What machine do you use ?

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:51:38 -0400, Husky wrote:

Is it time for bloatware comments again ?

Obviously 256 meg memory is a drop in the bucket for adobe. My question is since 256 meg will most likely not be enough for their next release, and you now need a p3 or p4, how do you shop for a new machine for the future ? Which is what I’m doing now. Obviously 512 meg ram will have to be mandatory. Plus a p4.
Where do we go from here ?

256 MB hasn’t been enough for years. A P4 is only mandatory if you want a slower processor. I’m using CS with an Athlon 2.4 and 1 GB RAM and it works fine (oh, and a 20GB scratch disk).

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 02:50:56 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:51:38 -0400, Husky wrote:

Is it time for bloatware comments again ?

Obviously 256 meg memory is a drop in the bucket for adobe. My question is since 256 meg will most likely not be enough for their next release, and you now need a p3 or p4, how do you shop for a new machine for the future ? Which is what I’m doing now. Obviously 512 meg ram will have to be mandatory. Plus a p4.
Where do we go from here ?

256 MB hasn’t been enough for years. A P4 is only mandatory if you want a slower processor. I’m using CS with an Athlon 2.4 and 1 GB RAM and it works fine (oh, and a 20GB scratch disk).

a p4 is the top of the line and fastest. How do you figure a 3.2 Ghz machine is slower than a 2.4 Ghz ?
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Husky wrote in
news::

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 02:50:56 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:51:38 -0400, Husky wrote:

Is it time for bloatware comments again ?

Obviously 256 meg memory is a drop in the bucket for adobe. My question is since 256 meg will most likely not be enough for their next release, and you now need a p3 or p4, how do you shop for a new machine for the future ? Which is what I’m doing now. Obviously 512 meg ram will have to be mandatory. Plus a p4.
Where do we go from here ?

256 MB hasn’t been enough for years. A P4 is only mandatory if you want a slower processor. I’m using CS with an Athlon 2.4 and 1 GB RAM and it works fine (oh, and a 20GB scratch disk).

a p4 is the top of the line and fastest.

Of the Pentium line, sure.

How do you figure a 3.2 Ghz
machine is slower than a 2.4 Ghz ?

Is this a troll or are you really the last person on the planet to believe that raw magahertz is a substitute for intelligent CPU design?

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

In article ,
Husky wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 02:50:56 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:51:38 -0400, Husky wrote:

Is it time for bloatware comments again ?

Obviously 256 meg memory is a drop in the bucket for adobe. My question is since 256 meg will most likely not be enough for their next release, and you now need a p3 or p4, how do you shop for a new machine for the future ? Which is what I’m doing now. Obviously 512 meg ram will have to be mandatory. Plus a p4.
Where do we go from here ?

256 MB hasn’t been enough for years. A P4 is only mandatory if you want a slower processor. I’m using CS with an Athlon 2.4 and 1 GB RAM and it works fine (oh, and a 20GB scratch disk).

a p4 is the top of the line and fastest. How do you figure a 3.2 Ghz machine is slower than a 2.4 Ghz ?
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

What about disk I/O speed for heavy-duty PS use ? On server systems I’m a big fan of 10K scsi disks. IDE sucks lots of CPU cycles, and has other advantages over IDE.

—
Al Dykes
———–
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:24:34 GMT, Eric Gill wrote:

How do you figure a 3.2 Ghz
machine is slower than a 2.4 Ghz ?

Is this a troll or are you really the last person on the planet to believe that raw magahertz is a substitute for intelligent CPU design?

To make sure I do get some insight into what is and what isn’t. And hope that I’m not replying to a troll.
3.2 ghz is faster than 2.4 ghz. You may not be old enough to remember when the computer manufacturers [anyone with a soldering gun could make one] threw around the word compatible with xxx [mostly IBM] until you got it home and found you’d been had. That compatible was just another word to sell machines like only used by a little old lady on Sundays is for used cars. Worthless hype to attract the gullible.

I wouldn’t have started this thread if I just wanted an argument. I’d have just joined an argument already in process.

As for raw megahertz. I used and still would be using my 16 Mhz 64 meg Amiga if there were any U.S. stores that still supported it. It flew rings around this P1. But this P1 is sturdier. And I’m assuming that a P4 on a mega trends board will also be indestructible.

But I’m open to comments on what’s in use.
FWIW: I posted the ‘MINIMUM’ requirements to run PS CS. Those requirements are nearly the top of the line in M$ land.

