The fact that I can run Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, and Illustrator at the same time makes ME feel like it's more optimized. I can also run Firefox with 15-20 tabs open at all times, plus my mail client, my FTP client, some utility apps, a chat program, etc. All at the same time. Never even a slight hesitation in performance of any kind. I can barely run DW and PS together on my PC.
I LIKE PCs. Like the majority of us here, I make my money ON and WITH PCs. For my network administration stuff, I use an IBM ThinkPad running Vista. I even defend Vista. I don't have a fraction of the problems the masses like to report. It's a decent OS, in MY opinion. BUT, I enjoy the Mac experience a great deal more. Physics aside, yes, I do think the Mac "moves 1s and 0s" around faster. If you want me to say it, I'll say it. I PREFER the Mac experience to my Windows experience because of it's performance. How is my defense of Macs, saying their optimized, less accurate than the statement that they're simply generic white boxes? And I didn't realize Mac was the only OS burdened with updates. I could have sworn I've had to run updates on my PC once or twice in the past. On Dec 18, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Ken Schaefer wrote: > OK – let’s get back to basics here. Unless you believe in the Jobs > RDF, then Macs still obey basic laws of physics. They don’t move 1s > and 0s around any faster than other electronic devices. They use the > same graphics cards, hard drives, memory, LCD displays, CPUs and > chipsets and so on that are available in every other brand. The > design might be good, but I don’t see what they have over similarly > priced competitors (even Dell’s getting into decently looking > hardware these days). > > So, please explain, in some more detail, what exactly you find > “optimised”? I have two Macs here at home (just for my own use), and > plenty of others I come into contact with. I can’t say I’ve seen > anything spectacular about them (except that I need to install 100MB > of updates each month). > > There’s one thing to say “I prefer the way the OS works – it suits > the way I think”. It’s another thing to say that an OS magically > gets more Hz out of a CPU... > > Cheers > Ken > > From: Eric Brouwer [mailto:er...@forestpost.com] > Sent: Friday, 19 December 2008 12:16 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: OT - Anyone VM a Mac Leopard OS on a PC? > > I was a COMPLETE anti-Mac zealot up to June of this year. Then I > was forced to work on them at my new job. Now I'm begging for one > of my own. I admit, there still seems to be a lot of voodoo and > black magic going on in the Macs, but they run amazingly well. I > can run far more apps with better response on a Mac of "lesser" raw > tech specs than I can on any PC. > > Granted, I can't speak about the mac performance vs. a *nix based > computer as I don't have the experience. Also, my experience with > Macs is their G5 and Power Books, not the Macbook, mini, nor iMac. > Far more expensive, to be sure, but a much better all around > experience for me. > > So yes, in my experience, the Macs are very optimized IMHO. They > just seem much more dialed in out of the box. > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Ken Schaefer wrote: > > > Huh? I haven’t noticed anything particularly optimised about the two > Macs (one Macbook and one Mac Mini) I have at home, that I can’t get > in other brands... > > Cheers > Ken > > From: Eric Brouwer [mailto:er...@forestpost.com] > Sent: Thursday, 18 December 2008 5:02 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: OT - Anyone VM a Mac Leopard OS on a PC? > > Agreed. Apple's are FAR from generic white boxes. They are HIGHLY > optimized, extremely efficient architectures. > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Jonathan Link wrote: > > > > It's not whitebox, it's branded, that brand is Apple. When I > purched my MBPro, I spec'ed similary equipped notebooks from HP, > Dell and Lenovo. Apple was more expensive than some, less than > others, and I had the option of running a true UNIX as was mentioned > earlier. > > Apple is a Tier 1 manufacturer just as HP, Dell and Lenovo are. > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM, <michael.le...@pha.phila.gov> wrote: > > "Joseph L. Casale" <jcas...@activenetwerx.com> wrote on 12/17/2008 > 11:13:17 AM: > > > > >Yes, but Apple is all about total control - if you limit the OS to > > only running hardware you produce, then you absolutely know that it > > is *guaranteed* to work with any hardware your customer owns, and > > > you can spend your software time and resources in other directions, > > rather than finding ways to make it run on any hardware ever > > invented (which is part of MS's problem). > > > > > >That's the theory, as I see it, anyway. > > > This was exactly my point in the old justification towards the > > expense of the platform. > Sorry; I haven't been following the whole thread ... > > > Now its whitebox intel run-of-the mill stuff? Does this _still_ > apply? > It does if they say so. :-) > > > > > > > > > Eric Brouwer > IT Manager > www.forestpost.com > er...@forestpost.com > 248.855.4333 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric Brouwer IT Manager www.forestpost.com er...@forestpost.com 248.855.4333 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
