Is this computer any good for CS4?
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
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
  |
  |
> 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" <pburdett@optusnet.com.au>
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:
>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.
| |
|
<keepout@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:2dohb593ledbdu1sgg06db28d1s2tu6p7h@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:54:25 +1000, "Paul Burdett"
<pburdett@optusnet.com.au>
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?
news:2dohb593ledbdu1sgg06db28d1s2tu6p7h@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:54:25 +1000, "Paul Burdett"
<pburdett@optusnet.com.au>
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" <kilbyfan@aol.com> wrote:
>
><keepout@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:2dohb593ledbdu1sgg06db28d1s2tu6p7h@4ax.com...
>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:54:25 +1000, "Paul Burdett"
><pburdett@optusnet.com.au>
>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.
>
><keepout@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:2dohb593ledbdu1sgg06db28d1s2tu6p7h@4ax.com...
>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:54:25 +1000, "Paul Burdett"
><pburdett@optusnet.com.au>
>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
<keepout@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:n4rib5t7vak0pc7cu7rcd5m5eeg3l0rgnk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:59:46 -0700, "just bob" <kilbyfan@aol.com> wrote:
>
><keepout@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:2dohb593ledbdu1sgg06db28d1s2tu6p7h@4ax.com...
>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:54:25 +1000, "Paul Burdett"
><pburdett@optusnet.com.au>
>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.
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
<keepout@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:n4rib5t7vak0pc7cu7rcd5m5eeg3l0rgnk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:59:46 -0700, "just bob" <kilbyfan@aol.com> wrote:
>
><keepout@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:2dohb593ledbdu1sgg06db28d1s2tu6p7h@4ax.com...
>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:54:25 +1000, "Paul Burdett"
><pburdett@optusnet.com.au>
>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.
> 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
> 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 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:
>> 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 $1600 mark.
>>>> I'll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
>>>> Paul
>>> Mac - G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7
>>> microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel
>>> processing.
>>>
>>> To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD)
>>> that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it - and I
>>> suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.
>>>
>>> The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the
>>> hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to
>>> manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.
>>>
>>> i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.
>>
>> 64 bit no workee
>
> Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.
Sure - the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.
> And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.
It does, but it's not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year
or more, on windows.
> (A G5 is way over his budget however).
His budget, and a lot of other folks'.
I'm not seeing any advantages here.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
| |
|
"Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
> 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$2000), but would rather
spend more now than get a cheaper system and have to upgrade in 12 months.
Your advice is appreciated.
Cheers,
Paul
news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
> 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 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 $1600 mark.
>>>>> I'll look into the Windows 7 OS as well.
>>>>> Paul
>>>> Mac - G5 supports 1 or 2 Quad core Xeon Nehalem (same i7
>>>> microarchitecture) for 8 to 16 simultaneous threads. Real parallel
>>>> processing.
>>>>
>>>> To support that Mac OS X 10.6 has a multithread dispatching scheme (GCD)
>>>> that will blow Windows out of the water as apps catch up to it - and I
>>>> suspect PS CS5 will for complex image editing.
>>>>
>>>> The whole notion of GCD is take parallel processing details out of the
>>>> hands of apps developers and simply drop their tasks/threads to GCD to
>>>> manage which core executes what. This means balanced/loaded processing.
>>>>
>>>> i7 under Windows 7 sounds promising, but Mac is where it will be at.
>>> 64 bit no workee
>> Mac OS X 10.6 64 bit workee.
>
> Sure - the OS supports 64 bits, but not Photoshop.
>
>> And CS5 definitely workee 64 bit.
>
> It does, but it's not released yet. 64 bit CS4 was released a full year
> or more, on windows.
>
>> (A G5 is way over his budget however).
>
> His budget, and a lot of other folks'.
>
> I'm not seeing any advantages here.
Oh, you can start with an iMac. That gives you the high quality display
(where if you buy a Dell or other package the display is crud (why
they're cheaper).
The point is Windows blows. There a platform blast.
| |
|
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:40:32 +1000, Paul Burdett wrote:
> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
> news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>> 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 $190
to upgrade to CS4.
There was a little confusion with ordering the right version of Vista (a
white box version of Vista Pro included just the 32 bit version, and I got
the wrong mobo initially). After this was straightened out, the upgrade
went smoothly, with no bad components or other issues.
It's a nice solid system that runs much faster, of course than my old one.
It's not a screamer, but is a very solid development system that is up 24/7
for almost a year few or no crashes. There is still some significant
growth available with this system, including a better graphics card, a few
more slots, and a RAID array if I want to get more disk performance.
If I were doing this again, I'd probably go for a more upgradeable
motherboard - the one I got will only take 8GB.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
> news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>> 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" <pburdett@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4ac07681$0$1783$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
> news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>> 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
news:4ac07681$0$1783$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
> news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>> 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" <pburdett@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4ac07681$0$1783$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
>> news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>>> 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.
> "Paul Burdett" <pburdett@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4ac07681$0$1783$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
>> news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>>> 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
> 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" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:uPidnW3Vco0LuVzXnZ2dnUVZ_o5i4p2d@giganews.com...
> dvus wrote:
>> "Paul Burdett" <pburdett@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4ac07681$0$1783$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
>>> news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>>>> 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
news:uPidnW3Vco0LuVzXnZ2dnUVZ_o5i4p2d@giganews.com...
> dvus wrote:
>> "Paul Burdett" <pburdett@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4ac07681$0$1783$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
>>> news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>>>> 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" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
news:gp5ukehf69es.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
> 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
news:gp5ukehf69es.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
> 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" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:uPidnW3Vco0LuVzXnZ2dnUVZ_o5i4p2d@giganews.com...
>> dvus wrote:
>>> "Paul Burdett" <pburdett@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4ac07681$0$1783$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>>>>> 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.
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:uPidnW3Vco0LuVzXnZ2dnUVZ_o5i4p2d@giganews.com...
>> dvus wrote:
>>> "Paul Burdett" <pburdett@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4ac07681$0$1783$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>>>>> 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
<groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> 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.
<groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> 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 <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
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/
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" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:AoGdnRW2lL522VzXnZ2dnUVZ_oNi4p2d@giganews.com...
> dvus wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:uPidnW3Vco0LuVzXnZ2dnUVZ_o5i4p2d@giganews.com...
>>> dvus wrote:
>>>> "Paul Burdett" <pburdett@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:4ac07681$0$1783$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>>>>>> 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
news:AoGdnRW2lL522VzXnZ2dnUVZ_oNi4p2d@giganews.com...
> dvus wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:uPidnW3Vco0LuVzXnZ2dnUVZ_o5i4p2d@giganews.com...
>>> dvus wrote:
>>>> "Paul Burdett" <pburdett@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:4ac07681$0$1783$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:tohoxuki5h6p$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>>>>>> 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
| |
|
keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:06:31 -0700, Mike Russell
> <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> 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.
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:06:31 -0700, Mike Russell
> <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> 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 <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
> 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...
> On Sep 27, 8:34 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
> 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" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:ntadnfnUicUIE1_XnZ2dnUVZ_oti4p2d@giganews.com...
> toby wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 8:34 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
>> 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
news:ntadnfnUicUIE1_XnZ2dnUVZ_oti4p2d@giganews.com...
> toby wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 8:34 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
>> 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" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:ntadnfnUicUIE1_XnZ2dnUVZ_oti4p2d@giganews.com...
>> toby wrote:
>>> On Sep 27, 8:34 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
>>> 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" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:ntadnfnUicUIE1_XnZ2dnUVZ_oti4p2d@giganews.com...
>> toby wrote:
>>> On Sep 27, 8:34 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
>>> 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" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:QdednXqa1ZuiSF7XnZ2dnUVZ_oNi4p2d@giganews.com...
> dvus wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ntadnfnUicUIE1_XnZ2dnUVZ_oti4p2d@giganews.com...
>>> toby wrote:
>>>> On Sep 27, 8:34 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
>>>> 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
news:QdednXqa1ZuiSF7XnZ2dnUVZ_oNi4p2d@giganews.com...
> dvus wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ntadnfnUicUIE1_XnZ2dnUVZ_oti4p2d@giganews.com...
>>> toby wrote:
>>>> On Sep 27, 8:34 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
>>>> 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, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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.
> ...
> ...
> 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" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:bc09ef8e-987d-4660-83fb-bfaca3b2ebcb@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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
news:bc09ef8e-987d-4660-83fb-bfaca3b2ebcb@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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 <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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..
>On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> news:bc09ef8e-987d-4660-83fb-bfaca3b2ebcb@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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.)).
> "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
> news:bc09ef8e-987d-4660-83fb-bfaca3b2ebcb@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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.)).
| |
|
keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:19:35 -0700 (PDT), toby <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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).
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:19:35 -0700 (PDT), toby <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:qq6dnUC0hKBL8lvXnZ2dnUVZ_jVi4p2d@giganews.com...
> keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:19:35 -0700 (PDT), toby <toby@telegraphics.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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
news:qq6dnUC0hKBL8lvXnZ2dnUVZ_jVi4p2d@giganews.com...
> keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:19:35 -0700 (PDT), toby <toby@telegraphics.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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" <doug@dvenator.com.invalid> 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.
>>> 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" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> "toby" <t...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:bc09ef8e-987d-4660-83fb-bfaca3b2ebcb@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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
> "toby" <t...@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:bc09ef8e-987d-4660-83fb-bfaca3b2ebcb@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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 <toby@telegraphics.com.au>
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.
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" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:qq6dnUC0hKBL8lvXnZ2dnUVZ_jVi4p2d@giganews.com...
>> keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:19:35 -0700 (PDT), toby
>>> <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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.
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:qq6dnUC0hKBL8lvXnZ2dnUVZ_jVi4p2d@giganews.com...
>> keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:19:35 -0700 (PDT), toby
>>> <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, keep...@yahoo.com.invalid 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.
| |
|
keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 21:45:45 -0400, "dvus" <doug@dvenator.com.invalid> 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 Sat, 3 Oct 2009 21:45:45 -0400, "dvus" <doug@dvenator.com.invalid> 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
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> scribbled:
>Your ignorance is total.
THIS is the way to win arguments, make friends and influence people!
BRAVO!
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> 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 <toby@telegraphics.com.au> 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.
>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.
| Pages (2): [1 2 › »] | |
| Previous Topic: | Combining Two Scanned Photos |
| Next Topic: | How to stitch .mov files FAST??? |
Discuss everything about Adobe Photoshop. Advanced techniques and helpful tricks.