What computer do you use?

[Andre S]

Eventually I would like to try a Mac, just for comparison to the Windows OS.

But at this moment, I am a Windows XP and on my laptop a Windows 7 user.

 

I didn't like Vista particularly.

[Notes_Norton]

<...>

Once you go Mac you won't go back!!!

 

I've had a Mac since the Motorola days and I have to disagree. In the 1980s the Mac was my computer of preference. It was MUCH easier to use than the PC. DOS and Win 3.1 on my other computer was far inferior. My Atari 1040/ST was as easy to use as the Mac but the software titles were limited.

 

When Win 95 came out, they were about even in usefulness.

 

I have an OSX Mac now and a few Windows machines. Windows is definitely easier for me to use, and I don't think I've even turned the Mac on in over a year.

 

While I admit the Mac has prettier visuals on the screen, the Win machine uses many fewer mouse clicks and has many more keyboard short-cuts making the work much easier on the PC -- at least for the programs that I use every day.

 

So I started by preferring Mac and went "back".

 

YMMV

 

Notes

[zigzag]

Band-in-a-Box works much better on the PC...

 

My PC died and I've got a Macbook Pro. I want to get the Band-in-a-Box version for my Mac. Mistake?

[Tman5293]

I seriously wonder how the Macintrash users here survive. I find Mac to be quite a useless operating system. It's not compatible with nearly as many programs as Windows is, it can't play games very well nor does it support very many of them, and opening up an iMac voids the warranty. How exactly am I supposed to upgrade my computer if I'm not allowed to open it? When you buy an iMac your basically buying a pretty basic system setup that can't be upgraded and an operating system that's only good for word processing and internet applications. Of course the Mac users will fire back with something like this, "But Mac is great for studio work and A/V work!." Guess what! So is Windows! It runs Pro Tools just as well if not better!

 

I've seen all that Mac has to offer and I'm not interested. Never owned one, never will.

 

My rant is over. You may resume your regularly scheduled forum activities.

 

EDIT: I'd like to add that Vista was also a trash operating system and XP is outdated and it's user interface looks like Leap Frog. IMO, Windows 7 or some flavor of Linux are the only ways to go. I happen to run both on my PC. I have a dual boot system set up that allows me to choose between Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit or Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal 64-bit when I turn on my computer.

[retrosurfer1959]

I'm a Mac user by choice after retiring after 25+ years in the Tech world, I have spent more than enough of my life dealing with viruses and blue screens and Microsofts buggy OS for quite awhile.

 

As for surviving with the Macs gaming limitations? Sorry but it's really not a issue for me I don't play computer games at all, life's way to short for reality TV or silly computer games as an adult. The Mac software is far superior for art and music programs as well as web browsing and writing and those are what I use it for. I haven't had any urges to waste either my time or money on a computer game in decades so it's not a issue. As for cracking the case open? Well there's another case of why - I have no problems with what it has in it when I bought it. I can swap memory or hard drives if needed in seconds without any tools other than the screwdriver on my keychain and if I need anything else I have USB 2.0, Firewire, Digital ports and now Thunderbolt I/O at 10 Gbps. Why would I want to crack a case?

 

I think it's great that people can have whatever system they need and if supped up video cards and glowing fans is what you like great. But I don't need it and honestly don't want it. I run my all notebooks and desktops as Macintosh and my servers are Unix boxes so I'm pretty happy without the MS-DOS world in all it's versions.

[ShredAstaire]

I use a Mac Pro Desktop...

 

1 Quad Core Xeon Processor

6 GB of RAM

Total Hard Drive Space: 6 TB

 

She runs like a dream....had her for 4 years now.

[damian]

My computer has a nice shiny black case, and it has seven windows !!!!! And a screen that goes a nice shade of blue every so often !!!!!

 

( Not really..)

[Notes_Norton]

My PC died and I've got a Macbook Pro. I want to get the Band-in-a-Box version for my Mac. Mistake?

Mistake. You are best to run Windows on your Macbook (boot camp or whatever) and run Band-in-a-Box under Windows.

 

Comparing BiaB between Windows and Mac is like comparing a brand new Benz with a Fiat 500. It's not the fault of either the Mac or PC OS, but econimics.

 

Like many (but definitely not all) programs, the Mac version is not as good as the Windows version and the Windows version comes out first.

