Is this computer any good for CS4?

Paul Burdett wrote:

Hi all,
Currently running CS3 Extended on my Pentium 4 3GHz, 2 Gb ram. It works fine although it’s a little slower than I’d like…especially as it’s now connected to the net (due to my old internet machine dying!). I’ve tried the CS4 trial and I like it, but as I don’t have a dedicated graphics card to run the 3D stuff I’m looking to upgrade. I don’t work with very large files…(less than 50Mb) after editing. I had a look at this one today and would welcome advice/feedback/pros/cons etc on the following machine:

http://www.ht.com.au/cart/1/part/X0550-Lenovo-ThinkCentre-A5 8-7515-Tower-1-x-Core-2-Quad-Q8200-2.33-GHz-RAM-4-GB-HDD-1-x -500-GB-DVD-Writer-GF-9500-GT-Gigabit-Ethernet-Vista-Busines s-Monitor-none-Microsoft-Office-Ready/detail.hts

Wow, even considering the US<->AU exchange rate, that system seems a bit pricey. You can buy the parts

Tower + Power Supply: 150 USD
Motherboard: 120 USD
Processor: 150 USD
Memory: 60 USD
PCIe Graphics Card 70 USD
Hard Drive: 70 USD
DVD Burner: 30 USD
Operating System: 100 USD
——-
TOTAL 750 USD

That machine would beat more meet your reference machine in every respect, and you would have a dedicated graphics card. Even your warranties would be better.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:54:25 +1000, "Paul Burdett" wrote:

Hi all,
Currently running CS3 Extended on my Pentium 4 3GHz, 2 Gb ram. It works fine although it’s a little slower than I’d like…especially as it’s now connected to the net (due to my old internet machine dying!). I’ve tried the CS4 trial and I like it, but as I don’t have a dedicated graphics card to run the 3D stuff I’m looking to upgrade. I don’t work with very large files…(less than 50Mb) after editing. I had a look at this one today and would welcome advice/feedback/pros/cons etc on the following machine:

http://www.ht.com.au/cart/1/part/X0550-Lenovo-ThinkCentre-A5 8-7515-Tower-1-x-Core-2-Quad-Q8200-2.33-GHz-RAM-4-GB-HDD-1-x -500-GB-DVD-Writer-GF-9500-GT-Gigabit-Ethernet-Vista-Busines s-Monitor-none-Microsoft-Office-Ready/detail.hts

Cheers,

Paul

I’m thinking anyone passes up an I7 machine now will kick themselves later.

wrote in message
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:54:25 +1000, "Paul Burdett"

wrote:

I’m thinking anyone passes up an I7 machine now will kick themselves later.

Please explain? Are they being pulled from the shelves or something?

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:59:46 -0700, "just bob" wrote:

wrote in message
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:54:25 +1000, "Paul Burdett"
wrote:

I’m thinking anyone passes up an I7 machine now will kick themselves later.

Please explain? Are they being pulled from the shelves or something?

Depends on if you have $1000-3500 to throw around and can get a new one every few months. If I were shopping, I’d only be deciding on WHICH I7. Nothing else would be in the running.

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark. I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

wrote in message
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:59:46 -0700, "just bob" wrote:

wrote in message
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:54:25 +1000, "Paul Burdett"
wrote:

I’m thinking anyone passes up an I7 machine now will kick themselves later.

Please explain? Are they being pulled from the shelves or something?

Depends on if you have $1000-3500 to throw around and can get a new one every
few months. If I were shopping, I’d only be deciding on WHICH I7. Nothing else
would be in the running.

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark. I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD) that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.

i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark. I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD) that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.
i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark. I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD) that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.
i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee. And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.

(A G5 is way over his budget however).

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:34:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark. I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD) that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.
i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.

Sure – the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.

And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.

It does, but it’s not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year or more, on windows.

(A G5 is way over his budget however).

His budget, and a lot of other folks’.

I’m not seeing any advantages here.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:34:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark.
I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD)
that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.

i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.

Sure – the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.

And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.

It does, but it’s not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year or more, on windows.

(A G5 is way over his budget however).

His budget, and a lot of other folks’.

I’m not seeing any advantages here.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Hi Mike,
I’ve been reading this newsgroup for a while and I value your opinion. I have CS3 Extended (legal and paid for in case anyone wants to know) and it worked reasonably fast on my Pentium 4, 3GHZ desktop with 2Gb ram with no internet access. Since getting rid of my old desktop internet machine due to old age, I now have only the one PC and laptop (Toshiba Satellite Core duo…which runs CS3 faster of course and CS4 (trial) worked quite fast as well). My PC is now much slower and Bridge especially takes too long to display the thumbnails…opening a single raw file in Camera Raw also seems to take too long (20 secs or so sometimes accompanied by the "reading raw data" progress bar on the screen. Rebooting generally helps. Of course I do have antivirus (AVG) running as well.
My question is I’ve heard that Intel’s new core i7 is very fast (faster than quad core) and windows 7 os is also a very good. I do quite a bit of editing in Photoshop, so I’m looking to upgrade my computer as well as perhaps upgrading to CS4. As CS5 is expected out soon I’m wondering if the i7+windows 7 os+ 64bit CS4 or 5 will be the best choice if I want photoshop to really work fast? I do have a budget (approx AUD$2000), but would rather spend more now than get a cheaper system and have to upgrade in 12 months. Your advice is appreciated.

Cheers,

Paul

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:34:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark. I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD) that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.
i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.

Sure – the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.

And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.

It does, but it’s not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year or more, on windows.

(A G5 is way over his budget however).

His budget, and a lot of other folks’.

I’m not seeing any advantages here.

Oh, you can start with an iMac. That gives you the high quality display (where if you buy a Dell or other package the display is crud (why they’re cheaper).

The point is Windows blows. There a platform blast.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:40:32 +1000, Paul Burdett wrote:

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:34:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark.
I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD)
that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.

i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.

Sure – the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.

And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.

It does, but it’s not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year or more, on windows.

(A G5 is way over his budget however).

His budget, and a lot of other folks’.

I’m not seeing any advantages here.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Hi Mike,
I’ve been reading this newsgroup for a while and I value your opinion. I have CS3 Extended (legal and paid for in case anyone wants to know) and it worked reasonably fast on my Pentium 4, 3GHZ desktop with 2Gb ram with no internet access. Since getting rid of my old desktop internet machine due to old age, I now have only the one PC and laptop (Toshiba Satellite Core duo…which runs CS3 faster of course and CS4 (trial) worked quite fast as well). My PC is now much slower and Bridge especially takes too long to display the thumbnails…opening a single raw file in Camera Raw also seems to take too long (20 secs or so sometimes accompanied by the "reading raw data" progress bar on the screen. Rebooting generally helps. Of course I do have antivirus (AVG) running as well.
My question is I’ve heard that Intel’s new core i7 is very fast (faster than quad core) and windows 7 os is also a very good. I do quite a bit of editing in Photoshop, so I’m looking to upgrade my computer as well as perhaps upgrading to CS4. As CS5 is expected out soon I’m wondering if the i7+windows 7 os+ 64bit CS4 or 5 will be the best choice if I want photoshop to really work fast? I do have a budget (approx AUD$2000), but would rather spend more now than get a cheaper system and have to upgrade in 12 months. Your advice is appreciated.

