[J-D Leon]

ok.
my point is. why the hack soo many people use apple computer for graphic creation. make no sense to me. is 1G G4 really better than 2.0 P-4?

forget about the hardware, it doesn't matter anymore.

what about software?
is adobe burn to be the ultimate graphics software? nooo
is corel burn to be the ultimate graphics software? nooo

i am sick of apple and adobe!!!
always apple and adobeeeee.

please. dont metion apple or adobe when u talk about designing or creating.

what about COREL!!! they aren't that bad. and the version 11 CorelDraw graphics suite 11 will kick those old adobe programers' hair @sses. talk about lack of inovation.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nf/20020614/tc_nf/18228

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: JD Leon ]

[zak]

apparently the hardware works together much more efficiently, than pc parts, because there is a much larger range of different components for different parts for pc, and some do not work as well together. however we do not get that in mac, because apparently they have a smaller range. dont quote me. thats what someone told me, and that mite not be right. please correct me if im wrong

[hans_e]

hmmmm... interesting.....

macs (at least the experiences that I've had) seem more reliable and less finiky. And I was taught to use several Adobe products at school, so I have more knowlege of the ins and outs of the progs. However, I think its important in any realm of Digi-art to learn as many programs as possible because they all bring good things to the table.

I don't seem why anyone would/could complain about different peoples prefrenses. If you see a thread about how the new PS rocks (eh, i have mixed feeling about that statement... but anyhow) then don't read it. But if its your cup of tea or whatever, by all means go ahead. Maybe the other progs need to be talked about more on here.... maybe you should start that up?? eh, whatever

Start the digital revolution, but don't bash other users' style

[Gort]

Software...hmmm...ok...
I hate to say it, but the most popular, numero uno, industry standard image editing is by the "mud walled structure" developers. Some folks actually use Paint Shop Pro by Jasec, and Corel does have some really nice stuff as well (Photo Paint, Painter). If you can use any of those and get the job done other than the "mud walled structure" products, then go for it, man!

In defense of stability and performance in the Wintel environment:

There was a time long ago when Windows just plain out sucked, but when Windows NT came along, things started to change. Win2k Pro (and XP Pro for that matter) are extremely stable. I've been using Win2K Pro since it hit the market, and I am amused at hearing people talk about "frequent crashes". I can honestly sit here and type that I have never had a total system crash under Win2K Pro; I've had applications crash but they were localized to the application - not the OS.

So with the introduction of a reliable stabile WinOS over the last several years, the graphic chip makers have ran with the cries from developers all around; the result was fast and powerful chipsets for "non-fruit platform" graphics boards, and the competitive element between chip makers has done nothing more than bring this all down to a level of affordability. So the "non-fruit platform" in essense can perform as well as a "fruit platform", graphically speaking.

I am going to refrain from saying which is better, because then the Super Flame Thread will start. It all boils down to you and your preference, how much you're willing to spend, your comfort, etc. etc etc. I personally have used both and can effectively do my job - it doesn't matter, but the majority of my development at the workplace is Win2K; I work for an ASP that specializes in Active Server Page and .net development; in order to streamline productivty, our "non-fruit platforms" and their network connectivities are all on the same flow. The "fruit platform" is used as finally for control testing, cross-platform compatability.

I hope I effectively refrained from directly mentioning any unwanted words or labels here...

[Frog]

Some sensible replies there but who needs another tedious platform/software war?

They're all pretty good, and when you're looking at someone's artwork bet you can't tell which software suite or platform it was created on, so who cares? There are better things to discuss, posting this sort of question is just flamebait and timewasting.

[Gort]

You're right, Frog - who needs it? In all it really doesn't matter how fancy or whizbang your platform is (well it does have to adhere to some specifications). I for one never, ever consider the actual platform when I see really cool stuff - I think more about how that cool stuff was perhaps accomplished and by using what software.

[Tom Luth]

They are just tools. Use what works for you. Or what your client/boss wants you to use. Yeah, I'm a Mac/Adobe guy, but it doesn't pay to have an attitude about it. If a house is set-up with NT stations, then that is what I'm going to use. I see adds that want people skilled in 3D Studio Max; if I want that job I either learn the software, or look elsewhere, rather than try to sell them on Electric Image.

