[golden child]

that is not entirely true, yes computers are complex machines running complex software that are a set of complex instructions telling the computer what to do.

BUT

these complex instuctions are completly different from system to system, given yes that the end result is very similar. also in the pre-intel macs there was an entirely different processor architechture thus taking different sets of instructions in different manners and processing them in different ways.

[alyasa]

But for the end-user, this is a moot point, it will not be a consideration when they make a purchase. It will be purely academic when the consumer has to make his decision. And there has been research that the actual performance of the different architechture is not very dissimilar, though of course the Mac is slanted toward graphical prowess. And also basically pre-intel Macs that ran OS X were running UNIX, which is also available on PCs; though it is not the default OS, of course...

[val-holla-ing]

Originally Posted by golden child

its also not hard to get fucked in the ass by a pc.

heh heh. pc's are gay.

[alyasa]

I am the one who voted for choice 4.

[HaydenAsche]

Originally Posted by Saturnine

SY uses macs so i guess it would be only cool to vote for them.

*cough* cock-stroking *cough*

[golden child]

os x isnt pure unix but unix based, there are alot of similarities but also alot of differences

but yes it is way more similar to linux/unix based systems then say windows and the closest you can get to os x on a PC would be a bsd/unix system.

[alyasa]

Would you happen to know what exactly are the differences between OS X and UNIX? Besides the user interface of course... I think its very much UNIX isn't it? I mean its file structure and the runnable commands are basically UNIX, right? Right?

[atari 2600]

Originally Posted by Saturnine

SY uses macs so i guess it would be only cool to vote for them.

Originally Posted by HaydenAsche

*cough* cock-stroking *cough*

I thought it was a good statement to make to help diffuse the tension, but I must spead rep pts around before giving them to Saturnine again.

[Neongod]

Just a clarification from a CompSci guy...just because you run Linux doesn't mean you're independent. If your computer was meant to run a Win box originally, you are a PC user regardless of your operating system. Same with Linux on a Mac. You're a Mac user. Linux is not a hardware implementation. Unless you're on a SPARC, RISC, etc.. you are either choice 1 or 2.

[golden child]

windows isnt a hardware implementation either, its an OS. the hardware companies are seperate entities entirely

[next step]

Originally Posted by alyasa

Would you happen to know what exactly are the differences between OS X and UNIX? Besides the user interface of course... I think its very much UNIX isn't it? I mean its file structure and the runnable commands are basically UNIX, right? Right?

yes. under any Windows there is DOS with all its commands.
under any OS for Mac and Linux there is UNIX.
Into Sun platforms there is OS Solaris and it based on UNIX too. A good reason there could be I think!

The mainly different is that UNIX is more solid then DOS cause Bill stolen this programs to a friend and it never worked well from the beginning cause they sucks.

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

i hate macs, why do they only have one fucking mouse button? why can't you maximize things to fill the whole screen, why isn't there an equivalent to the bar at the bottom of the screen on windows where you can flick between all the different things you've got running. also, apple adverts are dreadful.

because there is a better way to do it called expose - and is customizable... who wants to waist screen space with a task bar even when you can hide it on windoze it doesn't hide it properly

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

har har. the hispano-suiza was a beautiful car. look at how many of them are on the road right now.

--
ps tom, you can get a mac w/ 2 button mouse, but it will cost you $200 extra

price is only for proprietary components not after market, any usb two button mouse will work on a mac, any usb keyboard will also work

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by alyasa

In the first place computers are complex machines, runnning complex pieces of software, which are basically complex mathematical equations instructing the computer what to do... The only difference between PCs and Macs is the interface which the end-user(read: you) uses to interact with the computer and politely request it to do stuff for you. There is no fundamental difference between PCs and Macs with regards to my first paragraph. Therefore the major difference is how someone interacts with the computer. Last time, when PCs used DOS and the command prompt, the ease of use factor was obviously slanted towards Macs, now that PCs have ripped off the Mac GUI for Windows XP, there isn't much of a difference anymore. Another difference is that, as I mentioned before, Macs are built from the ground up to be things of beauty that are meant to be appreciated and valued, wherehas PCs have none of this sort of consideration, being primarily used in staid, boring offices, where the only creative expression is the boss wearing a polka-dot tie(shock!). And UNIX can be run on both PCs and Macs, and now Macs are using Intel chips. So...

if you jump into learning command prompt in mac it opens up even more power than is available in the gui, and if you used linux you will pick this up real quick. i use my machine for pro audio work (g4 pb) both location and as portable studio gear when i record live gigs and have never once had it crash. i can get up to 52 channels on audio recording simultaneously and barely even have a glitch (using digital performer 4.5), i would never trust and pc based software to function this well. protools sucks ass... for audio on pc i would use cubase over protools but pryamix is killer on a pc machine and very very reliable. both are now equivalent when you go into the highend side of pc hardware and run a stable os nothing less than XP or a good linux distro (obviously limited software for the latter) there is no argument really, osx is more intuitive and faster to negotiate menus etc than xp but both are good. it all comes down to PERSONAL CHOICE !!!!!!!

[Tokolosh]

Well said terminal.
Quote (I would never trust and pc based software to function this well)

I use my mac G4 duel processor for editing video material using Final cut pro and it has never crashed on me since I bought it in 2002.
I tried using Adobe premiere on a PC in the past and it was a nightmare!
But it all boils down to personal choice

[RdTv]

In the spirit of another thread here we go:

Mac's look right, work right, and are doing it for the right reasons, namely quality. The same cannot be said or achieved by the majority of the pc shiteboxes out there.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by alyasa

now that PCs have ripped off the Mac GUI for Windows XP,

pardon me, but that's a myth and a load of crap. since you're into the subject though i thought i'd offer a friendly clarification- mac actually ripped off XEROX in the first place. the GUI is not apple's invention.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Tokolosh

I use my mac G4 duel processor for editing video material using Final cut pro and it has never crashed on me since I bought it in 2002.
I tried using Adobe premiere on a PC in the past and it was a nightmare!
But it all boils down to personal choice

it's because it's a specific software written for a specific hardware. you cannot compare.

try using AVID on a PC with qualified hardware and you'll find the same-- much better than final crap pro actually.

[alyasa]

But would Microsoft have considered Windows if Steve Jobs et. al had not successfully implemented the use of a GUI for the personal computer? And now with the evolution of OS X, it's clear that Apple has certainly put a lot of thought and care into the design and construction of a GUI. It simply is a highly advanced user interface, which when compared to PCs; makes Windows look like a Commodore 64. Which, of course, still has its own appeal and charm. But thanks for the little bit of information. I was not aware of XEROX's contribution to the field of graphical user interfaces.

[!@#$%!]

oh yeah check it out. it's all here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft

an excerpt:

Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright, and that each individual element of the interface (such as the existence of windows on the screen, the fact that they are rectangular, the fact that they are resizable, the fact that they overlap, and the fact that they have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together. After long argument, the judge insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple came up with a list of 189 GUI elements; the judge decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement, and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightable—either they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea.
In an odd twist midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invested in Apple and had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed because the three year statue of limitations had passed (i.e. Xerox waited too long to file suit.)