Cheers,

Paul

I can share my own recent experience, with approximate price tags. Keep in mind I wanted this system primarily as a development system to support my 64 bit customers, with performance a secondary goal. I started with a rather long in the tooth P4 system that had a nice LCD display with DVI inputs and a new power supply with extra capacity.

1) Generic ASUS 64 bit motherboard with built in Nvidia 8300 graphics, AMD Phenom quad core ($230 USD)
2) 8 Gb of ram ($140 USD)
3) Vista professional ($180 USD)
4) 500 GB SATA drive ($75 USD)

Everything else was carried over from my old system, including the old IDE drive for archival purposes, for a net cost of about $625, plus about $190 to upgrade to CS4.

There was a little confusion with ordering the right version of Vista (a white box version of Vista Pro included just the 32 bit version, and I got the wrong mobo initially). After this was straightened out, the upgrade went smoothly, with no bad components or other issues.

It’s a nice solid system that runs much faster, of course than my old one. It’s not a screamer, but is a very solid development system that is up 24/7 for almost a year few or no crashes. There is still some significant growth available with this system, including a better graphics card, a few more slots, and a RAID array if I want to get more disk performance.

If I were doing this again, I’d probably go for a more upgradeable motherboard – the one I got will only take 8GB.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

"Paul Burdett" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:34:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark.
I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD) that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.
i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.

Sure – the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.

And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.

It does, but it’s not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year or more, on windows.

(A G5 is way over his budget however).

His budget, and a lot of other folks’.

I’m not seeing any advantages here.

Hi Mike,
I’ve been reading this newsgroup for a while and I value your opinion. I have CS3 Extended (legal and paid for in case anyone wants to know) and it worked reasonably fast on my Pentium 4, 3GHZ desktop with 2Gb ram with no internet access. Since getting rid of my old desktop internet machine due to old age, I now have only the one PC and laptop (Toshiba Satellite Core duo…which runs CS3 faster of course and CS4 (trial) worked quite fast as well). My PC is now much slower and Bridge especially takes too long to display the thumbnails…opening a single raw file in Camera Raw also seems to take too long (20 secs or so sometimes accompanied by the "reading raw data" progress bar on the screen. Rebooting generally helps. Of course I do have antivirus (AVG) running as well.
My question is I’ve heard that Intel’s new core i7 is very fast (faster than quad core) and windows 7 os is also a very good. I do quite a bit of editing in Photoshop, so I’m looking to upgrade my computer as well as perhaps upgrading to CS4. As CS5 is expected out soon I’m wondering if the i7+windows 7 os+ 64bit CS4 or 5 will be the best choice if I want photoshop to really work fast? I do have a budget (approx AUD$2000), but would rather spend more now than get a cheaper system and have to upgrade in 12 months. Your advice is appreciated.

My .02 is that I’d make sure I got win7 (it’s faster than Vista, and many new machines include a free upgrade path), get an I7 rig and not settle for less than an nVidia 9800 (which you can get reasonably with an additional Gig of video memory). The Macs are ok but pricey for what you get. My personal experience is that Quads are a waste of money for most folks too, but those doing lots of graphics operations may differ with me on that.

—
dvus

dvus wrote:

"Paul Burdett" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:34:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be
right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark.
I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD)
that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I
suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the
hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to
manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.

i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.

Sure – the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.

And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.

It does, but it’s not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year
or more, on windows.

(A G5 is way over his budget however).

His budget, and a lot of other folks’.

I’m not seeing any advantages here.

Hi Mike,
I’ve been reading this newsgroup for a while and I value your opinion. I have CS3 Extended (legal and paid for in case anyone wants to know) and it worked reasonably fast on my Pentium 4, 3GHZ desktop with 2Gb ram with no internet access. Since getting rid of my old desktop internet machine due to old age, I now have only the one PC and laptop (Toshiba Satellite Core duo…which runs CS3 faster of course and CS4 (trial) worked quite fast as well). My PC is now much slower and Bridge especially takes too long to display the thumbnails…opening a single raw file in Camera Raw also seems to take too long (20 secs or so sometimes accompanied by the "reading raw data" progress bar on the screen. Rebooting generally helps. Of course I do have antivirus (AVG) running as well.
My question is I’ve heard that Intel’s new core i7 is very fast (faster than quad core) and windows 7 os is also a very good. I do quite a bit of editing in Photoshop, so I’m looking to upgrade my computer as well as perhaps upgrading to CS4. As CS5 is expected out soon I’m wondering if the i7+windows 7 os+ 64bit CS4 or 5 will be the best choice if I want photoshop to really work fast? I do have a budget (approx AUD$2000), but would rather spend more now than get a cheaper system and have to upgrade in 12 months.
Your advice is appreciated.

My .02 is that I’d make sure I got win7 (it’s faster than Vista, and many new machines include a free upgrade path), get an I7 rig and not settle for less than an nVidia 9800 (which you can get reasonably with an additional Gig of video memory). The Macs are ok but pricey for what you get.

Yeah, what you get, with say an iMac 24" is a display that a Windblow user has to pay $800 for. You can’t compare "windblows" machines to a Mac unless the windblows machine has the display and the graphics to match. Few do.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:00:35 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:34:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark. I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD) that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.
i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.

Sure – the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.

And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.

It does, but it’s not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year or more, on windows.

(A G5 is way over his budget however).

His budget, and a lot of other folks’.

I’m not seeing any advantages here.

Oh, you can start with an iMac.

Not upgradable, and still much more expensive than a similar PC.

That gives you the high quality display
(where if you buy a Dell or other package the display is crud (why they’re cheaper).

I’m actually using a system with both a Dell notebook display, and a CRT. Yes, the LCD is not the greatest, but I use a "by the numbers" methodology that is not dependent on precise display appearance. Both monitors calibrated with an i1 Display, and having the two of them available allows me to recreate almost any situation my customers run into.

The point is Windows blows.

LOL – you’re entitled to your opinion, and I was definitely in that camp for a number of years, and I loved working on that platform.

There a platform blast.

Macs are indeed very very cool, and I don’t fault anyone for greatly preferring them. At the same time, Windows is a completely professional platform for any app, including Photoshop.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

dvus wrote:

"Paul Burdett" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:34:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark.
I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD)
that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.

i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.

Sure – the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.

And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.

It does, but it’s not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year or more, on windows.

(A G5 is way over his budget however).

His budget, and a lot of other folks’.

I’m not seeing any advantages here.

Hi Mike,
I’ve been reading this newsgroup for a while and I value your opinion. I have CS3 Extended (legal and paid for in case anyone wants to know) and it worked reasonably fast on my Pentium 4, 3GHZ desktop with 2Gb ram with no internet access. Since getting rid of my old desktop internet machine due to old age, I now have only the one PC and laptop (Toshiba Satellite Core duo…which runs CS3 faster of course and CS4 (trial) worked quite fast as well). My PC is now much slower and Bridge especially takes too long to display the thumbnails…opening a single raw file in Camera Raw also seems to take too long (20 secs or so sometimes accompanied by the "reading raw data" progress bar on the screen. Rebooting generally helps. Of course I do have antivirus (AVG) running as well.
My question is I’ve heard that Intel’s new core i7 is very fast (faster than quad core) and windows 7 os is also a very good. I do quite a bit of editing in Photoshop, so I’m looking to upgrade my computer as well as perhaps upgrading to CS4. As CS5 is expected out soon I’m wondering if the i7+windows 7 os+ 64bit CS4 or 5 will be the best choice if I want photoshop to really work fast? I do have a budget (approx AUD$2000), but would rather spend more now than get a cheaper system and have to upgrade in 12 months. Your advice is appreciated.

