The Macbook

[Alex_P]

Untrue, Khell. OS X can run Time Machine. The structure of NTFS makes a tool like that that impossible on modern Windows. You'd need to go to UNIX/Linux to find a filesystem with snapshot support, and those currently don't have finished, working Time-Machine-like tools. (Now, how many Mac users know how to use Time Machine is a separate issue.)

-- Alex

 

[Lt. Sera]

I never got the appeal of Time Machine, unless you fuck up so many times that you need to continuously go back to a previous point, it serves no purpose that a regular backup program can't do, or Windows Restore, for that matter.

Enlighten me if you will, since I don't know all that much about Time Machine, maybe it has some neat feature i missed.

 

[Alex_P]

I never got the appeal of Time Machine, unless you fuck up so many times that you need to continuously go back to a previous point, it serves no purpose that a regular backup program can't do, or Windows Restore, for that matter.

Enlighten me if you will, since I don't know all that much about Time Machine, maybe it has some neat feature i missed.

It's really about what the file system underneath can do.

Unlike a regular backup, snapshots are atomic. A plain-jane backup of an NTFS or ext2 or FAT32 drive that starts at 1:30 am and finishes at 1:50 am will contain versions of each file that could be from 1:30 am, 1:50 am, or any time in between. A snapshot is actually the system state at 1:30 am. Even if a file is modified at 1:35 am before the backup gets to it, the file system will save the 1:30 am version and archive that.

Likewise, because the file system keeps a list of file changes, you don't have to probe each file individually to figure out if it has changed (like, say, rsync does). This makes backups much faster.

The Time Machine interface itself is just candy.

-- Alex

 

[Lt. Sera]

Ah that does sound a tad better, thanks for the explanation.

 

[Uncompetative]

Obligatory...

Well, that's kind of the whole point of an ultralight.

The problem with the Macbook Air is that it's a really expensive ultralight.

-- Alex

This table is incorrect. The Macbook Air doesn't have a Firewire port.

It has one USB 2.0 port.

( see 'Connectivity': http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_air?mco=NzUyMzg5 )

 

[Alex_P]

This table is incorrect. The Macbook Air doesn't have a Firewire port.

It has one USB 2.0 port.

( see 'Connectivity': http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_air?mco=NzUyMzg5 )

The table is correct (although it does omit the USB port). The check mark is for backlit keyboard, not Firewire.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

And now for something that speaks directly to the point of this thread...

Some guy's Macbook vs. Windows laptop price comparison:
http://technologizer.com/2008/10/19/is-the-new-macbook-expensive/

-- Alex

 

[hbomb]

I use my iMac for gaming, and it's pretty good Graphics-wise. I run Windows XP for some stuff, like TF2, which works on full without any slowdown (not a massive feat, but a nice thing to point out). I tried to run S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky, but that lagged like hell on medium. I think the thing people fail to realise is that it's the consumer's choice what they purchase, and my purchase suits me, a guy who only really plays older games - think Call of Cthulhu from 2005 era. I do envy the gaming PC's, but only for gaming. Though that is kinda the point, I find that paying £1000 for a computer that RUNS most games fine, with lower graphics, and is also good for Photoshop, Flash, and my writing programs (I'm attempting to get a book published, by the way), than a £1000 OR MORE computer that only does the games, and is less fun to actually use.

 

[Uncompetative]

Doesn't say it has firewire... Says it has Backlit keyboard.

I've just rechecked it. Both you and Alex_P are quite right.

I need to learn to keep my head from lolling over on one side whilst I read...

Sorry.

 

[Good morning blues]

I have a completely honest, non-biased question for Mac users.

Why are they supposedly better for image, music, and video editing?

What can they do that a PC can't?

The basic differences are the software and the interface. OS X is a lot more streamlined than Windows, and it tends to be easier to use even the same programs ported to both OSes. It's the fundamental little changes - windows is organized around using one program at a time, while OS X is organized around having several windows open and active at a time, which is especially useful for image and video editing. Additionally, mac monitors are manufactured in a different way from PC monitors which allows them to display brighter colors with more definition and contrast, which is good for video and image editing.

 

[Uncompetative]

Thinking about things in the medium-term, Snow Leopard will be in competition with Windows 7.

If you're really bored here is a rare glimpse of what it will contain (you might want to skip forward to 2:00 min):

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452319854/bctid1648122565

Yeah, I know. Hardly worth watching.

 

[Brett Alex]

Even if you had no experience with Windows equivalents, your argument is flawed because it seems you don't have any experience with Mac equivalents either.
[SNIP]

Hey, there we go, now we've got a discussion going. Much better than just posting pictures of train wrecks.

 

[Djskrilla]

It all just comes down to preference. People out there will always put down extra money for something more sleek and intelligent looking even though they aren't neccessarely better than the PC.

For example: Mac OS comes with just about everything needed to start editing video/audio etc. with utilities both capable and easy to use. And they don't need to spend extra to buy these programs after the fact. Adding this to the added sleekness and style, people will happily spend that money.

Now that hardware is no longer a deciding factor, It all comes down to the OS and supporting software. Apple has this down pretty well, which is why people are obviously still buying them.

While Mac's OS in my humble opinion is more intuitive and easier to use, Vista/XP has more under the surface. There are tons of "specialized" programs out there for windows when it comes to video/audio editting. All you have to do is look around on the internet and you'll find "free" programs spacifically made for generating HDR images in batch or for correcting distortion with wide-angle images. Most of these programs are made by windows users for windows users. Sure you can duel-boot and have Vista on you MacBookPro, but most people don't get their Mac with that in mind. They want everything installed and ready to be used, no added work like buying extra software or looking for programs online.

One big thing that has been stated before is, Mac is always behind in the graphical power race with PC which is important when it comes to intensive work like messing with HD Video etc.. I love messing around with editting video/audio/etc.. so I got a Sager notebook. Sure it's pretty monsterous for a laptop, but It holds 3HDD's (2 in RAID for fast read/writing), 2 Nvidia 8700 /w 1gig VRAM, 4gigs of RAM, Intel Core2 QUAD 2.4, and Vista for $2,700 over a year ago. You can't get that creative with a Mac, and it certainly can't achieve that kind of processing power(yet).

Also, if you happen to like the OS Leopard..some people have already made it so you can use it on any PC(still being improved).

Sorry for the wall of text.