This pre-dates computers. Back in school there were people who were convinced any art created in acrylics were inferior to any work in oil, and likewise people who believed that oil painters lived in the stone age. Again, use what works for you.

[HawkOne]

The history of Computers for Artwork

Before 1995 PCs used to suck for use in graphics, Macs sucked too, but they sucked slightly less, mostly because Windows NT4 didn't come out until '96 and all Microsoft had to offer creative professionals was Windows 95 which we all know may have looked pretty on the surface, but was rotten to the core underneath (as was, and still is, Win98 and WinMe).

Macs dominated in the graphics area because they were the pioneers since this whole DTP thing exploded in the early to mid 80s which positioned them in the driving seat in the CG arena. They had machines that were superior with displaying/manipulating graphics and effective color management, and to a certain extent also multimedia in general. In the good old days Amigas for graphics and Ataris for sound, kicked Apple & Microsoft butt in most areas except in the crucial area of marketing, which is why they pretty much disappeared although they had superior products for a couple of years.

Apple stayed in the driving seat in the graphics field until early to mid 90s, when users started to realize that the Macs and PCs could do the same stuff, crashed at about the same frequency (every 30 minutes or so ), but the PCs (and spare parts) cost only half as much, and that included the monitor .

When the rock solid Windows NT4 came out (in '96), with it's superior memory management and multitasking (amongst other things) followed by Intels new Pentiums, Pros/Xeons if you liked multiprocessor CPUs, no wonder Apple started to shake in it's foundations. Apple remained shaking until Bill Gates for some mysterious reason dumped 500$ million into Apples account. Apple soon after announced the hugely popular (and cute) iMac line, and soon after the equally popular (and gorgeous) G3s. When Apple introduced the G4 and later announced the imminent appearance of OSX (which was rumored in development in various forms since '92 or something like that) in late '99, which is basically Linux with a pretty face, hope came back to apple in a B-I-G way.

In The Lords Year 2000, 4 years after WinNT4, Apple boasts having a stable OS with multiple processor support, multitasking and stable memory management. It took another 2 more years for the majority of professional applications to appear for OSX, Macromedia Director is STILL not available for OSX ... !!!

The whole "OS-userinterfacething" has been a mute point for quite some time too, since a Windows OS is actually hugely customizable, even the trusty WinNT, and even though it has not been a favourite of Microsoft until recently, software such as ObjectDesktop from StarDock, Litestep, Aston, Talisman, HoverDesk and NeXTStart has been around for users who were not happy with the limitations of Themes introduced with Windows95. Have a look at this link, and follow some of the links to more info if you're interested ... If you really wanted to, you could make Windows look and act completeley like any MacOS, including OSX ...Windows Customization 2002 - A Primer You should really check this stuff out, some of the userinterfaces are really fantastic looking.

Now if only Motorola (or AMD!?!) will come out with their 2.5Ghz G5 processor, then we would be talking about a real battle ... Until then ... it's not really a fair fight ... If there is a fight, it is usually a fixed game where Apple agrees to fight it out only with 1 year (or more) old inferior comsumer grade Windows machines such as 1Ghz IBM Netvistas against Apples dual G4s in the MacWorld shows.

Time for a nice cuppa' tea ...

[HawkOne]

[Edit .. Crap, the large desktop image screwed up the linelenght of the post above,
and I'm too lazy to fix it, please forgive me ]

Since I ran out of allowed links in the post above I'll continue here for a bit ...

As far as I'm concerned, in addition to the obvious software like Painter for example,
a pleasant User Interface, or User Environment if you will, is also crucial to
creativity on the computer, personally if I look at the grey dull Windows "stock-interface"
or the glaring white from MacOS (the Graphite UI is pretty cool though, it is
available for Windows too), I feel like a deflated ballon.

Download the free demo from any of those mentioned above, and completely change the
look and feel of your interface is as easy as changin' Themes with the Microsoft
interface, you can download more than a thousand already made "skins" from many
sites, some look like shit, some are OK, and some just kicks ass ...

Just in case some of you are to lazy to go look for yourselves, I'll simply dump a
gorgeous (IMHO) screenshot from a HoverDesk interface right here ...


And another one from Aston here ...