My .02 is that I’d make sure I got win7 (it’s faster than Vista, and many new machines include a free upgrade path), get an I7 rig and not settle for less than an nVidia 9800 (which you can get reasonably with an additional Gig of video memory). The Macs are ok but pricey for what you get.

Yeah, what you get, with say an iMac 24" is a display that a Windblow user has to pay $800 for.

Well, that’s not really true. 24" displays are much cheaper than that nowadays, less than $300.

You can’t compare "windblows" machines to a Mac unless the windblows machine has the display and the graphics to match. Few do.

I have a Samsung 22" that looks pretty good, and the old Dual-Core cpu and nVidia GeForce 280 do ok. If it were an iForce you’d probably *love* it.

—
dvus

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:00:35 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:34:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be
right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark.
I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD)
that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I
suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the
hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to
manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.

i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.

Sure – the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.

And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.

It does, but it’s not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year
or more, on windows.

(A G5 is way over his budget however).

His budget, and a lot of other folks’.

I’m not seeing any advantages here.

Oh, you can start with an iMac.

Not upgradable, and still much more expensive than a similar PC.

That gives you the high quality display
(where if you buy a Dell or other package the display is crud (why they’re cheaper).

I’m actually using a system with both a Dell notebook display, and a CRT. Yes, the LCD is not the greatest, but I use a "by the numbers" methodology that is not dependent on precise display appearance. Both monitors calibrated with an i1 Display, and having the two of them available allows me to recreate almost any situation my customers run into.

The point is Windows blows.

LOL – you’re entitled to your opinion, and I was definitely in that camp for a number of years, and I loved working on that platform.

There a platform blast.

Macs are indeed very very cool, and I don’t fault anyone for greatly preferring them. At the same time, Windows is a completely professional platform for any app, including Photoshop.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Thank you Mike (and others)…I appreciate the quick feedback/info.

Paul

dvus wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

dvus wrote:

"Paul Burdett" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:34:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be
right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark.
I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD)
that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I
suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the
hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to
manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.

i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.

Sure – the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.

And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.

It does, but it’s not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year
or more, on windows.

(A G5 is way over his budget however).

His budget, and a lot of other folks’.

I’m not seeing any advantages here.

Hi Mike,
I’ve been reading this newsgroup for a while and I value your opinion. I have CS3 Extended (legal and paid for in case anyone wants to know) and it worked reasonably fast on my Pentium 4, 3GHZ desktop with 2Gb ram with no internet access. Since getting rid of my old desktop internet machine due to old age, I now have only the one PC and laptop (Toshiba Satellite Core duo…which runs CS3 faster of course and CS4 (trial) worked quite fast as well). My PC is now much slower and Bridge especially takes too long to display the thumbnails…opening a single raw file in Camera Raw also seems to take too long (20 secs or so sometimes accompanied by the "reading raw data" progress bar on the screen. Rebooting generally helps. Of course I do have antivirus (AVG) running as well. My question is I’ve heard that Intel’s new core i7 is very fast (faster than quad core) and windows 7 os is also a very good. I do quite a bit of editing in Photoshop, so I’m looking to upgrade my computer as well as perhaps upgrading to CS4. As CS5 is expected out soon I’m wondering if the i7+windows 7 os+ 64bit CS4 or 5 will be the best choice if I want photoshop to really work fast? I do have a budget (approx AUD$2000), but would rather spend more now than get a cheaper system and have to upgrade in 12 months.
Your advice is appreciated.

My .02 is that I’d make sure I got win7 (it’s faster than Vista, and many new machines include a free upgrade path), get an I7 rig and not settle for less than an nVidia 9800 (which you can get reasonably with an additional Gig of video memory). The Macs are ok but pricey for what you get.

Yeah, what you get, with say an iMac 24" is a display that a Windblow user has to pay $800 for.

Well, that’s not really true. 24" displays are much cheaper than that nowadays, less than $300.

Not at the quality of an iMac display. It’s another world.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:06:31 -0700, Mike Russell
wrote:

Macs are indeed very very cool, and I don’t fault anyone for greatly preferring them. At the same time, Windows is a completely professional platform for any app, including Photoshop.

Why windows ?
I had Commodore, then amiga. Amiga hardware support finally dried up in the
U.S. When the Amiga finally became more damaged than less than a tech with
several junkyards of Amiga parts on hand could repair or even keep running, I had to make a decision. Mac or Windows. Windows was still 10 years behind the amiga in technology. It took 640 megs of ram to do the same on the 64 meg amiga. You had to have dozens of windows scattered everywhere on the win98. 1 window, many tabs with amiga. A window took up much ram. a tab took up no ram. Software…Amiga was no longer making software. Amiga had hit a dead end with no return.

Hmm Windows or Mac.. Mac very similar to Amiga. Couldn’t tell them apart in the dark.
Mac software, not a big selection. Prices – higher for everything. Windows software, everyone and their dogs writing software for windows. Mac Hardware, less support than software support.
Windows hardware same as it’s software a big selection.

Support.. Not a Mac dealer or store within 100 miles. Windows, stores everywhere you turn.

Mac struggling to keep up, no chance of competing. Windows monopoly ignored by the blind justice system.

Monopoly with lower prices, or struggling OS with little to no support and higher prices.

It all boiled down to support.
I hate windows, but I can’t afford a Mac just because of it’s limitations. Support, non-existent.

The I7, it walks like a duck, it sounds like a duck, maybe it is a Mac ? The I7 reviews put it at the top of the class in all categories. What is this ‘The Mac will have something similar in 10 years mean ?’ Who cares ? Computer technology is obsolete by the time it hits the store shelves. Then there’s the fact it’s WINDOWS and NOT Mac. support, support, support.

I really wish Mac could compete with Windows. But it can’t and doesn’t. Mac has better humorous commercials. I like the little 6 year old Chinese girl using windows.

The I7 is a graphics machine from top to bottom.

On Sep 27, 8:34 am, Alan Browne
wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark. I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads.  Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD) that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what.  This means balanced/loaded processing.

i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.  And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.
(A G5 is way over his budget however).

"G5" is PowerPC (and, while being a 64-bit system, obviously won’t run 10.6).
Paul must have meant Mac Pro: http://www.apple.com/macpro/

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

dvus wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

dvus wrote:

"Paul Burdett" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:34:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be
right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark.
I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.

To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD)
that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I
suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.

The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the
hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to
manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.

i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.

Sure – the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.

And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.

It does, but it’s not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year
or more, on windows.

(A G5 is way over his budget however).

His budget, and a lot of other folks’.

I’m not seeing any advantages here.

