Printable View
There were significant changes between 10.3 and 10.4 - Quartz Image processing (or something like that) which means 10.4 is generally the base OS X release that people write s/w for. Even Apple, the swines! I will get around to buying 10.4 or 10.5 retail eventually...Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrison
Ok here goes my desktop. It's a dual core AMD machine with 4gb ram, running ... WinXP SP1 !!! This is the tidied up version, usually it's more messy.
I'm not sure what to do with the sidebar. I love the quicklaunch panel, but mail checker , weather stuff is kinda unneccessary.
The black box is an online news channel I'm watching.
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/881...shotiridiu.jpg
There's also a SP2 winXP64 installed in another partition, (which was supposed to be my main windose) but the news channel thingy doesn't run on xp64, so I'm on this most of the time.
Before somebody asks, I didn't install SP3 on this because I'm using this installation for EPROM programming, and some other stuff on parallel port, and something above SP2 interferes with parallel port access, so I try to avoid it.
I'll post a new pic when I get round to it ..... I've been tinkering with WBPattern and have installed MagicWB icons :)Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrisonYou can do quite a bit more than that with WB 2.1. You can add a small tiled background to save memory, but greatly improve the look over the standard grey for one. And also change the icons. Or maybe the copper effect that classicWB has to give a nice gradient background to the whole thing. My A600 at the moment has a pretty standard looking classicWB installation, but I used to have a more customised one that looked quite nice. And you have 14MB of ram from the looks of it, so shouldn't have issues with ram when using additional things like icons or background images.Quote:
Originally Posted by woody.cool
I think MacOS X has always been a bit limiting in terms of what software you can run on it. I had a PowerMac G3 with Jaguar a couple of years ago and I found that quite a bit of software required Panther. I tried to "obtain" a copy of Panther, but I only managed to get disks 2 and 3 :(. Fortunately though We had a copy of Tiger which we installed on my Mum's PowerMac G4. I used this disk to install Tiger on my G3 and no longer had many problems with new software. I wouldn't say it was much different speed wise to Jaguar either.Quote:
Originally Posted by CortonaThere were significant changes between 10.3 and 10.4 - Quartz Image processing (or something like that) which means 10.4 is generally the base OS X release that people write s/w for. Even Apple, the swines! I will get around to buying 10.4 or 10.5 retail eventually...Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrison
From the little I've used OSX I've never really seen that much difference between each version. As far as I could see each version was little more than the same as a Windows service pack in terms of the updates it provided, but Mac users were forced to pay the full price for a new OS with each version released. The usual Apple rip off.
Although I try to distance myself from Apple snobs (you know the type - trendy, young Hoxton-dwelling wannabes that go to Twitter parties), as an OS X user I disagree. There have been a bunch of new features and updated software with each OS X release. You need only read the Apple website when a new OS X is released to be deluged with pages of propaganda on new features.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrison
Windows certainly has a longer shelf life, but that comes with its own drawbacks, one of which is IE6. (So many businesses still use IE6, including where I work, so I have to design for it. I hate it. I hate it so much.)
I completely agree the Apple rip-off sentiment, though. OS X 10.4 on Ebay goes for about £50. Might as well buy a new copy of 10.5!
But then you could only buy 10.5 if your hardware is good enough. And if it isn't then the other Apple rip off comes into play. Upgrade your current Mac? Are you mad. You can't do that! You have to buy this shiny new one that is identical to the PC being displayed next to it in terms of internal hardware, but because it has an Apple badge on it will add a 150% Apple surcharge for the privilege.
I must agree with harrison when it comes to the MacIntels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrison
I still like Apple's PPC machines.
Not feeling the love for Apple here. You can upgrade PowerMacs, you just can't swap around the guts of Apple's laptops, iMacs and Minis, which is a bit of a shame because my G5 iMac could do with a better graphics card. As to which OS I prefer using, on balance I prefer using OS X over Windows (and OS X has more in common with Amiga OS, of course, as both are based on UNIX).
Anyway, if I can meander back to the topic, here's my desktop at work. I've shrunk it down a little as it's 1920 x 1200 (on a 24" monitor, so I can actually read it).
That's quite a cool background. I take it that is just an image and not an interactive calander?
You noticed the lack of Apple fans around here then? ;)
One thing that always bugged me was the statement that you needed a Mac if you were a designer. Why? PCs have all of the key software available on the Mac, and have done since the mid 90's. I've used PCs for design, multimedia and video work since then and have never had a problem.
I personally think it comes down to personal taste in the OS. Much like how most of use stuck with the Amiga to the bitter end as our main system, when most were jumping ship to the PC. If you prefer the way the Mac OS works and the hardware is designed then you will probably keep buying and using Macs. Personally I love the modular nature and much cheaper hardware of the PC. Being able to mix and match whatever you like at realistic prices. Plus the software base is huge compared to the Mac. And emulation is dead on the mac compared to the PC.
I would consider a Mac for only one purpose. Final Cut Pro. It is still better than any PC based video editor and if video editing was my key business need then Final Cut Pro would be at the top of my list. However I can achieve just as much with Premiere, After Effects and Combustion on the PC for what I need. However, go to a higher level of video post production and it returns fully to the PC with Inferno, Flame, Fire etc...
The Mac still enjoys its neich markets.