 

The problem is in the numbers. According to trade magazines, Macs comprise about 5% of the computers out there. Macs also comprise about 5% of my software business (Band-in-a-Box aftermarket style disks and fake disks), so the 5% figure works for me.

 

So take a niche market programmer. (And computer music is a niche market for computers.) Programming for both the Mac and the PC take the same amount of time, countless hours for each. The difference is that for every hour spent programming the PC, the potential pay per hour is 20 times greater than that for Macs. So for every $1 you make on the Mac, you can make $20 on the PC for the same amount of work.

 

So the natural tendency for the niche programmer is to spend more time writing code for the PC.

 

At 5% Mac is a niche computer. Computer musicians are a niche of the entire computer market, so a Mac/Musician is a niche of a niche market. Band-in-a-Box users are a niche of computer musicians. So a Mac/Musician/BiaB user is a niche of a niche of a niche market.

 

So you see basic equality in huge selling programs like Microsoft Office, Foxfire, Acrobat, and other "universal" programs, as there are enough Mac users to still turn a profit in those apps, but the smaller companies usually spend more time writing for Windows. Of course there are exceptions, as some write only for Mac, but the exceptions are not all that plentiful.

 

My advice for most people who ask is to pick the software they want to use first, and then pick the operating system - especially the niche programs. If you want Garage Band, choose Mac. If you want Band-in-a-Box, choose PC. And so on.

 

In the early days I was a Mac fan. But that was when Macs were clearly superior. Now both Mac and PC have evolved to become quite useful, reliable, and both are easy to use. Back in the early days I could buy Mac software in any computer store or even in Office Depot and similar stores. I could pick it up right off the shelf. As the Mac market grew smaller, I could no longer find them in the stores, and many of the smaller programs dropped their Mac lines.

 

The Mac is a niche computer now. It's a good computer, but it's never going to become mainstream again.

 

I know a few Mac-addicts, and they are almost like a cult, trying to lure everyone they know into the fold. I know a couple of others who are satisfied with their Macs but don't treat them with religious reverence.

 

Remember, they computer is just a tool. And it is just the package to run the software you want to use. Pick the software first, then pick the computer that runs it best. And in the case of BiaB, your choice is PC.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

[Silenced Fred]

I use a MacBook Pro because I'm a man.

[Notes_Norton]

I'm a Mac user by choice after retiring after 25+ years in the Tech world, I have spent more than enough of my life dealing with viruses and blue screens and Microsofts buggy OS for quite awhile. <...> I run my all notebooks and desktops as Macintosh and my servers are Unix boxes so I'm pretty happy without the MS-DOS world in all it's versions.

I haven't had the Blue Screen Of Death since Windows 98SE, MS-DOS is no longer a factor.

 

I can crash my Mac as easily as I can crash my PC. It's not the OS's fault as much as it is the app I'm using (or abusing).

 

And talking about versions: Mac started with Motorola chips, then moved to the "Power PC" chip which turned all the Motorola Macs into doorstops. Then the moved to Intel Chips which turned the PPC Macs into doorstops. I still run a MIDI sequencer written before Windows 95. It's so old it still has the 8.3 file name limitation. It works better than the new version of the same sequencer so I tend to do most of my work on it, then import it into the new version to add some finishing touches and extend the style name. I couldn't do that with any Mac program from more than a few years ago.

 

As far as viruses are concerned. Mac's are not immune, and there are plenty of Mac viruses out there. But being a niche computer, there are fewer of them for the same reasons that there are fewer of any other program titles for Macs. It's about penetration. So you need a firewall and AV software for each platform. BTW, I've never caught a virus, but my AV software has caught some and quarantined before they did any harm.

 

My ThinkPad computers are as reliable as any Mac. If you get a cheap PC, don't expect the same reliability, but that's not the fault of the OS.

 

The Mac computer is not superior, it's just different. If your software needs are Mac, by all means, get a Mac. This applies especially if you are a commercial printer or graphics designer - that is Mac's biggest stronghold. If the app you want to use is available for Mac and works better on Mac than PC, by all means get a Mac. But to think the Mac is a superior computer is like thinking an Aston-Martin is better than a Ferrari or thinking that a Ford is better than a Chevy.

 

As a user of both, I can see minor differences in the OS, but each has its advantages. Neither is superior.

 

Notes

[Notes_Norton]

I use a MacBook Pro because I'm a man.