Hi Mike,
I’ve been reading this newsgroup for a while and I value your opinion. I have CS3 Extended (legal and paid for in case anyone wants to know) and it worked reasonably fast on my Pentium 4, 3GHZ desktop with 2Gb ram with no internet access. Since getting rid of my old desktop internet machine due to old age, I now have only the one PC and laptop (Toshiba Satellite Core duo…which runs CS3 faster of course and CS4 (trial) worked quite fast as well). My PC is now much slower and Bridge especially takes too long to display the thumbnails…opening a single raw file in Camera Raw also seems to take too long (20 secs or so sometimes accompanied by the "reading raw data" progress bar on the screen. Rebooting generally helps. Of course I do have antivirus (AVG) running as well.
My question is I’ve heard that Intel’s new core i7 is very fast (faster than quad core) and windows 7 os is also a very good. I do quite a bit of editing in Photoshop, so I’m looking to upgrade my computer as well as perhaps upgrading to CS4. As CS5 is expected out soon I’m wondering if the i7+windows 7 os+ 64bit CS4 or 5 will be the best choice if I want photoshop to really work fast? I do have a budget (approx AUD$2000), but would rather spend more now than get a cheaper system and have to upgrade in 12 months.
Your advice is appreciated.

My .02 is that I’d make sure I got win7 (it’s faster than Vista, and many new machines include a free upgrade path), get an I7 rig and not settle for less than an nVidia 9800 (which you can get reasonably with an additional Gig of video memory). The Macs are ok but pricey for what you get.

Yeah, what you get, with say an iMac 24" is a display that a Windblow user has to pay $800 for.

Well, that’s not really true. 24" displays are much cheaper than that nowadays, less than $300.

Not at the quality of an iMac display. It’s another world.

Probably not a discussion anyone will win.

—
dvus

wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:06:31 -0700, Mike Russell
wrote:

Macs are indeed very very cool, and I don’t fault anyone for greatly preferring them. At the same time, Windows is a completely professional platform for any app, including Photoshop.

Why windows ?
I had Commodore, then amiga. Amiga hardware support finally dried up in the
U.S. When the Amiga finally became more damaged than less than a tech with
several junkyards of Amiga parts on hand could repair or even keep running, I had to make a decision. Mac or Windows. Windows was still 10 years behind the amiga in technology. It took 640 megs of ram to do the same on the 64 meg amiga. You had to have dozens of windows scattered everywhere on the win98. 1 window, many tabs with amiga. A window took up much ram. a tab took up no ram. Software…Amiga was no longer making software. Amiga had hit a dead end with no return.

Hmm Windows or Mac.. Mac very similar to Amiga. Couldn’t tell them apart in the dark.
Mac software, not a big selection. Prices – higher for everything. Windows software, everyone and their dogs writing software for windows. Mac Hardware, less support than software support.
Windows hardware same as it’s software a big selection.

Support.. Not a Mac dealer or store within 100 miles. Windows, stores everywhere you turn.

Mac struggling to keep up, no chance of competing. Windows monopoly ignored by the blind justice system.

Monopoly with lower prices, or struggling OS with little to no support and higher prices.

It all boiled down to support.
I hate windows, but I can’t afford a Mac just because of it’s limitations. Support, non-existent.

Your ignorance is simply proven by your words. I’d laugh at you but my parents taught me to be esp. kind to the mentally challenged.

toby wrote:

On Sep 27, 8:34 am, Alan Browne
wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark. I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.
To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD) that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.
The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing. i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee. And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.
(A G5 is way over his budget however).

"G5" is PowerPC (and, while being a 64-bit system, obviously won’t run 10.6).
Paul must have meant Mac Pro: http://www.apple.com/macpro/

Indeed – sorry. Type too fast some times…

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

toby wrote:

On Sep 27, 8:34 am, Alan Browne
wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark.
I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.
To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD) that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.
The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing. i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee. And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.
(A G5 is way over his budget however).

"G5" is PowerPC (and, while being a 64-bit system, obviously won’t run 10.6).
Paul must have meant Mac Pro: http://www.apple.com/macpro/

Indeed – sorry. Type too fast some times…

Heh, typo. I’d say something snarky, but my parents taught me to be…, oh wait, someone just said that.

—
dvus

dvus wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

toby wrote:

On Sep 27, 8:34 am, Alan Browne
wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be
right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark.
I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.
To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD)
that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I
suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.
The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the
hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to
manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.
i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee. And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.
(A G5 is way over his budget however).

"G5" is PowerPC (and, while being a 64-bit system, obviously won’t run 10.6).
Paul must have meant Mac Pro: http://www.apple.com/macpro/

Indeed – sorry. Type too fast some times…

Heh, typo. I’d say something snarky, but my parents taught me to be…, oh wait, someone just said that.

Read again, I never claimed a typo.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

dvus wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

toby wrote:

On Sep 27, 8:34 am, Alan Browne
wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:13:41 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Paul Burdett wrote:

Thanks for the replies..much appreciated. As for the price..you may be right, but most quad core systems I’ve looked at are around the $1600 mark.
I’ll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
Paul

Mac – G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7 microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel processing.
To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD)
that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it – and I suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.
The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.
i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.

64 bit no workee

Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee. And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.
(A G5 is way over his budget however).

"G5" is PowerPC (and, while being a 64-bit system, obviously won’t run 10.6).
Paul must have meant Mac Pro: http://www.apple.com/macpro/

Indeed – sorry. Type too fast some times…

Heh, typo. I’d say something snarky, but my parents taught me to be…, oh wait, someone just said that.

Read again, I never claimed a typo.

Whoosh!

—
dvus

On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, wrote:

…
Monopoly with lower prices, or struggling OS with little to no support and higher prices.

It all boiled down to support.
I hate windows, but I can’t afford a Mac just because of it’s limitations.. Support, non-existent.

When did you last contact Microsoft for support? Dates, summary of incidents, resolutions please.

Also, incidents when you contacted Apple for support and were disappointed.

…

"toby" wrote in message
On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, wrote:

Monopoly with lower prices, or struggling OS with little to no support and higher prices.

It all boiled down to support.
I hate windows, but I can’t afford a Mac just because of it’s limitations. Support, non-existent.

When did you last contact Microsoft for support? Dates, summary of incidents, resolutions please.

What are you, the FBI?

Also, incidents when you contacted Apple for support and were disappointed.

Ah, a Mac-Head. Now I get it. When will you people learn there’s more than just iStuff out there that works just as well as Jobs’ stuff. (and usually for less money)

—
dvus

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:19:35 -0700 (PDT), toby wrote:

On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, wrote:

…
Monopoly with lower prices, or struggling OS with little to no support and higher prices.

It all boiled down to support.
I hate windows, but I can’t afford a Mac just because of it’s limitations. Support, non-existent.

When did you last contact Microsoft for support? Dates, summary of incidents, resolutions please.

Also, incidents when you contacted Apple for support and were disappointed.

…

There’s obviously different ideas what support means. The nearest place I could get a Mac serviced is several hours away. I can get a windows machine fixed in a few miles.

Support for Mac’s is non-existent for any logical usage. Windows is a monopoly that EVEN Mac has recognized. It can’t compete on the computer field. thus you have ipods, iphones, Itunes, etc..

dvus wrote:

"toby" wrote in message
On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, wrote:

Monopoly with lower prices, or struggling OS with little to no support and
higher prices.

It all boiled down to support.
I hate windows, but I can’t afford a Mac just because of it’s limitations.
Support, non-existent.

When did you last contact Microsoft for support? Dates, summary of incidents, resolutions please.

