More Mac Awesomeness - Page 2

Judas · 11-26-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyck

mac and awesome should never be used in the same sentence.

ps right click save > drag

yeah , 3 operations > 1.

Short Hand · 11-26-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

dunno about how fast but they are certainly tailored for the multimedia market ... i know most if not all commercial digital art work is done using macs.

(on my campus) Only the video related professor use mac's. Every other person around uses PC's for Illustrator, Photoshop ect.

c312 · 11-26-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

dunno about how fast but they are certainly tailored for the multimedia market ... i know most if not all commercial digital art work is done using macs.

My friend's mom used to be one of the 5 lead editors at National Geographic as a layout editor. She used a mac and even took a G4 with 20" monitor and Adobe CS Suite when she left the job. I assume that National Geographic would know which computers to use for their work

elstatec · 11-26-2005, 05:34 PM

judas you are such a fucking mac boon.

its like me making a thread in a forum of 95% mac owners on "More windows awesomeness."

Jin-Roh · 11-26-2005, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elstatec

judas you are such a fucking mac boon.

its like me making a thread in a forum of 95% mac owners on "More windows awesomeness."

lets do it. biggrin:

Mr.Buttocks · 11-26-2005, 06:38 PM

awesome

Judas · 11-26-2005, 07:15 PM

i hate you all.

Michael · 11-26-2005, 08:20 PM

no offense to all the mac users/lovers here, but macs aren't all that great. you won't find one mac user who doesn't have at least one adobe product on their machine or one macromedia product. they're basically machines built for designing. thats it. that is its strength. much like how linux is more for like, servers and not all that great for gaming. pc's can do so much more than macs...and pc's won't cost you an arm and a leg like macs do.

[DAS REICH] Blitz · 11-26-2005, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

dunno about how fast but they are certainly tailored for the multimedia market ... i know most if not all commercial digital art work is done using macs.

My friend's mom used to be one of the 5 lead editors at National Geographic as a layout editor. She used a mac and even took a G4 with 20" monitor and Adobe CS Suite when she left the job. I assume that National Geographic would know which computers to use for their work

wow, national graphic=god now? oOo:

Michael · 11-26-2005, 08:31 PM

[quote="[DAS REICH] Blitz":9a628]

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas

dunno about how fast but they are certainly tailored for the multimedia market ... i know most if not all commercial digital art work is done using macs.

My friend's mom used to be one of the 5 lead editors at National Geographic as a layout editor. She used a mac and even took a G4 with 20" monitor and Adobe CS Suite when she left the job. I assume that National Geographic would know which computers to use for their work

wow, national graphic=god now? oOo:[/quote:9a628]oh thats right i forgot, only a mac is capable of using photoshop, illustrator, quark and various video editing programs....right? stupid:

c312 · 11-27-2005, 11:26 AM

No, they aren't god, only one of the longest running and respectable photographic magazines that exists...

I'd say that makes them qualified to establish which types of computers are better for what. They wouldn't waste the money if it wasn't for a reason.

Nyck · 11-27-2005, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312

No, they aren't god, only one of the longest running and respectable photographic magazines that exists...

I'd say that makes them qualified to establish which types of computers are better for what. They wouldn't waste the money if it wasn't for a reason.

Yes Mac's allow me to see every stretch mark on drooping tribal tits.

Short Hand · 11-27-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312

No, they aren't god, only one of the longest running and respectable photographic magazines that exists...

I'd say that makes them qualified to establish which types of computers are better for what. They wouldn't waste the money if it wasn't for a reason.

Just to let you know, when the g4 luanched, the NEAREST competing pc product out at the time was something in the range of p3 500mhz... your comparision is from a different time. PC's have far exceeded that since then. While macs are forced to run daul cpu systems to play catch up. Your comparision.. let me say this again.. IS COMPLETELY outdated. This coming from a mac user. I would take a mac over a pc anyday when it comes ot video editing, but when it comes to anything else......PC > Mac. (and if I HAD THE MONEY I WOULD TAKE daul opterons over the mac g5 solution, being as daul opterons (880's) can run youinto the 6k range cpu's alone......

geRV · 11-27-2005, 01:22 PM

The whole reason apple have switched to intel from the motorola power pc chips is because they can't get 3ghz chips working. I believe apple said they would launch a 3ghz pc near 2 years ago and still nothing.

TGB! · 11-27-2005, 04:30 PM

I think MAC's have created their own self-perpetuating "our machines are best for video-editing" reputation. . .as someone said - you can build a comperable PC and it might actually cost you less. But because MAC's have this image of being hip and non-comformist (used only in the sense that the number of PC users FAR outstrips MAC users) - that art-school students and trendy liberal art majors flock to the machines. The only argument someone has made for MAC's user over a PC is that it is "more secure" - which is a spurious argument, but I rarely bother explaining why its so.