And other software makers are also jumping on the break the consumer at any cost bandwagon also.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 09:38:42 -0400, Husky wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 02:50:56 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:51:38 -0400, Husky wrote:

Is it time for bloatware comments again ?

Obviously 256 meg memory is a drop in the bucket for adobe. My question is since 256 meg will most likely not be enough for their next release, and you now need a p3 or p4, how do you shop for a new machine for the future ? Which is what I’m doing now. Obviously 512 meg ram will have to be mandatory. Plus a p4.
Where do we go from here ?

256 MB hasn’t been enough for years. A P4 is only mandatory if you want a slower processor. I’m using CS with an Athlon 2.4 and 1 GB RAM and it works fine (oh, and a 20GB scratch disk).

a p4 is the top of the line and fastest. How do you figure a 3.2 Ghz machine is slower than a 2.4 Ghz ?
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Not what I said. He said a P4. I pointed out that it wasn’t the fastest. Then I told him what I was using. Sorry of that was confusing 🙂
—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:12:32 -0400, Husky wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:24:34 GMT, Eric Gill wrote:

How do you figure a 3.2 Ghz
machine is slower than a 2.4 Ghz ?

Is this a troll or are you really the last person on the planet to believe that raw magahertz is a substitute for intelligent CPU design?

To make sure I do get some insight into what is and what isn’t. And hope that I’m not replying to a troll.
3.2 ghz is faster than 2.4 ghz. You may not be old enough to remember when the computer manufacturers [anyone with a soldering gun could make one] threw around the word compatible with xxx [mostly IBM] until you got it home and found you’d been had. That compatible was just another word to sell machines like only used by a little old lady on Sundays is for used cars. Worthless hype to attract the gullible.

Yes, a P4 at that speed would be faster. However, there are plenty of AMD chips faster than mine.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Husky wrote in
news::

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:24:34 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

How do you figure a 3.2 Ghz
machine is slower than a 2.4 Ghz ?

Is this a troll or are you really the last person on the planet to believe that raw magahertz is a substitute for intelligent CPU design?

To make sure I do get some insight into what is and what isn’t. And hope that I’m not replying to a troll.
3.2 ghz is faster than 2.4 ghz.

3.2 ghz is more machine cycles than 2.4 ghz. Whether this translates into faster execution of the tasks you throw at it in the real world is something else altogether.

For example:

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000278

In the tested server applications, the fastest dual Xeon is humbled by the slowest Opteron, despite being 3.06 ghz to the Opteron’s mere 1.8.

You may not be old enough to remember
when the computer manufacturers [anyone with a soldering gun could make one] threw around the word compatible with xxx [mostly IBM] until you got it home and found you’d been had.

I sold what was billed as the first clone (Columbia) when it came out.

And I have no idea what this has to do with the subject at hand. Such issues simply do not exist anymore.

<snip>

But I’m open to comments on what’s in use.
FWIW: I posted the ‘MINIMUM’ requirements to run PS CS. Those requirements are nearly the top of the line in M$ land.

No, they certainly are not. The PIII was released in 1999, the P4 in 2000. Five year old processors are nowhere near the top of the line, despite only one major revision number being assigned since. If as few as two dozen major steppings have been released, I’d be very surprised.

And I haven’t had less than four times the minimal RAM in any computer in my house for years, including laptops.

120 GB hard drives are in the sub-$100USD range.

IOW, hardware is running so far ahead of software requirements, it’s impossible to believe you’re not trolling.

In news:Husky typed:

Is it time for bloatware comments again ?

Obviously 256 meg memory is a drop in the bucket for adobe. My question is since 256 meg will most likely not be enough for their next release, and you now need a p3 or p4, how do you shop for a new machine for the future ? Which is what I’m doing now. Obviously 512 meg ram will have to be mandatory. Plus a p4.
Where do we go from here ?

64 bits architechture? Solid state data storage solution to replace thoses clunky, slow, noisy, failure prone hard drive? Voice command that actually works? Hey, the sky’s the limit.
Just get what you need now, there’s no such thing as future proof.

—
www.odysea.ca

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 02:05:20 -0400, "Deco_time" wrote:

In news:Husky typed:

Is it time for bloatware comments again ?

Obviously 256 meg memory is a drop in the bucket for adobe. My question is since 256 meg will most likely not be enough for their next release, and you now need a p3 or p4, how do you shop for a new machine for the future ? Which is what I’m doing now. Obviously 512 meg ram will have to be mandatory. Plus a p4.
Where do we go from here ?