What are you, the FBI?

Also, incidents when you contacted Apple for support and were disappointed.

Ah, a Mac-Head. Now I get it. When will you people learn there’s more than just iStuff out there that works just as well as Jobs’ stuff. (and usually for less money)

Is that why the Zune is all over the place? Oh, sorry…

(This week Balmer lambasted IBM for their focus on high profit markets (system integration, services, software) while getting out of manufacturing lower margin commodity devices like disk drives. MS profits (and share price) are down since 2000 … IBM’s are definitely up.

Why MS’ Balmer would say such stupid things is a mystery. Or maybe not. The only smart thing he’s done is walk away from the excessive demands of Yang (proving what a dumbnut _that_ guy is: NOBODY has ever left that much money on a table and walked.)).

wrote:

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:19:35 -0700 (PDT), toby wrote:

On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, wrote:

…
Monopoly with lower prices, or struggling OS with little to no support and higher prices.

It all boiled down to support.
I hate windows, but I can’t afford a Mac just because of it’s limitations. Support, non-existent.

When did you last contact Microsoft for support? Dates, summary of incidents, resolutions please.

Also, incidents when you contacted Apple for support and were disappointed.

…

There’s obviously different ideas what support means. The nearest place I could get a Mac serviced is several hours away. I can get a windows machine fixed in a few miles.

Support for Mac’s is non-existent for any logical usage. Windows is a monopoly that EVEN Mac has recognized. It can’t compete on the computer field. thus you have ipods, iphones, Itunes, etc..

That is the worst ‘case analysis’ ever. In fact because of products like the iphone and iPod, Mac sales have increased … (esp. for laptops and iMac’s).

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

wrote:

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:19:35 -0700 (PDT), toby
wrote:

On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, wrote:

…
Monopoly with lower prices, or struggling OS with little to no support and higher prices.

It all boiled down to support.
I hate windows, but I can’t afford a Mac just because of it’s limitations. Support, non-existent.

When did you last contact Microsoft for support? Dates, summary of incidents, resolutions please.

Also, incidents when you contacted Apple for support and were disappointed.

…

There’s obviously different ideas what support means. The nearest place I could
get a Mac serviced is several hours away. I can get a windows machine fixed in
a few miles.

Support for Mac’s is non-existent for any logical usage. Windows is a monopoly that EVEN Mac has recognized. It can’t compete on the computer field. thus you have ipods, iphones, Itunes, etc..

That is the worst ‘case analysis’ ever. In fact because of products like the iphone and iPod, Mac sales have increased … (esp. for laptops and iMac’s).

Shame they had to share a chunk of it with Eminem…

—
dvus

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 21:45:45 -0400, "dvus" wrote:

Support for Mac’s is non-existent for any logical usage. Windows is a monopoly that EVEN Mac has recognized. It can’t compete on the computer field. thus you have ipods, iphones, Itunes, etc..

That is the worst ‘case analysis’ ever. In fact because of products like the iphone and iPod, Mac sales have increased … (esp. for laptops and iMac’s).

No it isn’t. would you buy a horse and buggy when everyone else is driving a car ?
Support no matter how you deny that it has no relevance is just wishful thinking.
Like I said
Amiga was 10 years ahead of Windows. It’s been dead for more than 10 years, and it’s OS is STILL ahead of Windows, but you couldn’t get parts or software. It failed because of the windows monopoly. People were still asking Amiga who while it was dying.
Amiga had what these dual / quad processors are just now getting around to. It’s video section is what the major video cards are now getting around to. It was called Blitter, a chip where it’s only purpose was to handle graphics on an amiga. It’s called GPU on the new cards. New being late 2008.

I’m guessing that Mac is also nearly as obscure. Only geek’s would have a clue that there’s more choices than windows. Linux may be where Amiga was. I wouldn’t say no if a Mac were given to me. But it would only be used for my graphics. Trying to find programs to ‘make it compatible’ with windows would be a waste of time.

On Oct 1, 11:57 pm, "dvus" wrote:

"toby" wrote in message

On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, wrote:

Monopoly with lower prices, or struggling OS with little to no support and higher prices.

It all boiled down to support.
I hate windows, but I can’t afford a Mac just because of it’s limitations. Support, non-existent.
When did you last contact Microsoft for support? Dates, summary of incidents, resolutions please.

What are you, the FBI?

Did you EVER call Microsoft for support? …

Also, incidents when you contacted Apple for support and were disappointed.

Did you EVER call Apple for support?

Answer the questions, then explain how you are in a position to compare the two.

(Apple does technical support in its stores. There’s probably at least one in your city. Last time I looked, Microsoft didn’t even have a retail presence, apart from a pilot store somewhere in the middle of nowhere. )

Ah, a Mac-Head. Now I get it. When will you people learn there’s more than just iStuff out there that works just as well as Jobs’ stuff. (and usually for less money)

—
dvus

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:46:01 -0700 (PDT), toby
scribbled:

Answer the questions, then explain how you are in a position to compare the two.

And if he doesn’t? Will you stamp your little feet and demand again?

Fucking Mac fans, rabid assholes for the most part. You do a great disservice to the product you’re humping.

dvus wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

wrote:

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:19:35 -0700 (PDT), toby
wrote:

On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, wrote:

…
Monopoly with lower prices, or struggling OS with little to no support and
higher prices.

It all boiled down to support.
I hate windows, but I can’t afford a Mac just because of it’s limitations.
Support, non-existent.

When did you last contact Microsoft for support? Dates, summary of incidents, resolutions please.

Also, incidents when you contacted Apple for support and were disappointed.

…

There’s obviously different ideas what support means. The nearest place I could
get a Mac serviced is several hours away. I can get a windows machine fixed in
a few miles.

Support for Mac’s is non-existent for any logical usage. Windows is a monopoly that EVEN Mac has recognized. It can’t compete on the computer field. thus you have ipods, iphones, Itunes, etc..

That is the worst ‘case analysis’ ever. In fact because of products like the iphone and iPod, Mac sales have increased … (esp. for laptops and iMac’s).

Shame they had to share a chunk of it with Eminem…

Not sure what you mean by that. IAC: irrelevant as far as Apple is concerned. Profits, growth and stock valuation are all (way) up.

wrote:

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 21:45:45 -0400, "dvus" wrote:

Support for Mac’s is non-existent for any logical usage. Windows is a monopoly that EVEN Mac has recognized. It can’t compete on the computer field. thus you have ipods, iphones, Itunes, etc..

That is the worst ‘case analysis’ ever. In fact because of products like the iphone and iPod, Mac sales have increased … (esp. for laptops and iMac’s).

No it isn’t. would you buy a horse and buggy when everyone else is driving a car ?
Support no matter how you deny that it has no relevance is just wishful thinking.
Like I said
Amiga was 10 years ahead of Windows. It’s been dead for more than 10 years, and it’s OS is STILL ahead of Windows, but you couldn’t get parts or software. It failed because of the windows monopoly. People were still asking Amiga who while it was dying.
Amiga had what these dual / quad processors are just now getting around to. It’s video section is what the major video cards are now getting around to. It was called Blitter, a chip where it’s only purpose was to handle graphics on an amiga. It’s called GPU on the new cards. New being late 2008.
I’m guessing that Mac is also nearly as obscure. Only geek’s would have a clue that there’s more choices than windows. Linux may be where Amiga was. I wouldn’t say no if a Mac were given to me. But it would only be used for my graphics. Trying to find programs to ‘make it compatible’ with windows would be a waste of time.