Now put your hand on the screen and scream "Hallelujah !!! This is exactly what I've been looking for"

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: HawkOne ]

[Loki]

Hawkone - wow - the lower one is one of the coolest desktops I've seen

As for the right machine: pick whatever works best for you ... 'nuff!

[HawkOne]

@ JD, some people actually enjoy resolutions slightly higher than your tiny 1024x768 , not really something to get pissed off about methinks ...

And what's up with your nipple-less desktop-babe ... did you actually censor it for us here at Sijun ??? Don't tell me that's how the girls in Canada look ...

@ Loki, agreed ... and ... agreed ... but how do you decide which one works best unless you try a couple different setups ??

[Dr. Bang]

"i wont get any higher resolution. at least at this point i dont see any advantage... of it. "

More work space.

[Loki]

Leon: from my POV your arguments don't work at all. My screenres is usually 1920x1200, and here's why:

* In Photoshop, I can view a larger portion of the image I'm working on in 1:1 resolution.

* As Bang said - more workspace too - the toolbox is smaller, so are all the other windows & requesters. Especially helpful when only using one monitor.

* I use bigger fonts in my Appearance options - helps to make things more 'readable'.

* I set my mouse speed to a higher value, so there's no need to " move [the mouse] very fast n slowly point ur pointer to that botton"

And the rest of your post I simply don't understand ...

[Snake Grunger]

T'es-tu qu�b�cois pour parler anglais mal de-m�me?

If food make body healthy, what food make better brain?

[J-D Leon]

fine. i wont argue with u guys about the resolution...
it is getting off topic..
there is an advantage and disadvantage on both side.

from newton's law. there is an equal opposite force to everything.

[Dr. Bang]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JD Leon:
fine. i wont argue with u guys about the resolution...
it is getting off topic..
there is an advantage and disadvantage on both side.

from newton's law. there is an equal opposite force to everything.

---

Fine, lets talk about Newton's law then. My first argument: i disagree!

[J-D Leon]

bang.
what da heck?
what it is 3 am. dont u need to sleep?

[Dr. Bang]

OH SHIT! I downloed dirty pics also! This is bad, i'm going to HELL

[Snake Grunger]

I guess JD Leon is not french! Or if he is, he's hiding it!

[Pat]

Wow, HawkOne. Your understanding of the cause and effect of Apple's history is completely whacked. Nice try, please play again.

Oh, and the words "rock solid" and "Windows" can not be used in conjunction with each other. I think it's a law now. Isn't that what all these lawsuits are about?

JD Leon: if you're sick of Apple and Adobe, you might be happy to know that Adobe reports that the PC sales of Photoshop have finally exceeded the Mac sales.

-Pat

[CapnPyro]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HawkOne:
Now put your hand on the screen and scream "Hallelujah !!! This is exactly what I've been looking for"

---

No, 'hallelujah', this is exactly what i've been looking for


and for the first poster, APPLE APPLE APPLE, ADOBE ADOBE ADOBE!!!

[Gort]

Ah Pat...I was wondering how long it would take before you piped in!


For the record, I will support the "rock solid" nature of Win2k Pro.


[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Carter ]

[[666]Flat]

Let's make it clean, clear and naked:

GAMES

You wanna play da h0t gameZ, you want Win98 second edition.

WORK

Working with progs and data bases of all kind, including programming or software architecture tools = WIN 2K PRO. It rocks all da fucking way. XP = TEH LOOSE.
If XP comes with your brand new PC, I recommend to format your HD instantly. No matter how good your PC might be, it will suck and keep on sucking and with time it will suck even worse, all due to fucking "I-WANT-MORE-FUCKING-COLORS-ON-MY-DESKTOP-AND-I-LIKE-BUTTONS-THAT-LOOK-LIKE-THEY'VE-BEEN-DESIGNED-FOR-RETARDS" Win XP. BTW, it's no prob to have a Win98 & Win2K installation on two partitions, boot manager comes altogether with Win2k.

