Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

bermuDa · 06-29-2003, 12:42 PM

I think it's an inefficient way to build computers when you have one assembly line to make them and another to fix the majority of them; I'd rather have a competent staff that builds the computers right the FIRST time around.

i never said anything about windows or compared windows stability to any mac OS. I think it was a good business move for Apple to go to open source, standing on the shoulders of others to make a profit (that's how Bill Gates got where he is); But I'd rather run a *nix OS on a PC that's faster than any Mac available and still costs less.

NT based Windows operating systems have a compatibility mode for those few programs that actually require a different version of windows; but in the years I've used 2000 and XP, I haven't had to enable compatibility mode once, even when using ancient software.

As for the story, they were 800mhz dual g4's with 256mb of SDRAM, graphite colored if that makes a difference... compared to my 800mhz athlon on an abit kt7-r with 128mb of SDRAM. My computer costed me about 700$ including the monitor and peripherals, while the school bought 30 of those macs for about $2500 a pop, sans monitor. My computer cost less than a third as much as the macs, and still outperformed them (and they had multi-threading enabled in the rendering options)... what misconfiguration were you referring to? I assume my Apple loving hippy teacher had the macs tweaked, maybe he forgot to uncheck the "crash-happy" setting. Or maybe it was my mistake when I tried to use advanced particle systems on a machine that couldn't possibly render them.

I don't mind if you prefer macs: you're willing to pay extra for ease of use; I don't think anything Apple has to offer warrants the price tag. I also don't mind having to do a little work to make my computer function. to each his own.

06-29-2003, 12:42 PM	#18 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	I think it's an inefficient way to build computers when you have one assembly line to make them and another to fix the majority of them; I'd rather have a competent staff that builds the computers right the FIRST time around. i never said anything about windows or compared windows stability to any mac OS. I think it was a good business move for Apple to go to open source, standing on the shoulders of others to make a profit (that's how Bill Gates got where he is); But I'd rather run a *nix OS on a PC that's faster than any Mac available and still costs less. NT based Windows operating systems have a compatibility mode for those few programs that actually require a different version of windows; but in the years I've used 2000 and XP, I haven't had to enable compatibility mode once, even when using ancient software. As for the story, they were 800mhz dual g4's with 256mb of SDRAM, graphite colored if that makes a difference... compared to my 800mhz athlon on an abit kt7-r with 128mb of SDRAM. My computer costed me about 700$ including the monitor and peripherals, while the school bought 30 of those macs for about $2500 a pop, sans monitor. My computer cost less than a third as much as the macs, and still outperformed them (and they had multi-threading enabled in the rendering options)... what misconfiguration were you referring to? I assume my Apple loving hippy teacher had the macs tweaked, maybe he forgot to uncheck the "crash-happy" setting. Or maybe it was my mistake when I tried to use advanced particle systems on a machine that couldn't possibly render them. I don't mind if you prefer macs: you're willing to pay extra for ease of use; I don't think anything Apple has to offer warrants the price tag. I also don't mind having to do a little work to make my computer function. to each his own. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.