Your ignorance is total.

There is a tons of software available for the Mac for just about every purpose. This includes Microsoft Office for the Mac (which I have), tons of UNIX applications (run directly or via the X11 GUI), and so on. Code written for Linux can be ported to the Mac with little effort.

Further, using virtualization s/w such as VMWare Fusion a Mac can run both Mac OS X and Windows _simultaneously_ (without emulation). When I got the Mac I just moved a WinXP licence onto the Mac. This way my legacy s/w is protected (although over time I use that less and less … I don’t remember when I last used it). (With VMWare fusion I could just as easily run Linux in parallel with OS X … but that would be silly).

The only reason Macs remain 2nd choice (forget Linux, it’s way back there) is the perceived cost of ownership. The real cost of ownership is only marginally higher than a PC. But then you get more. For example in the "pricey" iMac you get a very high quality monitor that in the PC world would be an $800 add on.

I don’t know why you raise Amiga. That is about a dead issue as anyone can raise. They may have had the wonder machine of the century – but they failed to deliver their market.

MS have made cash on their cows but have not innovated anything that’s caught people’s imaginations and generated buzz like Apple regularly do.

MS: follow everyone into the game console market.
MS: didn’t even notice the rising popularity of the www. And then followed with gusto and bully tactics against Netscape.
MS: follow Apple into the PDA market. (Zune)
MS: follow everyone into the server s/w market.
MS: create un-neededware (Silverfast comes to mind) where that need is over served already.
MS: followed Yahoo and Google into search with a heavy "MS and nothing else" search engine. They’re still in the basement of the league.

MS: followers, never leaders or innovators.

As developers code to new OS features on the Mac such as GCD and OpenCL, the performance of Mac’s will leap.

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:29:13 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Your ignorance is total.

THIS is the way to win arguments, make friends and influence people!

BRAVO!

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:46:01 -0700 (PDT), toby wrote:

Did you EVER call Microsoft for support? …

Also, incidents when you contacted Apple for support and were disappointed.

Did you EVER call Apple for support?

Answer the questions, then explain how you are in a position to compare the two.

(Apple does technical support in its stores. There’s probably at least one in your city. Last time I looked, Microsoft didn’t even have a retail presence, apart from a pilot store somewhere in the middle of nowhere. )

Phone support is 100% minimum wage employees, that can operate a search engine a phone, and read what they’re told to say. Like a 911 operator. I spent hours online with windows phone support. I know more than the majority of them. I would say you can depend on phone support 50% of the time. It’s not worth paying for it. I’d get better odds in Vegas of finding someone that can troubleshoot a problem over the phone.

Support to me means ACCESS to replacement hardware & software. And Not having to convert everything to a standard WINDOWS format. Every once in awhile I find a DVG in an image news group. It must be converted or have a windows program that converts as it plays. Then there’s the Mac archive formats.

With a Mac, that’s the formats I’d be handling all the time, and if I wanted to do on the web what I do now, 99% of the time would be used to convert between formats. And then arguing with idiots complaining that ‘THIS ISN’T a MAC GROUP’… ba da dum.
It’s not worth the headaches.

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:29:13 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Your ignorance is total.

THIS is the way to win arguments, make friends and influence people!

No it’s a reaction to a totally ignorant remark.

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:31:15 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:29:13 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Your ignorance is total.

THIS is the way to win arguments, make friends and influence people!

No it’s a reaction to a totally ignorant remark.

That was sarcasm you raging imbecile.

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:36:52 -0400, scribbled:

It’s not worth the headaches.

Then shut the fuck up already.

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:31:15 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:29:13 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Your ignorance is total.

THIS is the way to win arguments, make friends and influence people!

No it’s a reaction to a totally ignorant remark.

That was sarcasm you raging imbecile.

And what do you think my reply was, clueless?

(Actually, sorry to the clueless out there, Voivod isn’t up to your level).

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:16:08 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:31:15 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:29:13 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Your ignorance is total.

THIS is the way to win arguments, make friends and influence people!

No it’s a reaction to a totally ignorant remark.

That was sarcasm you raging imbecile.

And what do you think my reply was, clueless?

The gibbering of a imbecile? A pitiful excuse for a response? Worthless?

I’m going with worthless. You can go back to flogging your Mac now.

(Actually, sorry to the clueless out there, Voivod isn’t up to your level).

Aww, that was almost clever.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

wrote:

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 21:45:45 -0400, "dvus" wrote:

Support for Mac’s is non-existent for any logical usage. Windows is a monopoly that EVEN Mac has recognized. It can’t compete on the computer field. thus you have ipods, iphones, Itunes, etc..

That is the worst ‘case analysis’ ever. In fact because of products like the iphone and iPod, Mac sales have increased … (esp. for laptops and iMac’s).

No it isn’t. would you buy a horse and buggy when everyone else is driving a car ?
Support no matter how you deny that it has no relevance is just wishful thinking.
Like I said Amiga was 10 years ahead of Windows. It’s been dead for more than 10 years, and
it’s OS is STILL ahead of Windows, but you couldn’t get parts or software. It
failed because of the windows monopoly. People were still asking Amiga who while it was dying.
Amiga had what these dual / quad processors are just now getting around to. It’s video section is what the major video cards are now getting around to. It
was called Blitter, a chip where it’s only purpose was to handle graphics on an
amiga. It’s called GPU on the new cards. New being late 2008.
I’m guessing that Mac is also nearly as obscure. Only geek’s would have a clue
that there’s more choices than windows. Linux may be where Amiga was. I wouldn’t say no if a Mac were given to me. But it would only be used for my
graphics. Trying to find programs to ‘make it compatible’ with windows would be
a waste of time.

Your ignorance is total.

Uncalled for, but then, you’re a Mac-Head so it’s expected.

There is a tons of software available for the Mac for just about every purpose. This includes Microsoft Office for the Mac (which I have), tons of UNIX applications (run directly or via the X11 GUI), and so on. Code written for Linux can be ported to the Mac with little effort.

Yeah, PCs really lag in the software availability department.

Further, using virtualization s/w such as VMWare Fusion a Mac can run both Mac OS X and Windows _simultaneously_ (without emulation). When I got the Mac I just moved a WinXP licence onto the Mac. This way my legacy s/w is protected (although over time I use that less and less … I don’t remember when I last used it). (With VMWare fusion I could just as easily run Linux in parallel with OS X … but that would be silly).

Heh, I had a bud who almost cried when Mac finally gave in and put in PC compatibility. Did you stamp your dainty feet and have another hissy-fit?

The only reason Macs remain 2nd choice (forget Linux, it’s way back there) is the perceived cost of ownership. The real cost of ownership is only marginally higher than a PC. But then you get more. For example in the "pricey" iMac you get a very high quality monitor that in the PC world would be an $800 add on.

Not to mention a machine that becomes useless when any component goes south. I just grab another out of the drawer and stick it in.

I don’t know why you raise Amiga. That is about a dead issue as anyone can raise. They may have had the wonder machine of the century – but they failed to deliver their market.

It was just a humorous reference. Their biggest sin was under-marketing the damn thing.