LINUX

Damn fucking LINUX. If you want to set up some router on your old 200 Mhz Pentium 1 or set up a stable and reliable server, OK, give it a try. Other than that: DUN DO IT. IT FUCKING SUCKS. Unless you're a head banged nerd who likes to set up every single environment variable in his tiny fucking linux console and doesn't mind if nobody supports his fucking OS with fresh and tasty software with the exception of some fellow nerds who compiled their social life to shreds in the process.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: [666]Flat ]

[[666]Flat]

Oh, I forgot to mention the

MOST USELESS OS EVAR

Yeah, I'm talking about Apple and MAC OS. No one needs it. There's nothing you couldn't do better with any other OS. It's like the answer to a question that has never been asked. Dump it on sight.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: [666]Flat ]

[balistic]

Here's a picture of my custom Photopaint 10 layout, organized for maximum painting efficiency:
CLICKY.

Find a tool that feels comfortable to you and exploit it. What's comfortable is going to be different for everyone.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: balistic ]

[roundeye]

only gay people and women use macs. if the OS feels 'comfortable' chances are cock in the bati also feels relatively comfortable.

man i love adminless boards.

[gArGOyLe^]

XP is nice! its MUCH more stable than anything else.. except maybe pro

but for MOST people XP is perfect.

[HawkOne]

@ JD :
What happened to your posts man ???

@ Pat :
Just so that you can help me get my facts straight , would you mind terribly explaining to me where exactly I'm wrong, instead of doing the regular Mac-fanatic wave off by just simply saying "You're wrong!" without any justification or facts to back you up ? Other than a slight slipup where I said that OSX was launched in 2000 when it was actually launched in early 2001, I don�t really see where I�ve stated wrong info. OSX was actually announced to be launched in late 1999, but they were promising a little too much, too soon, the first Public Beta release came out in Sept 13, 2000.

I assume you just chose to overlook the fact that I stated that Win 95/98/Me is just shit, as was any MacOS before OSX appeared March 24, 2001. Just for the record, since you seem to think that I am �but a simple Windoze user� allow me tell a little about my Mac history since I�ve been a �double agent� since 1987. I�ve been using Mac�s since I bought my first 16 MHz Macintosh II with a whopping 16MB of RAM in the spring of 1987, and professionally in one form or another since 1990. I've had to look at more bomb icons on the various Mac machines I've worked with until my current G4 (that I got for Christmas in 99) than anyone should have to go through. I am still using a trusty old 20� Colorsync that I bought after my 17� Multiple Scan I bought with my PowerMac 8600/300 spring 97 died, 4 weeks after the warranty expired!!. I drool over the insanely gorgeous and expensive cinema displays just like anybody else (except maybe for JD Leon ) When Macromedia Director comes out I�ll upgrade to OSX and maybe a G5, more because I have to, than because I want to ... heheh ...

In my experience it has been similar or maybe even worse than the Win95/98 machines I had to work with until I just ripped that shit out and installed NT4 and 2000 (I�m dual booting) I now only use win 98/Me for testing purposes, ... I've used both Macs and PCs in pretty much every flavor since they introduced their first products, and due to the nature of my work, I've been forced to own and work with both systems extensively for the past 8 years or so ... but the NT based workstations I�ve been using since my first one with a Gateway PentiumPro 200MHz in �96, really is ROCK SOLID, plain and simple, unfortunately I cannot say I�ve had the same experience with my Macs, anyone saying otherwise without some time on at least a couple of different machines should probably be classified as fanatics as far as I'm concerned. Windows NT4, 2000 XP and UNIX & Linux and now lately OSX has also got ROCK solid OS'... and although I haven�t worked much with OSX yet, I have no reason to not believe people and what they /write say about it, it's good stuff.

This info is from the Apple Museum (link below)
In the early 1990s Apple had some serious troubles. Apple's market share dropped rapidly due to high price of the Macs, a chaotic product-line and not very attractive computers. IBM had some difficulties, too at that time. After renouncing of a license for the IBM-PC they had lost the personal computer market instantly. Cheaper manufacturers flooded the market and IBM was unable to reach its desired sale numbers. Therefore IBM retreated from the consumer market and returned to the high-end server market.
In 1991 IBM, Apple and Motorola decided to form an alliance. Their goal was to build competitive or even superior computers to the Wintel market. IBM and Motorola developed the RISC-processor (RISC = Reduced Instruction Set Computer) called PowerPC. However, to develop the first PowerPC processor (601) and introduce it, it took 3 years. Meanwhile the Wintel market grew even faster.
Apple had with the PowerPC a superior processor but it was unable to make profit of it since it was unable to sell enough Macs. Although the pre-G3 PowerPC era was financially unsuccessful for Apple it was the basis for the PowerPC G3 and G4 which later helped Apple to recover.

