apple exec to microsoft. "stop airing your commercials"

[ilovemycb7]

actually ive done both, and im gonna go ahead and comment. it doesnt compare, but the reason it doesnt is because its a different artform. doesnt make it any less justified. im so sick of people trying to difscredit people who use photoshop. anyone who dabbles knows what it takes to create something on a computer screen. if ur gonna discredit post production on the computer u may as well discredit all of graphic design at the same time.

and clicking a button to "fix'' a photo will only take u so far... about as far as dropping off a roll of film at a walgreens.

also i have personally spent extensive time in a darkroom both color and black and white. and believe it or not making adjustments isnt all that different from photoshop.

never, EVER believe that the fix it button makes a good photo out of something that wasnt in the first place.

and no using a mac doesnt make u superior in the multimedia field, but ill speak on what i know. i KNOW my macbook OS and lcd quality make my life easier. so why should i think twice about owning one?

Thanks for saying this better than I could. Something about your work makes you credible.

[owequitit]

It's hard to defend the Mac when it has so many weaknesses. I know they are all here I'm just trying to defend a product I love. I know it's expensive, I'll pay (or watch my parents pay) because I love the feel and look of the product.

The iTunes argument is understandable. But irrelevant in a Mac vs PC debate. iTunes is used on PC's and Mac's. And you can download with other programs on both platforms as well. Apple preloads their computers with software I really enjoy. Unlike Windows computers which come with windows media player, something I'm not used to and don't have the desire to learn, as I love iTunes. But the point is, you can choose which software you want on either computer. It just might not be as obvious on a Mac.

iPods have their issues, yet somehow have managed to take over. I love them for their size. (much thinner and lighter than any other HD music player a couple years back when I got mine) A size that is noticeable in my pants pocket. However, lots of small flash based players have popped up I'm sure, but the ability to dock everywhere is so nice. And again, I love the look and feel of the iPod and am willing to pay something for that.

Office for mac has been out for a long time now... so excel and word can be used in their normal ways. No argument there.

I'm sure the business side of things is better on a PC. And again, if you really are switching hardware around then again, a Mac isn't for you.

I see where you're coming from. And a Mac doesn't fit your needs. But for a lot of people it does, and you pay some for the name but you also pay some for extra features that would cost almost as much in a PC laptop. The high end "premium" sony laptops are over priced as well. The difference is you can choose something else so no one bitches. With apple, they don't give you other choices in models. High end or nothing. They are expensive, but for the people they work for they are great.

I hope they don't keep growing, it is, as you've mentioned, hurting their software and quality. It's nice that they are interchangeable, but for me everything I need is already interchangeable. (networking, printing, MS office) I'd love them to plateau and keep themselves less open to virus's and breakdowns.

And since when was less luggage space, worse gas mileage, and a harsher ride more premium? Since you stepped into a porsche.

If it's what you're looking for then it's worth the price.

Since you're not looking for a really sleek computer with extra gadget that you don't need a Mac isn't for you. I love how good everything looks, and how the OS blends in with the frame etc. It's ridiculous, but It's worth it to me.

Unlike a lot of Mac users I run into I'm pretty aware of why I like mine. And why I paid more. For those that just get them because all other college kids are, well shame on them.

You are continually missing my point. It isn't about what software can be loaded where. It is about Apple's piss poor mentality in many cases, that make life hardrer on any end user that doesn't fit their mold.

It is ALL a mentallity thing. Apple thinks they know better than you do, so they better take away your choice and make the decision for you, so you don't hurt yourself. This mentallity permeates all of their products to some degree or another.

[lil_dcb7]

actually ive done both, and im gonna go ahead and comment. it doesnt compare, but the reason it doesnt is because its a different artform. doesnt make it any less justified. im so sick of people trying to difscredit people who use photoshop. anyone who dabbles knows what it takes to create something on a computer screen. if ur gonna discredit post production on the computer u may as well discredit all of graphic design at the same time.

and clicking a button to "fix'' a photo will only take u so far... about as far as dropping off a roll of film at a walgreens.

also i have personally spent extensive time in a darkroom both color and black and white. and believe it or not making adjustments isnt all that different from photoshop.

never, EVER believe that the fix it button makes a good photo out of something that wasnt in the first place.

and no using a mac doesnt make u superior in the multimedia field, but ill speak on what i know. i KNOW my macbook OS and lcd quality make my life easier. so why should i think twice about owning one?