MS have made cash on their cows but have not innovated anything that’s caught people’s imaginations and generated buzz like Apple regularly do.

I’ve got news for you, reletively few people get all tingly over Mr. Job’s press conferences, I’d bet there’s far more people following the impending release of Win7 than whatever Mac came up with last.

MS: follow everyone into the game console market.

Yeah, everyone hates games…

MS: didn’t even notice the rising popularity of the www. And then followed with gusto and bully tactics against Netscape.
MS: follow Apple into the PDA market. (Zune)

At a much lower price, too. Maybe Apple will take the hint and lower theirs?

MS: follow everyone into the server s/w market.
MS: create un-neededware (Silverfast comes to mind) where that need is over served already.
MS: followed Yahoo and Google into search with a heavy "MS and nothing else" search engine. They’re still in the basement of the league.

Bing will rule the world!!!

Sure, M$ did a *lot* of shady things in the past. Not my fault or yours. But, if they did nothing they wouldn’t be where they are.

MS: followers, never leaders or innovators.

As developers code to new OS features on the Mac such as GCD and OpenCL, the performance of Mac’s will leap.

Maybe. Reletively few will notice or care. You should be careful what you wish for, though. If more than a handful of tea-sippers become interested in the Mac the virii coders may notice and take the time to write one or two for you.

—
dvus

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:31:15 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:29:13 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Your ignorance is total.

THIS is the way to win arguments, make friends and influence people!

No it’s a reaction to a totally ignorant remark.

That was sarcasm you raging imbecile.

And what do you think my reply was, clueless?

Yeah, I thought it was a little clueless.

(Actually, sorry to the clueless out there, Voivod isn’t up to your level).

I *knew* it! He’ll probably get better, though. You, on the other hand, are in a much higher clueless league than either he or I will ever be. You know your Big Macs, though, I’ll give you that.

—
dvus

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

dvus wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

wrote:

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:19:35 -0700 (PDT), toby
wrote:

On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, wrote:

…
Monopoly with lower prices, or struggling OS with little to no support and
higher prices.

It all boiled down to support.
I hate windows, but I can’t afford a Mac just because of it’s limitations.
Support, non-existent.

When did you last contact Microsoft for support? Dates, summary of incidents, resolutions please.

Also, incidents when you contacted Apple for support and were disappointed.

…

There’s obviously different ideas what support means. The nearest place I could
get a Mac serviced is several hours away. I can get a windows machine fixed in
a few miles.

Support for Mac’s is non-existent for any logical usage. Windows is a monopoly that EVEN Mac has recognized. It can’t compete on the computer field. thus you have ipods, iphones, Itunes, etc..

That is the worst ‘case analysis’ ever. In fact because of products like the iphone and iPod, Mac sales have increased … (esp. for laptops and iMac’s).

Shame they had to share a chunk of it with Eminem…

Not sure what you mean by that. IAC: irrelevant as far as Apple is concerned. Profits, growth and stock valuation are all (way) up.

No big deal, Apple stole some of his songs and had to pay him a big chunk of change.

—
dvus

"dvus" wrote in message

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:31:15 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:29:13 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Your ignorance is total.

THIS is the way to win arguments, make friends and influence people!

No it’s a reaction to a totally ignorant remark.

That was sarcasm you raging imbecile.

And what do you think my reply was, clueless?

Yeah, I thought it was a little clueless.

(Actually, sorry to the clueless out there, Voivod isn’t up to your level).

I *knew* it! He’ll probably get better, though. You, on the other hand, are in a much higher clueless league than either he or I will ever be. You know your Big Macs, though, I’ll give you that.

PS: Heh, "someone" signed me up for a Mac news e-mailing! That’ll show me!

—
dvus

dvus wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:31:15 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:29:13 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Your ignorance is total.

THIS is the way to win arguments, make friends and influence people!

No it’s a reaction to a totally ignorant remark.

That was sarcasm you raging imbecile.

And what do you think my reply was, clueless?

Yeah, I thought it was a little clueless.

(Actually, sorry to the clueless out there, Voivod isn’t up to your level).

I *knew* it! He’ll probably get better, though. You, on the other hand, are in a much higher clueless league than either he or I will ever be. You know your Big Macs, though, I’ll give you that.

The pair of you are pretty pathetic playing the 5th grade invert the label game. Consider moving out of Mom’s house lately?

dvus wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

wrote:

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 21:45:45 -0400, "dvus"
wrote:

Support for Mac’s is non-existent for any logical usage. Windows is a monopoly that EVEN Mac has recognized. It can’t compete on the computer field. thus you have ipods, iphones, Itunes, etc..

That is the worst ‘case analysis’ ever. In fact because of products like the iphone and iPod, Mac sales have increased … (esp. for laptops and iMac’s).

No it isn’t. would you buy a horse and buggy when everyone else is driving a
car ?
Support no matter how you deny that it has no relevance is just wishful thinking.
Like I said Amiga was 10 years ahead of Windows. It’s been dead for more than 10 years, and
it’s OS is STILL ahead of Windows, but you couldn’t get parts or software. It
failed because of the windows monopoly. People were still asking Amiga who
while it was dying.
Amiga had what these dual / quad processors are just now getting around to.
It’s video section is what the major video cards are now getting around to. It
was called Blitter, a chip where it’s only purpose was to handle graphics on an
amiga. It’s called GPU on the new cards. New being late 2008.
I’m guessing that Mac is also nearly as obscure. Only geek’s would have a clue
that there’s more choices than windows. Linux may be where Amiga was. I wouldn’t say no if a Mac were given to me. But it would only be used for my
graphics. Trying to find programs to ‘make it compatible’ with windows would be
a waste of time.

Your ignorance is total.

Uncalled for, but then, you’re a Mac-Head so it’s expected.

There is a tons of software available for the Mac for just about every purpose. This includes Microsoft Office for the Mac (which I have), tons of UNIX applications (run directly or via the X11 GUI), and so on. Code written for Linux can be ported to the Mac with little effort.

Yeah, PCs really lag in the software availability department.

I never said otherwise. You raised the false issue of s/w availability for Macs.

Further, using virtualization s/w such as VMWare Fusion a Mac can run both Mac OS X and Windows _simultaneously_ (without emulation). When I got the Mac I just moved a WinXP licence onto the Mac. This way my legacy s/w is protected (although over time I use that less and less … I don’t remember when I last used it). (With VMWare fusion I could just as easily run Linux in parallel with OS X … but that would be silly).

Heh, I had a bud who almost cried when Mac finally gave in and put in PC compatibility. Did you stamp your dainty feet and have another hissy-fit?

Your bud’s an idiot <pause>, perhaps that figures…. However, Mac did not go to "PC compatibility" it merely changed processors and compiled for it (though that was more complex than I make of it here). The reason being intel could deliver cooler chips on a shorter timeline than PowerPC.

Mac’s compatibility goal has nothing to do with PC – rather, it is certified to an open standard UNIX for data interchange. No other small computer system can claim that. Though some in the Linux community are aiming it there.

The only reason Macs remain 2nd choice (forget Linux, it’s way back there) is the perceived cost of ownership. The real cost of ownership is only marginally higher than a PC. But then you get more. For example in the "pricey" iMac you get a very high quality monitor that in the PC world would be an $800 add on.