I have an alto sax and a tenor sax because I'm bi-saxual ;)

 

I have Mac and Windows computers, I don't know what that says about me.

 

I have a Gibson, Epiphone, LTD, and Parker guitars because variety is the spice of life.

 

I have one wife and am extremely faithful to her, so that makes me OK.

 

Notes

[zigzag]

Notes, YOU are a man even with that bi-saxual thing you got going. Thanks for the BiaB advice. Guess I'll try to revive the PC. And btw, I've been playing with a Mac for a few years after being a life-long PC user. I much prefer my Mac, even though Garage Band is still a mystery to me.

[Rocky4]

I seriously wonder how the Macintrash users here survive. I find Mac to be quite a useless operating system. It's not compatible with nearly as many programs as Windows is, it can't play games very well nor does it support very many of them, and opening up an iMac voids the warranty. How exactly am I supposed to upgrade my computer if I'm not allowed to open it? When you buy an iMac your basically buying a pretty basic system setup that can't be upgraded and an operating system that's only good for word processing and internet applications. Of course the Mac users will fire back with something like this, "But Mac is great for studio work and A/V work!." Guess what! So is Windows! It runs Pro Tools just as well if not better!

 

I've seen all that Mac has to offer and I'm not interested. Never owned one, never will.

 

My rant is over. You may resume your regularly scheduled forum activities.

 

EDIT: I'd like to add that Vista was also a trash operating system and XP is outdated and it's user interface looks like Leap Frog. IMO, Windows 7 or some flavor of Linux are the only ways to go. I happen to run both on my PC. I have a dual boot system set up that allows me to choose between Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit or Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal 64-bit when I turn on my computer.

 

What Mac did you have?

[ShredAstaire]

I seriously wonder how the Macintrash users here survive. I find Mac to be quite a useless operating system. It's not compatible with nearly as many programs as Windows is, it can't play games very well nor does it support very many of them, and opening up an iMac voids the warranty. How exactly am I supposed to upgrade my computer if I'm not allowed to open it? When you buy an iMac your basically buying a pretty basic system setup that can't be upgraded and an operating system that's only good for word processing and internet applications. Of course the Mac users will fire back with something like this, "But Mac is great for studio work and A/V work!." Guess what! So is Windows! It runs Pro Tools just as well if not better!

 

I've seen all that Mac has to offer and I'm not interested. Never owned one, never will.

 

My rant is over. You may resume your regularly scheduled forum activities.

 

EDIT: I'd like to add that Vista was also a trash operating system and XP is outdated and it's user interface looks like Leap Frog. IMO, Windows 7 or some flavor of Linux are the only ways to go. I happen to run both on my PC. I have a dual boot system set up that allows me to choose between Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit or Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal 64-bit when I turn on my computer.

 

 

I missed this the first go around...

 

All i have to say to this is....OK Dude.

[zigzag]

I am in the graphic arts business, and it is generally accepted that the graphics on a Mac are far superior to graphics capabilitites on a PC. It is my understanding that all of the computer graphics used in printing are done with Macs.

[Silenced Fred]

I have an alto sax and a tenor sax because I'm bi-saxual ;)

 

I have Mac and Windows computers, I don't know what that says about me.

 

I have a Gibson, Epiphone, LTD, and Parker guitars because variety is the spice of life.

 

I have one wife and am extremely faithful to her, so that makes me OK.

 

Notes

 

that's ok.

 

I have a mountain bike, but i have considered going with a single speed bike. I'm bike-curious

 

I have no problem with Windows computers, I have used them a lot. I just made it my personal decision that my personal money will go toward no computer but a Mac until they prove me wrong. They just work better with me

[NoFrills]

I am in the graphic arts business, and it is generally accepted that the graphics on a Mac are far superior to graphics capabilitites on a PC. It is my understanding that all of the computer graphics used in printing are done with Macs.

 

I never understood this logic.

The question is WHY Macs have superior graphic capabilities over a PC rather than accepting something without a logical explanation.

 

The reason why graphic students all use Mac over here is because Mac give a package deal to the universities which can not be beat by any pre-built PC manufacturer.

Therefore forcing graphics students to learn to use Macs to become graphic designers.

Also to do with Adobe being a Mac based company.

 

But when coming down to the hardware graphics processing capabilities, PC smashes Mac.

 

The only things that Mac has over PC is aesthetics, feel of social superiority & less performance for money.