64 bits architechture? Solid state data storage solution to replace thoses clunky, slow, noisy, failure prone hard drive? Voice command that actually works? Hey, the sky’s the limit.
Just get what you need now, there’s no such thing as future proof.

I run Photoshop on a
Dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 2Gb ram (thinking of getting more)
2X 75Gb raptors as RAID0 (those drives rock) this has system and storage.
SCSI U320 2x 15000rpm (I think 36GB each) Setup as RAID0 for photoshop scratch only.
1 extra SCSI 320 drive for WinXP page file and extra storage.

I also run it on a dual G4 with 2Gb and SCSI drives.

One is faster at some thing and the other is faster at other things. One thing I do know is having the Scratch drives on its own disks (SCSI is still the best IMHO for this) and if possible a RAID0.

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:45:35 +0100, Hecate wrote:

found you’d been had. That compatible was just another word to sell machines like only used by a little old lady on Sundays is for used cars. Worthless hype to attract the gullible.

Yes, a P4 at that speed would be faster. However, there are plenty of AMD chips faster than mine.

Which brings up the compatibility question which is why I asked ‘What machine do you use ?"
I figured I’d hear xxx machine, but don’t waste a penny on it. Wish I’d done some pre-shopping.
Or xxy machine and "Lucked out on this one"
or xxz machine and it only runs 20% of the software designed for it.

The compatibility issue with PC’s refer to IBM compatibility P1-P4 and now the
M. Maybe just wait awhile to see what it does when it comes out.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:11:53 +1000, Glo8al wrote:

Obviously 256 meg memory is a drop in the bucket for adobe. My question is since 256 meg will most likely not be enough for their next release, and you now need a p3 or p4, how do you shop for a new machine for the future ? Which is what I’m doing now. Obviously 512 meg ram will have to be mandatory. Plus a p4.
Where do we go from here ?

Finally an answer not asking for an argument.

I run Photoshop on a
Dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 2Gb ram (thinking of getting more)

Do you wish the machine were faster ? Any compatibility issues ?

2X 75Gb raptors as RAID0 (those drives rock) this has system and storage.
SCSI U320 2x 15000rpm (I think 36GB each) Setup as RAID0 for photoshop scratch only.

I have no idea what raid is, but I know what a search engine is.

1 extra SCSI 320 drive for WinXP page file and extra storage.
I also run it on a dual G4 with 2Gb and SCSI drives.

G4 ??????????????? What is G4 ?

SCSI That’s pretty pricey yes ? Is the difference in speed worth it ? Cause IIRC SCSI to IDE, the tradeoff is a HUGE drop in storage for the same price in IDE.

Maybe what the PC makers need to do is work on a better memory management system.

Again Amiga came out on top.
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

In article ,
Husky wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:45:35 +0100, Hecate wrote:

found you’d been had. That compatible was just another word to sell machines like only used by a little old lady on Sundays is for used cars. Worthless hype to attract the gullible.

Yes, a P4 at that speed would be faster. However, there are plenty of AMD chips faster than mine.

Which brings up the compatibility question which is why I asked ‘What machine do you use ?"
I figured I’d hear xxx machine, but don’t waste a penny on it. Wish I’d done some pre-shopping.
Or xxy machine and "Lucked out on this one"
or xxz machine and it only runs 20% of the software designed for it.
The compatibility issue with PC’s refer to IBM compatibility P1-P4 and now the
M. Maybe just wait awhile to see what it does when it comes out.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

It’s been a long time since there was a significant design error on any chip that plays core x86 code. AND, Intel (and people like VIA that put an x86-compatible logic a chip with other stuff) are all as compatibleas they want to be. I attribute it to capability of the chip design and simulation tools we have now.

—
Al Dykes
———–
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

In article ,
Husky wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:11:53 +1000, Glo8al wrote:

Obviously 256 meg memory is a drop in the bucket for adobe. My question is since 256 meg will most likely not be enough for their next release, and you now need a p3 or p4, how do you shop for a new machine for the future ? Which is what I’m doing now. Obviously 512 meg ram will have to be mandatory. Plus a p4.
Where do we go from here ?

Finally an answer not asking for an argument.

I run Photoshop on a
Dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 2Gb ram (thinking of getting more)

Do you wish the machine were faster ? Any compatibility issues ?

2X 75Gb raptors as RAID0 (those drives rock) this has system and storage.
SCSI U320 2x 15000rpm (I think 36GB each) Setup as RAID0 for photoshop scratch only.