Here are some further facts from the Apple Museum site, to again back up my claims stated above and in previous posts. I have added some info, but not removed any, so the facts are still valid ...

iMac introduced: August 15th, 1998
Blue and White G3 introduced: January 5th, 1999

June 1997: Gil Amelio (president and CEO of Apple) announces a $740 million loss in the second quarter

July 1997: Gil Amelio resigns from his post as president and CEO of Apple

August 6th, 1997: Steve Jobs, who is now the "de facto" head of Apple, announces an alliance between Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft invests $150 million in Apple stocks. Apple includes Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser to every copy of the MacOS. ($150 is the official sum; rumor circulating at the time was that the sum was higher, near $500 million) There is little doubt in the industry that this cash injection was key to Apples survival, and gave it the time it needed to develop iMac and make it into a hit when it was introduced in August 15 �98, almost exactly a year later.

January 7th, 1998: After PowerPCs with the G3 processors success, Apple officially returns to profitability with Steve Jobs' announcement of $47 million profit in the first quarter. iMac and G# has continued the trend to this day ...


My Conclusion:
The OS that came with my Macintosh II (System Software 2.0) was shit ... MacOS 7.5 in launched in October 96 was shit, OS 8 in July 97 was less shit but still nothing like WinNT4 which I�d used since its launch in 96. Finally, November 5th, 1999: MacOS 9 is released, finally an OS that is reasonably stable, but still not crash proof like any of the 6 different machines I�ve been running NT4 on for 3 years prior to OS 9.

That a Apple employee allegedly �revealed� to some nosy reporter (in the Mac forum below) that the fully packed $4000 Workstation G3s and G4s �shootouts� in MacWorld shows had been rigged in the way that they were competing with $800 Windows-based PCs NetVistas from IBM that were targeted to office use. Talk about David and Goliath. Now I�m not even sure they would do that, since even the $800 Netvista has a 1.8GHz processor nowadays. (Maybe IBM didn�t like the bad press hehehe ... ) Shouldn�t Apple go head to head with a $15.000 Dual Itanium equipped IntelliStation Z Pro instead, to really show off how superior that recorded Photoshop session can be done on a processor with a �Velocity Engine�?

After scrutinizing my post closely, I have failed to find anything else I think I should back up with facts from sources, but if you feel I've left some out, by all means let me know.

Sources:( Go ahead check my sources! See who's really "completely whacked". ) http://www.theapplemuseum.com http://www.creativemac.com http://www.wwug.com/forums/creative_mac/index.htm

[HawkOne]

@ balistic:
That's a nice image of the customisation ability of Corel ... maybe I should try your "design" out. And don't be so diplomatic dude, follow roundeyes lead, it's more fun in a thread when some sparks start to fly ... heheh ...

@ roundeye:
hehehe ... you said it man !

@ CapnPyro:
Have a look at this interface, it's OSX as used WinXP style heheh ... a 409K download from wincustomize.com ... pretty cool but way to bright for my taste ... I like the Dark Side ... http://www.wincustomize.com/library/accounts/kibbles/wb/MacPC_X.jpg

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: HawkOne ]

[bearsclover]

quote:

---

only gay people and women use macs. if the OS feels 'comfortable' chances are cock in the bati also feels relatively comfortable.

man i love adminless boards.

---

Huh? What the hell? I know you must be kidding and all (with the weird homophobic and sexist comments) but come on. Why such venom against Macs?

And, to the rest of you� are Deke McClelland, Scott Kelby, Jack Davis, and many other Photoshop "big names" beneath your contempt somehow? Most of the screenshots in their Photoshop books are Mac. Kelby runs Photoshopuser.com, along with Mac Design magazine. Nice magazine, nice organization, run by many Mac users. Do you have a problem with them? Do you think that the work they do is inferior to yours somehow?

Sheesh, I am at a loss. The venom against Macs really isn't really funny. It's just lame, and a bit pitiful. They are just computers, folks. Get over it.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: bearsclover ]