 

Of course there is the argument that Mac fans have which is a custom PC is not comparable to a Mac since it is not a pr-built system by a manufacturer.

But in saying that I have come across some sick workstation desktops by HP like the Z600 which still flaw an high end Mac unfortunately for the same price but with with the addition of potential upgrades.

[Tman5293]

I am in the graphic arts business, and it is generally accepted that the graphics on a Mac are far superior to graphics capabilitites on a PC. It is my understanding that all of the computer graphics used in printing are done with Macs.

 

This is not true unless the Mac your using is a Mac Pro. If that's the case, then yes it is possible that the Mac Pro will have better graphics capabilities than a PC. But that also depends on the PC you do the comparison with.

 

I'll try to explain this in terms that everyone will understand:

 

When you run the comparison benchmarks (tests), you have to use comparable machines in order to get valid test results.

 

For the comparison I'm going to use the fastest Mac Pro available. I'm taking the tech specs straight from Apple's website:

 

 

 

CPU: Intel Xeon 12 core @ 2.93GHz

RAM: 64GB DDR3 @1333MHz

GPU: AMD Radeon HD 5770 CrossfireX (2 linked graphics cards) 2GB GDDR5; Each card operates at 850MHz Core Clock and 1200MHz Memory Clock

 

More info on the Mac Pro's specs: http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html

 

Now I'm going to compare this to the fastest stock PC desktop available. The Alienware Area 51 ALX:

 

 

 

CPU: Intel Core i7 990x Extreme @4GHz

RAM: 12GB DDR3 @1600MHz

GPU: AMD Radeon HD 6990 CrossfireX 8GB GDDR5; Each card operates at 880MHz Core Clock and 1250 MHz Memory Clock

 

Info on the Alienware Area 51 ALX: http://www.dell.com/...are-area-51-alx

 

Now it's comparison time:

 

CPU's:

The Mac Pro comes equipped with a 12 core processor and the Alienware has 6 core processor. At first look it appears as though the Mac has clearly taken this one. However you must also look at the speeds at which the processors operate. The Mac's processor is only at 2.93GHz while the Alienware is running at 4GHz. This means that the Alienware will be able to process tasks more quickly than the Mac. However the Mac and it's 12 cores has the ability to process more tasks all at once. It wont be processing them quite as quickly but the 12 cores still give it much higher processing capacity than the Alienware. So for CPU's I call it a draw.

 

RAM:

There isn't much to say about this. The Mac clearly takes it. Although the Alienware's RAM runs faster than the Mac's, there's just no way to get around 64GB of RAM.

 

GPU's:

This one isn't even a competition. The Alienware destroys the Mac Pro in the graphics category! In fact, the Mac is severely lacking in the graphics performance category. The Alienware is equipped with two AMD 6990's. The 6990 is currently the fastest graphics card in the world and the Alienware has two of them! The graphics capabilities are endless. The benchmark scores from two 6990's would be off the charts. This machine would destroy the Mac Pro in graphics design and creation. Also, the Mac Pro wouldn't stand a chance in the PC Video Gaming category.

 

 

 

This was just my attempt to state facts. I'm not going to say anymore about my own personal opinion. Lets not turn this thread into a Mac Vs. PC flame war. I'd rather not see such a good thread get banished to the dark abyss.

[Andy R]

The reason that Macs are prolific in the graphics and video editing industry is because in the early days all the "Real" software used by the pros was either developed on, by or exclusively for Mac. Avid, Illustrator, Photoshop, Pagemaker were all exclusive to Mac. They were expensive and really based on businesses as opposed to personal use.

 

We also need to separate gaming performance from Video editing performance as GPU doesn't hurt in Non Linear Editing (NLE) video systems it is only as useful as the software being used can utilize it. NLE and DAW's

depend more on Logical Processing, RAM, Bus Speed, Disk Read Write speeds and usually some proprietary processing in a capture device.

 

I agree this shouldn't be a Mac VS PC debate as it will inevitably lead to nowhere.

 

There are good and bad on both sides and it really comes down to personal choice.

 

Andy

[Rocky4]

This is not true unless the Mac your using is a Mac Pro. If that's the case, then yes it is possible that the Mac Pro will have better graphics capabilities than a PC. But that also depends on the PC you do the comparison with.