Not to mention a machine that becomes useless when any component goes south. I just grab another out of the drawer and stick it in.

Haven’t had a problem to date. Raise false flags all you like. IAC, I have a 3 yr. Apple warranty on my Mac. By then I’ll likely move on to a new machine (typically every 3 years).

I don’t know why you raise Amiga. That is about a dead issue as anyone can raise. They may have had the wonder machine of the century – but they failed to deliver their market.

It was just a humorous reference. Their biggest sin was under-marketing the damn thing.

MS have made cash on their cows but have not innovated anything that’s caught people’s imaginations and generated buzz like Apple regularly do.

I’ve got news for you, reletively few people get all tingly over Mr. Job’s press conferences, I’d bet there’s far more people following the impending release of Win7 than whatever Mac came up with last.

What Mac came up with ‘last’ was Snow Leopard. This was mainly re-releasing much of the OS as 64 bit and implementing two system features: GCD and OpenCL. The prior to allow applications to ignore the intricacies of programming for multi-core processing (efficiently) and the other to use the graphic card as a co-processor (esp. for large data sets. I don’t know if or when Win7 will support this (I assume it will one day. IAC, the apps people (like Adobe PS CS5, perhaps) need to catch up to GCD and OpenCL.

MS: follow everyone into the game console market.

Yeah, everyone hates games…

MS: didn’t even notice the rising popularity of the www. And then followed with gusto and bully tactics against Netscape.
MS: follow Apple into the PDA market. (Zune)

At a much lower price, too. Maybe Apple will take the hint and lower theirs?

No. They are better at marketing and don’t lower prices when products remain hot.

MS: follow everyone into the server s/w market.
MS: create un-neededware (Silverfast comes to mind) where that need is over served already.
MS: followed Yahoo and Google into search with a heavy "MS and nothing else" search engine. They’re still in the basement of the league.

Bing will rule the world!!!

Sure, M$ did a *lot* of shady things in the past. Not my fault or yours. But, if they did nothing they wouldn’t be where they are.

I have nothing against MS. I just jumped ship when the Vista mess ocurred. There was no way I’d go through that mess.

MS: followers, never leaders or innovators.

As developers code to new OS features on the Mac such as GCD and OpenCL, the performance of Mac’s will leap.

Maybe. Reletively few will notice or care. You should be careful what you wish for, though. If more than a handful of tea-sippers become interested in the Mac the virii coders may notice and take the time to write one or two for you.

Read up on it. While a Mac is not immune, a properly configured system is, itself, immune from viruses – "accounts" on the system are not, but the damage is contained therein. Good backups and you’re set. Without the inane messiness of things like the registry, Mac OS X is much more robust than widows could pray to be. (Installing s/w on the Mac takes seconds – less to remove it).

OS X (similar to Lin(UNIX)) is designed in a compartmented way from the OS outwards whereas Windblows security is not by design but by endless buttressing.

IAC, on my Win machine I use Free-AVG and such would eventually be available for Mac’s as well – or worse case, $50/year (whatever) for Norton.

dvus wrote:

No big deal, Apple stole some of his songs and had to pay him a big chunk of change.

I just looked into that. Apple did not "steal" anything.

Eminem had a contract with a distributor. The distributor made the deal with Apple. The distributor and Apple had to settle with Eight Mile. who basically wanted more money from the iTunes model.

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:10:58 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

dvus wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:31:15 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:29:13 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

Your ignorance is total.

THIS is the way to win arguments, make friends and influence people!

No it’s a reaction to a totally ignorant remark.

That was sarcasm you raging imbecile.

And what do you think my reply was, clueless?

Yeah, I thought it was a little clueless.

(Actually, sorry to the clueless out there, Voivod isn’t up to your level).

I *knew* it! He’ll probably get better, though. You, on the other hand, are in a much higher clueless league than either he or I will ever be. You know your Big Macs, though, I’ll give you that.

The pair of you are pretty pathetic playing the 5th grade invert the label game. Consider moving out of Mom’s house lately?

Wow, "mom’s house" lames, how original…

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Without
the inane messiness of things like the registry, Mac OS X is much more robust than widows could pray to be.

From Terminal type: defaults read > x.txt

then more x.txt (or TextEdit it)

Holy Smoke!

But it ain’t a security issue.

John Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Without
the inane messiness of things like the registry, Mac OS X is much more robust than widows could pray to be.

From Terminal type: defaults read > x.txt

then more x.txt (or TextEdit it)

Holy Smoke!

But it ain’t a security issue.

Sheesh! What a monster! But at least in true UNIX fashion – one great big mother of a text file…

If you’ve ever tried to exorcise Internet Explorer from Windows and had to remove every related registry item, you’d have a great idea of what a horror the registry is…

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:54:14 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Without
the inane messiness of things like the registry, Mac OS X is much more robust than widows could pray to be.

From Terminal type: defaults read > x.txt

then more x.txt (or TextEdit it)

Holy Smoke!

But it ain’t a security issue.

Sheesh! What a monster! But at least in true UNIX fashion – one great big mother of a text file…

If you’ve ever tried to exorcise Internet Explorer from Windows and had to remove every related registry item, you’d have a great idea of what a horror the registry is…

True – same goes for the system resource fork on a Mac – is that monster still around?
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:54:14 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

John Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Without
the inane messiness of things like the registry, Mac OS X is much more robust than widows could pray to be.

From Terminal type: defaults read > x.txt

then more x.txt (or TextEdit it)

Holy Smoke!

But it ain’t a security issue.

Sheesh! What a monster! But at least in true UNIX fashion – one great big mother of a text file…

If you’ve ever tried to exorcise Internet Explorer from Windows and had to remove every related registry item, you’d have a great idea of what a horror the registry is…

True – same goes for the system resource fork on a Mac – is that monster still around?

I seem to recall reading about them recently. I don’t fully grok them, but from what I understand they are still there – at least for files per se. Not sure wrt to key OS files.

In article <1nhva09karb6m$>,
Mike Russell wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:54:14 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

If you’ve ever tried to exorcise Internet Explorer from Windows and had to remove every related registry item, you’d have a great idea of what a horror the registry is…

True – same goes for the system resource fork on a Mac – is that monster still around?

No. If you control-click on an application and take ‘Show Package Contents’ you will see that the resources are straightforward files.

Some things such as Adobe products do have an uninstall procedure (script) that purges the appropriate library files, and so-forth.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:57:10 -0400, "dvus"
wrote:

I was away without Usenet access for a few weeks (oh, the horror of it all! 🙂 ) so I just read this thread today. Started out interesting, but then descended into the usual Nikon vs. Canon back-and-forth.

My .02 is that I’d make sure I got win7 (it’s faster than Vista, and many new machines include a free upgrade path), get an I7 rig and not settle for less than an nVidia 9800 (which you can get reasonably with an additional Gig of video memory).

I just checked and it seems that the nVidia 9800 was released in early 2008. That’s multiple generations of video cards ago, and it’s not even listed in the "shopping online" section on this website: http://www.nvnews.net/ !

If you were buying a graphics card today for a system where you did a lot of Photoshop, what nVidia card would you get today? Is more video memory better or is a faster card better?

Or how about the newly announced AMD cards? From what I’ve read (and I’m no expert here) , they are more advanced than what AMD has.

Thanks, as always.

Father Kodak