I have no idea what raid is, but I know what a search engine is.

1 extra SCSI 320 drive for WinXP page file and extra storage.
I also run it on a dual G4 with 2Gb and SCSI drives.

G4 ??????????????? What is G4 ?

SCSI That’s pretty pricey yes ? Is the difference in speed worth it ? Cause IIRC SCSI to IDE, the tradeoff is a HUGE drop in storage for the same price in IDE.

Maybe what the PC makers need to do is work on a better memory management system.

If you make the CPU faster then the disk tends to become the bottleneck. 🙁

Yes. big SCSI disks are more expensive, but a 36GB 10Krpm disk is about $130, and a pair of these will be a kick in the pants for any IDE PC. (as a raid0 pair or system disk/photoshop work disk combo). One advantage of SCSI is that you can put 8 or more devices on one interface with no performance degradatin (for a single user system.)

Use a big cheap IDE or SATA disk for your inventory. Maxtor makes a 300GB disk for $250. Mirror them for reliability.

Use the 10K scsi drives for your wrking files files and the IDE disks for backing store.

A scsi contrller card is $50

—
Al Dykes
———–
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

On 21 Jun 2004 12:59:43 -0400, (Al Dykes) wrote:

If you make the CPU faster then the disk tends to become the bottleneck. 🙁

Until they come out with bubble memory I think permanent storage to any physical device will be a bottleneck.
I think the speed of the CPU had to increase to account for the bloatware. Same programs entirely in M/L [compatibility issues] would take up probably 70% less memory and speed of execution would more than triple over compiled language programs.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:02:05 -0400, Husky wrote:

The compatibility issue with PC’s refer to IBM compatibility P1-P4 and now the
M. Maybe just wait awhile to see what it does when it comes out.

I’ve been using AMD chips since they first brought out a 386DX 40 (which was, as usual, faster than anything Intel had). And I have *never* had any compatibility issues with any software or hardware I’ve used.

Incidentally, if you want a brand, my Photoshop machine is Evesham, which is not a lot of use unless you live in the UK,

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:21:45 +0100, Hecate wrote:

Incidentally, if you want a brand, my Photoshop machine is Evesham, which is not a lot of use unless you live in the UK,

I’ve already made my order this afternoon. Sheesh would you believe they now have lowrider cases @ $1??.?? you can get the Plexiglas cases with Xmas tree lights in many different colors.
I can see the ophthalmologists looking at new boats, cars, and homes now. You can only see the blasted lights in the dark.
Like having a view of the cars engine while driving.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:21:45 +0100, Hecate wrote:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-3200_1 5.html I just left this link. this is page 15 you want to start at 1, or for the photoshop stuff hit around 11 I think and go up.
The store I’m getting it from has several to choose from but the amd 64-3200 and the P4 boxed are the 2 closest available at the store and compared above. Where it counts for me [PS] it outperforms the amd.
And in general all areas that interest me, the P4 out does the AMD.

I’ve been using AMD chips since they first brought out a 386DX 40 (which was, as usual, faster than anything Intel had). And I have *never* had any compatibility issues with any software or hardware I’ve used.

Actually the thing that bothers me is that I’m upgrading from a P1 mmx. And just wondering just how much software will now be trash ? I have a bookcase with 2 shelves of worthless software now.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On 20 Jun 2004 11:21:40 -0400, (Al Dykes) wrote:

What about disk I/O speed for heavy-duty PS use ? On server systems I’m a big fan of 10K scsi disks. IDE sucks lots of CPU cycles, and has other advantages over IDE.

160 gb maxtor SATA drive.
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:14:51 -0400, Husky wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:21:45 +0100, Hecate wrote:

Incidentally, if you want a brand, my Photoshop machine is Evesham, which is not a lot of use unless you live in the UK,

I’ve already made my order this afternoon. Sheesh would you believe they now have lowrider cases @ $1??.?? you can get the Plexiglas cases with Xmas tree lights in many different colors.
I can see the ophthalmologists looking at new boats, cars, and homes now. You can only see the blasted lights in the dark.
Like having a view of the cars engine while driving.

LOL! My partners personal machine has snazzy blue lights all over it – which sort of clash with the red light coming from the rodent… 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:45:17 -0400, Husky wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:21:45 +0100, Hecate wrote:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-3200_1 5.html I just left this link. this is page 15 you want to start at 1, or for the photoshop stuff hit around 11 I think and go up.
The store I’m getting it from has several to choose from but the amd 64-3200 and the P4 boxed are the 2 closest available at the store and compared above. Where it counts for me [PS] it outperforms the amd.
And in general all areas that interest me, the P4 out does the AMD.

Sorry, but the AMD 64’s are at least 10% faster than the P4 in *everything*.

I’ve been using AMD chips since they first brought out a 386DX 40 (which was, as usual, faster than anything Intel had). And I have *never* had any compatibility issues with any software or hardware I’ve used.

Actually the thing that bothers me is that I’m upgrading from a P1 mmx. And just wondering just how much software will now be trash ? I have a bookcase with 2 shelves of worthless software now.

It’s not so much the processor, but the OS. You can try running stuff on XP in compatibility mode and see if that works.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:45:17 -0400, Husky wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:21:45 +0100, Hecate wrote:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-3200_1 5.html I just left this link. this is page 15 you want to start at 1, or for the photoshop stuff hit around 11 I think and go up.
The store I’m getting it from has several to choose from but the amd 64-3200 and the P4 boxed are the 2 closest available at the store and compared above. Where it counts for me [PS] it outperforms the amd.
And in general all areas that interest me, the P4 out does the AMD.

I’ve been using AMD chips since they first brought out a 386DX 40 (which was, as usual, faster than anything Intel had). And I have *never* had any compatibility issues with any software or hardware I’ve used.

Actually the thing that bothers me is that I’m upgrading from a P1 mmx. And just wondering just how much software will now be trash ? I have a bookcase with 2 shelves of worthless software now.
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

I bought into this thread a little late, but here is a computer maker that is worth considering if you are not into building your own system. www.falcon-nw.com

Although they market themselves as a game machine, they will configure your machine so it works wonderfully with PhotoShop. In fact, the salesman I spoke with confessed that they get more sales from PhotoShop users than gamers. The Mach V I purchased in January with 2- 60 Gb hard drives with a striped array and 2048 M of ram really performs. Never a lag in PhotoShop. Not cheap by any means, but I am so pleased I feel I got my money’s worth. Their support is excellent and not outsourced.

I have no interest in this company, other than owning one of their machines.

Bets

I run Photoshop on a
Dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 2Gb ram (thinking of getting more)

Do you wish the machine were faster ? Any compatibility issues ?

2X 75Gb raptors as RAID0 (those drives rock) this has system and storage.
SCSI U320 2x 15000rpm (I think 36GB each) Setup as RAID0 for photoshop scratch only.

I have no idea what raid is, but I know what a search engine is.

1 extra SCSI 320 drive for WinXP page file and extra storage.
I also run it on a dual G4 with 2Gb and SCSI drives.

G4 ??????????????? What is G4 ?

Apple Mac G4 well now G5. Faster in some things and not in others.

SCSI That’s pretty pricey yes ? Is the difference in speed worth it ? Cause IIRC SCSI to IDE, the tradeoff is a HUGE drop in storage for the same price in IDE.

SCSI is pricey but when you have to get the work done, time is money.

Maybe what the PC makers need to do is work on a better memory management system.

Again Amiga came out on top.
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:26:55 +0100, Hecate wrote:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-3200_1 5.html I just left this link. this is page 15 you want to start at 1, or for the photoshop stuff hit around 11 I think and go up.
The store I’m getting it from has several to choose from but the amd 64-3200 and the P4 boxed are the 2 closest available at the store and compared above. Where it counts for me [PS] it outperforms the amd.
And in general all areas that interest me, the P4 out does the AMD.

Sorry, but the AMD 64’s are at least 10% faster than the P4 in *everything*.

That’s only one tech eval, but it’s thorough. And Like I said where it counts, the PS and office stuff, the P4 comes out on top.
The P4 isn’t even the subject of the eval, it’s just one of those ‘other machines’ to show what the amd can do.
and Even if it were 10% in those areas PS and office, it wouldn’t be worth the extra $100.00 for an older machine.
This p4 is already set for the next generation chip.

Actually the thing that bothers me is that I’m upgrading from a P1 mmx. And just wondering just how much software will now be trash ? I have a bookcase with 2 shelves of worthless software now.

It’s not so much the processor, but the OS. You can try running stuff on XP in compatibility mode and see if that works.

