?

Log in

Mac vs PC [entries|friends|calendar]
Mac vs. PC

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

(but look at this benchmark)

DISCUSSING MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA [14 Dec 2006|05:18pm]

ben_murphy
[ mood | annoyed ]

Did Microsoft rip off Mac OSX?
Are the similarities only superficial?
Did both Mac and Microsoft rip off Linux Distros?

Read infuriating/justifying arguments in nytimes here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/technology/14pogue.html

Read more...Collapse )

(but look at this benchmark)

[14 May 2006|10:49pm]

liquidmoonlight
Dear Mac Savvy,

I am currently trying to copy a flash file from my friends site for personal use. She has agree so please don't yell at me about the legit use of copying. I am aware.

Problem is, I am a simpleton is the eyes of flash. I had software on my old pc (no yelling, it has been properly disposed of with crushing of a hammer, a la this scene

The software enabled me to copy flash from a site and edit it in flash to the look i desired.

Does anyone know of a SIMPLE flash copying software for mac. I've scowered the net far and beyond and I need something simple. If you have suggestions, I will be your slave.

Thanks!

(but look at this benchmark)

iChat (or something like it) for Windows? [13 May 2006|10:40pm]

callthisclarity
Does anyone know of any program for Windows that is like iChat? Specifically, I'm looking for a program that allows the screennames (in chat windows) to be replaced by your buddy icon, like in iChat. OR, does anyone know a way to get Trillian or AIM to do this? I've tried looking around on Trillian but I'm not that savvy...

(4 benchmarks | but look at this benchmark)

PCIe? [27 Sep 2005|02:04pm]

ben_murphy
Does anyone know if Apple has already moved to PCI-express or not? They're starting to lag behind (more than before) with this latest jump in hardware. They have the 64-bit thing down (after 10.3), but Intel and AMD already have dual core systems out (that is two processing cores in a single chip) already. I know at least of one Opteron setup that allows the user to have two dual core chips running at once (that = 4 processors and a max of 16GB of ram to access). I would think that PCIe & dual core would be of real interest to the graphics techies that use Mac. Furthermore, the 4 processors would really allow Apple to multitask like never before (one area where x86 architecture has beat it consistently.)

(but look at this benchmark)

a new debate [25 Sep 2005|01:45am]

ben_murphy
As someone recently hit by Rita: a PC could protect you from a hurricane better than a Mac. Discuss.

Follow up. Apple's new desktop is rated to H3, meaning that it runs fater than a category 3 hurricane. Discuss.

(11 benchmarks | but look at this benchmark)

One button mice suck! [19 Sep 2005|07:50pm]

kakaze
[ mood | naughty ]

Discuss

;-)

(5 benchmarks | but look at this benchmark)

Windows 2000, the great leveler? [19 Sep 2005|06:22pm]

ben_murphy
Okay now to get some blood boiling... It has been asserted by some that Windows 2000 was the Windows update that resolved the big stability gap between PCs and Macs. I put forward this hypothesis: Windows 95/98/Me was not quite as unstable as we all thought. It just appeared that way because while Windows machines had to deal with 1000s of software titles and drivers, Mac OS 8/9 on average only had to deal with about 30 available titles (i.e. Adobe product lines, Quark, Clarisworks and those 3 Macsoft games.) Certainly Windows 2000 demonstrated a huge jump in stability, but would OS 8 or 9 have been just as unstable as 95/98/Me if its use was as widespread?

(7 benchmarks | but look at this benchmark)

Windows 95 released. x86 computers now Macs [01 Aug 1995|05:42pm]

ben_murphy
If you're a younger livejournaler, you may not remember the rucous caused by Windows '95. Now that we have a new OS update every other year, it's hard to see why one would be such a big deal. Windows 95 turned out to be a joy for some, but infuriating for others. There was a comic from the era that displayed an IT guy throwing out a PC saying that the Windows 95 name meant that you had to throw the company's 95 computers out the Window. Okay, so there was some integration issues. A new file system made some previously comfortable functions a bit of a headache. Things were working just fine weren't they? Well, yes and no. 95 gave us the native Windows format. We no longer had to start in DOS (a line code operating system). Networking was supposedly easier. And, most important 32-bit applications. Also, Windows 95 was the first version of Windows... well NT if you want to get really technical, but whatever... that effectively made x86 machines look like Macs. If you notice today, Windows is basically a backwards version of Mac OS. The start menu is the apple menu, the start bar at the bottom is the apple menu on the top. The three buttons at the corner are the same for each machine but on opposite sides. Some Mac people felt violated by this, but sorry. Computer makers copy each other constantly.

(3 benchmarks | but look at this benchmark)

iMac determined to be "cute", sir [01 May 1998|04:09pm]

ben_murphy
May 1998, Apple decides to revive itself with the introduction of the G3 iMac. Aside from being "cute" the G3 iMac effectively put Apple back on the consumer PC map. Prior to the release of the iMac, Apple was on a steady downward spiral towards obscurity with machines that appealed only to graphics specialists. Steve Jobs, the real genius and marketeer of Apple, knew that Apple's re-entry into the consumer market would be difficult. Apple needed a machine that could not only perform, but also place itself above the Windows machines that were building the internet. Meet iMac,

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Easier to use than Windows 3.11 machines for sure... Windows 95/98 machines were just as easy to use (face it, they were Mac OS clones, how could they be any harder to use?) but had serious stability issues. The all-in-one presentation also saved the consumer the headache of all the cables from speakers and monitors, etc. Techies were not happy with the all-in-one deal, but that wasn't Apple's target audience. Why would you put your entire computer in your monitor? What if the monitor goes bad? You have to replace the whole computer then?

Luckily Apple also took special care of making sure that the components of the iMac would last. OS 8 was solid and OS 9 soon followed suit. However, despite being a work of art both outside and inside, consumers could not get over the sticker shock. Furthermore, the time for the iMac revolution would have been a year or two earlier. If Apple had developed its new consumer hardware/software reachout in lockstep with the internet revolution the story of the PC wars could have been very different. As it happened, IT professionals were more used to x86 machines and Windows. Even today, although both are fairly simple to use, I still find it easier to set up a network with a Windows machine than with an OS X machine simply because I've dealt with networking on Windows more often.

Still, hats off to you, iMac. You were revolutionary in your own right. With a little more work, you could have been the ultimate light-user web machine. You had a brilliant OS, solid hardware, and let's face it, iMac, you were adorable.

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]