 

I'll try to explain this in terms that everyone will understand:

 

When you run the comparison benchmarks (tests), you have to use comparable machines in order to get valid test results.

 

For the comparison I'm going to use the fastest Mac Pro available. I'm taking the tech specs straight from Apple's website:

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPU: Intel Xeon 12 core @ 2.93GHz

RAM: 64GB DDR3 @1333MHz

GPU: AMD Radeon HD 5770 CrossfireX (2 linked graphics cards) 2GB GDDR5; Each card operates at 850MHz Core Clock and 1200MHz Memory Clock

 

More info on the Mac Pro's specs: http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html

 

Now I'm going to compare this to the fastest stock PC desktop available. The Alienware Area 51 ALX:

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPU: Intel Core i7 990x Extreme @4GHz

RAM: 12GB DDR3 @1600MHz

GPU: AMD Radeon HD 6990 CrossfireX 8GB GDDR5; Each card operates at 880MHz Core Clock and 1250 MHz Memory Clock

 

Info on the Alienware Area 51 ALX: http://www.dell.com/...are-area-51-alx

 

Now it's comparison time:

 

CPU's:

The Mac Pro comes equipped with a 12 core processor and the Alienware has 6 core processor. At first look it appears as though the Mac has clearly taken this one. However you must also look at the speeds at which the processors operate. The Mac's processor is only at 2.93GHz while the Alienware is running at 4GHz. This means that the Alienware will be able to process tasks more quickly than the Mac. However the Mac and it's 12 cores has the ability to process more tasks all at once. It wont be processing them quite as quickly but the 12 cores still give it much higher processing capacity than the Alienware. So for CPU's I call it a draw.

 

RAM:

There isn't much to say about this. The Mac clearly takes it. Although the Alienware's RAM runs faster than the Mac's, there's just no way to get around 64GB of RAM.

 

GPU's:

This one isn't even a competition. The Alienware destroys the Mac Pro in the graphics category! In fact, the Mac is severely lacking in the graphics performance category. The Alienware is equipped with two AMD 6990's. The 6990 is currently the fastest graphics card in the world and the Alienware has two of them! The graphics capabilities are endless. The benchmark scores from two 6990's would be off the charts. This machine would destroy the Mac Pro in graphics design and creation. Also, the Mac Pro wouldn't stand a chance in the PC Video Gaming category.

 

 

 

This was just my attempt to state facts. I'm not going to say anymore about my own personal opinion. Lets not turn this thread into a Mac Vs. PC flame war. I'd rather not see such a good thread get banished to the dark abyss.

 

What Mac did you have?

[Andy R]

I also want to note that I am not downing anybody's system. To me, hardware is hardware. There is some awesome hardware out there and you can build some smoking machines admitatly "Faster" than any mac you can find in some areas and usually cheaper. The hardware that Tman showed with the Alienware is kick *** and so is Chan's hot rod.

 

My problem is really with the OS. I don't have anything personally against Microsoft or Windows. I am frustrated with it and I admit I came off a bit harsh and sounding like a Mac Sheep. I think Microsoft is in a tough position. Try to develop an OS that is stable on all of the variable hardware combinations it might end up running on is (to me) is an impossible task. I'm sure they work with most of the major players in the hardware/software arena during development but there has to be a lot of fixing, patching and compromises made by everyone to get a working solution yet alone a universaly stable one.

So in the end I think that MS is just trying to do the impossible but admit they do a fairly good job of it given the scope of what they are trying to achieve.

 

 

So my "big thing" and what is important (to me) is stability. I believe you have a much greater chance of engineering a solution if you know exactly what your engineering for and with. In the end this turns into an ugly word which I hate like most of you and that is "Proprietary" If i wanted to develop a solution that has the greatest chance of working as advertised and as it is supposed to I would also build it on a proprietary hardware foundation. This way I know what I am building on, how it reacts and how to make the most of it. It also allows third parties to do the same.

 

This is a situation I have to deal with constantly for the service I provide at work. As you may or may not know I am the senior architect and engineer for "Webcast Solutions" for a large, global Pharmaceuticals company. We have approximately 90K people world wide with hundreds of site locations and "field" employees. My "end goal" job is to ensure if the CEO wants to speak to all employees live that the service works and has a consistent end user experience by these 90K people.

