations are slow and would likely happen without the fuel of the product cycle

Except that in the real world, the opposite happens and the market stagnates. Why do you think Apple lost the majority market share and the video game console market crashed? Without competition, there is no innovation or improvement, and the industry dies.

Many of the viruses we get are the result of Windows' own security holes, and I think it's robbery that we're forced to buy an additional program to protect ourselves.

All OS's have security holes. The problem isn't that these holes exist (as it is pretty much impossible to make an OS with no security holes) it's that there are more people willing to exploit them with Windows than with any other OS because of the overwhelming popularity of the platform. Apple doesn't make their own anti-virus software, either, but anti-virus software does exist for the Mac. That would be because there are security holes in the Mac's OS, as well, and they can fall victim to one of the existing viruses designed for that platform.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Hawk at 10:42AM, Feb. 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
DMH
But I've been really curious as to which I should pick, because I know it's now time to get a new computer, but I've been wondering whether to use Macs or PCs (Linux scares me for some reason). Thanks for starting this thread up Megan, it's helping me a lot.

I can only think of a few things that should influence your decision:

Will you be doing any gaming or 3D rendering? Get a PC
Will you be doing any video editing? Get a Mac.

If you didn't feel too strongly about either one of those, then all you can do is test out each system to see what interface you like. In the end, they'll mostly perform about the same for your needs (which I'm guessing is internet and maybe Photoshop for webcomics). So all that matters is which interface you like more. That, and price. If you like the Mac interface more and can afford it, then it's a good choice for you.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved