Apple Mac Hates Me
<div class="IPBDescription">OS WARZ!!11one</div> So I'm sitting in college on one of those "Gee-Four" Apple InterMac contraptions, trying to listen to this big CD full of MP3's that I bought, when Itunes breaks... and DOESN'T EVER LOAD AGAIN. So I think, huh, ok.. and go to winamp to download winamp so that I might play the cd in winamp for great winamp... But then I realised that it's called WINamp, therefore won't actually WORK on Mac OS because Mac OS doesn't actually know what .exe files are...
For an operating system that's almost IDENTICAL to Windows in pretty much every way you use it, why would you go to the expense of making it so that noone could use the programs that they would normally use for windows without having to get the people who MADE the programs to recompile them??. IT R SILLY. This apple mac I'm using now is basicly a PC with Firefox, the DOC menu and no winamp. I even have a regular USB mouse with 3 buttons.
Everything else I want to do on the comp is done the same way. Photoshop runs identically, Flash runs identically, Freehand runs identically. Safari is basicly Firefox with a different name.
What I want to know is why everyones arguing that "OOOH! MAC IZ BETTAR FOR GRAPHIX DEZIGNEARS ANA ARTIEASTS" when Windows does everything IN THE EXACT SAME WAY as Mac OS? Maybe they're talking about the fact that the Mac OS looks a bit nicer, thus providing some creative inspiration or something. Wait, nevermind. You can get Mac OS Windows themes, and visa versa.
It's like... if you buy a Mac you're pretty much spending a huge amount of money to forfiet playing Half Life, Half life 2 and pretty much every other good game ever released in order to look at a pretty case and play with the Doc menu (Admittedly, the way you can get the icons to pop up when you put your mouse over them has kept some of the kids here entertained for HOURS.)
But imo, at the end of the day if you're buying a Mac because it looks nice or because you think it will help you make leet 4rtwork, you're gonna be pretty disappointed because it's just like a Windows machine.
For an operating system that's almost IDENTICAL to Windows in pretty much every way you use it, why would you go to the expense of making it so that noone could use the programs that they would normally use for windows without having to get the people who MADE the programs to recompile them??. IT R SILLY. This apple mac I'm using now is basicly a PC with Firefox, the DOC menu and no winamp. I even have a regular USB mouse with 3 buttons.
Everything else I want to do on the comp is done the same way. Photoshop runs identically, Flash runs identically, Freehand runs identically. Safari is basicly Firefox with a different name.
What I want to know is why everyones arguing that "OOOH! MAC IZ BETTAR FOR GRAPHIX DEZIGNEARS ANA ARTIEASTS" when Windows does everything IN THE EXACT SAME WAY as Mac OS? Maybe they're talking about the fact that the Mac OS looks a bit nicer, thus providing some creative inspiration or something. Wait, nevermind. You can get Mac OS Windows themes, and visa versa.
It's like... if you buy a Mac you're pretty much spending a huge amount of money to forfiet playing Half Life, Half life 2 and pretty much every other good game ever released in order to look at a pretty case and play with the Doc menu (Admittedly, the way you can get the icons to pop up when you put your mouse over them has kept some of the kids here entertained for HOURS.)
But imo, at the end of the day if you're buying a Mac because it looks nice or because you think it will help you make leet 4rtwork, you're gonna be pretty disappointed because it's just like a Windows machine.
Comments
Yes, Macs crash. The only difference is that you can't tell when it's going down. The whole thing just *blips* and is powered off. At least when an x86 (or x86-64) machine starts to crash, it normally starts to chug just enough to be a warning sign to save your work ASAP.
<img src='http://images.apple.com/macmini/images/designoptical20050111.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
I agree though, what the hell? Condolences.
The interface between an apple and a windows pc might look similar, but the hardware isn't. While the PC is based on a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing) cpu, a mac has a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) cpu structure which especially gives you an advantage when running graphical applications like photoshop or a 3d program. A RISC cpu has less in-build commands and always has to run every command completely, which can result in a faster processing of a command but might go slower when it comes to complex calculations. The CISC cpu has a couple of pre defined instruction sets which he can execute very fast (e.g. 3DNow in AMD cpu's), but it's lacking in processing speed of single commands.
And if you hope to imply that a 733MHz G4 (the last RISC Mac) has any hope of outperforming an Ath64, without comparing on an application specifically designed for Mac-only use, you need to wake up and smell the silicon.
Heck, my A64 3200+ still whups the tar out of the dual G5s during application use (no crashing, especially) as well as on rendering speed in Maya. Even moreso when you put high-end plugins into the pipeline. And Photoshop runs faster, especially when dealing with 4096^2 and larger images. Let's not forget that my machine cost approximately $3000-4000 less than a top-of-the-line G5, including the 2048x1536 21" monitor.
Still people say Mac sell because they look better than PCs...those people havent seen good case.
You also love Linux and QERadiant, you hippy communist nazi! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
this is merely to say macs doesnt suck as much as it used to. i still don't own one but hey.
You'll notice a lot of disturbing similarities, but the end result is 2 very capable OS's, buried under "user-friendly" shells.
I still find it easier to tweak my system settings on a mac, don't know how to do it on a PeeCee (I'm not talking control panel settings here, bub) :/ (It won't let me access the files, and then tries to scare me out of messing with them)
Right. No clue why iTunes crashed. What else were you doing, etc. etc. All computers have faulty software, faulty hardware is what really sucks.
For an operating system that's almost IDENTICAL to Windows in pretty much every way you use it, why would you go to the expense of making it so that noone could use the programs that they would normally use for windows without having to get the people who MADE the programs to recompile them??. I <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, for starters, because Mac never copied Windows. All (ok, most) of the copying has goine the other way around. And second, when was the last time you ran a non-recompiled MacOSX app on Windows? Unless you were emulating it using PearPC, the answer is "never".
that, and iam slow changing for stuff - took me long to change from IE to FireFox and from WMP to Winamp...
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Sure, but do you have any idea how hard that is? Look at the WINE project, for running windows apps on linux. Its been around for a very long time and it still doesn't have very good compatability. And thats for running windows apps on the same processor! Apple would have to do some serious work to get windows apps to run even moderatly well on OSX.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i just like being able to play my games, how are macs at the point these days?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Macs are actually pretty good for gaming. Unfortunatly not many developers bother to make Mac versions.
The problem with cross platform applications (windows apps on Mac) is not just limited to that. Its the same thing with any of the platforms to any other Linux, Mac, UNIX, widows... etc. And even in Linux some times there's compatibility problems between its flavors.
I really can't tell the difference between what a Mac processor can do and what a PC processor can do. I don't really believe those benchmarks that every one keeps throwing in each other's face... I mean their not even real life scenarios. Their just strait out of the box lets run stuff on them. What really matters is the applications that are available for me to use and also the speed I can get the work done with.
Btw if Firefox is any thing like safari I probably wouldn't use it... There are so many problems with Safari its not funny. I am always finding pages that don't render in it correctly, java applets that don't load correctly, etc.., IE on Mac even though it's a version or 2 behind still works a lot better than Safari
thats way more power than I have in my box right now... besides, you can plug any card into a mac, same as you would a pc. Unless you get an iMac or a minimac.
You also love Linux and QERadiant, you hippy communist nazi! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyone that honestly believes that hammer is better than radiant obviously hasn't used hammer. Within 10 minutes of using it you can do not just two times as much work, but a minimum of 5 to 10 times as much done. I could do entire intricate rooms in radiant in only two, three minutes. To do the same room in hammer took me half an hour- and it didn't even look as good because hammer's way of having you light is REALLY hard compared to Radiant's. And note that I learned everything on Hammer, and switched to a radiant lover with D3. Sad though that there aren't very many good radiant apps D:
BTW spacer, QERadiant, and GtkRadiant are different editors, similar, but Gtk is by far superior.
As for Linux, yes, I use Linux, I use Windows, and I use Mac OS X. I have used many versions of all of those OS's. From Windows 3.1, Redhat 5 and the Mac OS on the Apple 2 <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->, I don't even remember a version number <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Before OS X, I despised Macs, but honestly, I really like it now, I mainly use it for video editing, I have used Adobe Premiere on PC for that before, and I must say that Final Cut Pro 4 is a better peice of software, but that's my oppinion, as well as you know... lots of major movie studios.
As for Radiant, every person I know that has moved from Hammer to Radiant absolutly loved Radiant and is unwilling to switch back, the only reson any of them use it is for Source mapping anyway.
BTW...
<!--QuoteBegin-Fixed+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fixed)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyone that honestly believes that hammer is better than radiant obviously hasn't used <b>Radiant</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It scared me.
I could never figure out how the hell you were supposed to delete brushes. There was no menu item for it, no toolbar, and the 'del' key wasn't it either...
I guess I'll try it again if GTKRadiant ever gets HL2 support...