Well I’m getting the xp pro. Did I say something earlier about ‘compatibility’ and someone said it’s NOT an issue ?
Somehow I can’t see ford or Chevy attempting to do business the way M$ does. That machine you just took home it was out of date before you hit the exit sign. And we won’t be stocking parts for it after about 5 years from now. more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On 23 Jun 2004 00:25:24 EDT, Bets wrote:

I bought into this thread a little late, but here is a computer maker that is worth considering if you are not into building your own system. www.falcon-nw.com

I feel I’ve pretty much Barney googled into a good deal. Even brand new. It’s $500.00 less than the equivalent Gateway.
Plus if it craps out, the store I got it from is just a few blocks away, and they speak English. 2 plusses there that outweigh cussing out UPS and some foreign answering machine in Arabia.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:57:36 +1000, Glo8al wrote:

Apple Mac G4 well now G5. Faster in some things and not in others.

But faster in the most important area "learning curve" The people building apples eat and sleep computers. They know how to make them fit the people that are using them.

M$ only knows marketing. and the public doesn’t know the difference in good marketing and good machines. They assume the 2 are one and the same.

Agghh.. I wish the U.S. could have seen the advantages and better designs built into the Macintosh and Amiga’s. We probably could have affordable scsi drives, simpler intuitive OS, better, sharper colors, better sound system, same programs running in 1/50th the memory, could go on and on. But IIRC Adobe put out an announcement that they were abandoning Apple soon.

Trouble is Amiga support is non-exist ant. Apple it’s just a matter of time. I wouldn’t go out now and buy one if they were giving them away for peanuts. It’s just not a good move. I hated giving up the Amiga. But there was just no other option and I knew Mac was headed the same direction.
It just doesn’t have the public’s ear. And I don’t think Berry colored machines is going to do it.
They need to show how much faster and better they actually are. ie: show a few kids on two machines and which kid gets things rolling fastest with the least amount of help.
I know the Apple will. I used to print a newspaper on an apple in a computer store. No instruction at all.

I take that back. The guy told me put this newsroom floppy into the drive. And go from there.

I wish there were Amiga or Mac support, but there just isn’t.

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:19:46 -0400, Husky wrote:

Well I’m getting the xp pro. Did I say something earlier about ‘compatibility’ and someone said it’s NOT an issue ?
Somehow I can’t see ford or Chevy attempting to do business the way M$ does. That machine you just took home it was out of date before you hit the exit sign. And we won’t be stocking parts for it after about 5 years from now.

Yep. me. Because you asked if there was a compatibility issue if you moved from a P1 to a P4. There isn’t. It’s only if you move operating systems. And it’s not really something you can blame MS for. If you made a system to run old the old software you’d still be using WinDos
3.1.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:30:07 -0400, Husky wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:57:36 +1000, Glo8al wrote:

Apple Mac G4 well now G5. Faster in some things and not in others.

But faster in the most important area "learning curve"

It tries to do tooooo much for you and with every OSX Mac I’ve set up I’ve had to tinker with to fix up what it F!@#ed up.

The people building apples eat and sleep computers. They know how to make them fit the people that are using them.

They are making them so you have to have everything external again, only room for two drives (all the work computers have minimum of 3+ drives, storage and fast SCSI for scratch)

M$ only knows marketing. and the public doesn’t know the difference in good marketing and good machines. They assume the 2 are one and the same.
Agghh.. I wish the U.S. could have seen the advantages and better designs built into the Macintosh and Amiga’s. We probably could have affordable scsi drives, simpler intuitive OS, better, sharper colors, better sound system, same programs running in 1/50th the memory, could go on and on. But IIRC Adobe put out an announcement that they were abandoning Apple soon.

may have been nice, but it didn’t happen.

Trouble is Amiga support is non-exist ant. Apple it’s just a matter of time. I wouldn’t go out now and buy one if they were giving them away for peanuts. It’s just not a good move. I hated giving up the Amiga. But there was just no other option and I knew Mac was headed the same direction.
It just doesn’t have the public’s ear. And I don’t think Berry colored machines is going to do it.
They need to show how much faster and better they actually are. ie: show a few kids on two machines and which kid gets things rolling fastest with the least amount of help.
I know the Apple will.

I have seen kids learn both platforms with out any problems. One is NOT better than the other
Both the mac and PC have their advantages over each other, I’m lucky and have the best of both worlds.

I used to print a newspaper on an apple in a computer
store. No instruction at all.

I can turn on a computer with no instructions, so what.

I take that back. The guy told me put this newsroom floppy into the drive. And go from there.

I wish there were Amiga or Mac support, but there just isn’t.
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html