 

That means I have to do whatever is necessary to ensure that each of those 90k end user PC's and Macs ( now iPads, blackberries, androids, iPhones etc...) work during the event. This is impossible. There are just way too many variables to guarantee that each end user will have the same experience. I always tell the requesting customers this and use the analogy that the cable company can't guarantee that your Television is going to work when you get home. Your TV might malfunction, or somebody changed the settings, unplugged a cable etc... A tree might have fell somewhere in the area and knocked down the line... Too much to list.

 

I am also dependent on many other factors/services as well. The network, routers, switches, cache engines, load balancers, VPN, connectivity and utilization on network LANS, WANS, and Internet ( don't get me started here) wan accelerators, servers, power, Audio video production, Video conference systems, wireless systems, 3G connectivity, broadband connectivity, end users and last but not least the customer themselves.

 

In short, if one piece of this fails the end user ( and customer) sees this as the Webcast service failed. It wasn't "Oh a switch died, or the audio engineer had a mic muted etc... It appears and is perceived by the customer and or end user that the Webcast Failed.... Sucks for me but true.

 

I have a service level agreement with the customer that says that " If these conditions are met" I can provide you approximately 90% success rate. I can't and won't guarantee that anyone coming in through a VPN connection through the internet is going to work, same with wireless and or 3G. I also stipulate that the end client has to have a compliant "base" image on their machines and devices and that if they install other software that conflicts with the webcast solution then there is nothing I can do and it is an end user issue.

 

So what's the point of this endless rambling? My need is stability. I believe you gain stability through having control of the platform/hardware/infrastructure you are working on. I have seen and found Mac OS X to be very stable and would have to say that it is most likely due to the fact it is running on proprietary hardware. I also think the hardware is well made and overall provides plenty of options for upgrading over the life time of the

product versus new and emerging technology. I am happy if I can get 3 years out of a system. I am even happier when I can sell a 3 year old system and get 1/2 to 2/3rds my money back!

 

As far as MS Windows after thinking about it the OS probably gets blamed a lot for issues that are not directly related especially the BSOD. I think they will never achieve the reputation as being a "Rock Solid" OS as long as it is running on a multitude of different hardware. I can empathize with the fact that they probably get blamed for stuff that is outside of what they developed.

 

I think Apple/Mac was very concerned about their reputation and knew that they had a better chance of maintaining this by being a hardware and software provider on a proprietary system. The problem was and kind still is price. They were specialized and niche to small business and users with more specific requirements. Microsoft is the king of enterprise and cornered the true "PC" market and that it could be run on "affordable" hardware.

 

Like I said before, I used to love tinkering with my home builds and hot rodding machines. I have just got to the point where I just want something that I trust when I am in the middle of rendering a video for a few hours I am not going to comeback to a locked up or blue screened OS. I also don't want to have to fight to get started working on a project. That's why I like Mac and OSX. I am not a gamer but when I do I use proprietary systems in that realm too. PS3, WII and Xbox 360.

 

In summary I again say that it personal preference and that is usually based on need, requirement and or budget. There are some Smoking Win7 machines out there too which I am sure are at least as stable and definately faster and most likely more affordable. I just don't want to have to hunt for the magic combination, do all the tweaks, shut off all the services that I don't want or need and have to live in a Fort Knox environment to achieve that. I really hate hunting for shortcuts to applications, system controls and management every couple of years.

 

With that came a knock on the door from Fedex which just happens to be delivering me an adapter for a second SATA connector for my Macbook Pro for which a second SSD will be living as well as 2 sticks of 4 Gig RAM

 

I still like to mod and hot rod and you can do it on a Mac too!

 

 

Andy

[Andy R]

So here are some bench marks for my little 15" Mac book Pro

 

 

 

 

 

Not to bad.... My disk read right improved by 100 Mbps!

[Duende]

An alcohol inspired analogy

 

Apple Macs are like valve amps - intuitive, snazzy and just more creative, PCs are like transistor amps - yes some, like the Rolland Jazz Chorus, are better than a Mac (they have their uses!) - but on the whole, they just lack that special something a Mac and Valve amp have

[Tman5293]

What Mac did you have?

 

I you read my first post in this thread, you would have seen that I have never owned a Mac and never plan on wasting my money on one. However, I have worked with many Macs. Both Macbooks and iMacs. I've used them for everything from A/V editing to document creation and presentation.

[Rocky4]

I have never owned a Mac

 

That's what I thought