I didn't discredit you. I didn't even mention you. I don't know you used photoshop. I didn't know you used lightroom. When it comes to media arts you produce what you know with the level of your skill. thats IT. there NO more to the argument. No mac, no pc. NOTHING. It comes right down to your skills. I am not questioning your skills. I know you produce really GOOD fucking work. When I look at GOOD work, do I give a shit what you used? Nikon? Canon? Olympus? Mac? PC? A fucking dark room? No. ESPECIALLY if i were a client. Do I give a damn what you used to put my wedding album together? FUCK no. I'm not going to not hire a photographer just because he uses a mac. Or vice versa.

Maybe my post was unclear. I didnt discredit photoshop. I really wanted to mention things that just suck the creativity out of a person. Picasa, Lightroom. Etc. One click. Color curves, brightness, exposure. All Corrected.

I'm saying, the argument that mac's flourish in the media arts is completely invalid.

[ilovemycb7]

You are continually missing my point. It isn't about what software can be loaded where. It is about Apple's piss poor mentality in many cases, that make life hardrer on any end user that doesn't fit their mold.

It is ALL a mentallity thing. Apple thinks they know better than you do, so they better take away your choice and make the decision for you, so you don't hurt yourself. This mentallity permeates all of their products to some degree or another.

I'm not sure how this makes their product any less of a premium. Their piss poor mentality is trying to make money in my opinion. Lock people into iTunes and they will pay, lock people's batteries up and they will pay, make accessories that one has to buy from you and they will pay. You know what I'm talking about. A piss poor mentality or a business strategy? Apple isn't exactly the only company that does something like this. You pay more for their design and ease of use of all the products flowing together. And for it simply being from apple. But, smart people can get around most of these setbacks. And those that don't care can pay.

[sandman61377]

98 was terrible. ME was worse. 2000 was not as bad, but was not as good as XP. Vista seems to have declined from XP in terms of solidity. The jury is still out on Windows 7.

I had a well built, compatible machine and 98 did nothing but crash frequently. Every 98 machine I know of was the same way. The term "blue screen of death" didn't come into colloquial use with ME, it started with 98. 98 was also the one that blew the door WIDE open on security issues.

I don't disagree with 98 not being up to XP level by any means, but you speak as if Ms was on the right track with 95, and 98 blew it for them. 98 was superior to 95 in every way. I worked for a computer company from '99 to '02, and worked on hundreds of machines, in doctors' and lawyers' offices, the local housing authority, and an pc educational program in a low-income housing facilty. Plenty of the computers we worked on, especially in the educational facility, still had 95 on them when I started, and nearly every system that we had a recurring problem with, installing 98 decreased the number of service calls for them by a good bit. When ME came out, we installed it on a computer for one lawyer that always wanted to be on the cutting edge or whatever, and the number of service calls we had for that system nearly tripled. It had 98 before we installed ME. And I knew plenty of people that used the "blue screen of death" phrase before 98 even came out. Btw, I had seen that blue screen even back on 3.1.
I have a pc that dual boots between 98 and mandrake linux, and it freezes more often with linux than with 98, although I believe it does have a faulty motherboard.

[visualpoet]

I used to be a diehard Apple guy. To the extent that I installed a windows emulator on my Quadra back in the day (If you recognize the Quadra, you know how far back in the day it was ) just so I could deal with my non-Apple clientele base when I did graphic design work. I HATED PCs with a passion; my Apples always outran them, never crashed, did what I wanted, when I wanted. I talked smack about PCs and how slow they ran, how often they crashed, how Gates tried to copy the Apple desktop, but couldn't get it right, but...
When I got out of doing design work professionally, I couldn't afford to buy another new Apple, so I started using a hand me down PC, and I haven't gone back. Sure, the PC has it's problems, but for my purposes, and for the money, it's great. If I had an Apple, there are stupid things I couldn't play on the internet, things I couldn't make use of because so much software is for a PC only. I love Apple's design work, they look great, the power is there, but a PC is a much more all around machine for me and my family. I don't think my two teenage boys have even touched an Apple computer.
I use Photoshop for a lot of things, not just touching up photos. I actually began using it with 1.0 (on an Apple product), taught myself and used it for image creation, not manipulation. It was probably two years before I even tried anything with a photo. I don't notice any siginificant difference between the ease of use on either machine when it comes to Photoshop. Now that all my pics are digital ( I still have an old film camera somewhere, but then again, I also have doxzens of undeveloped rolls of film around too), I spend quite a bit of time playing with CS3, and my PC works just fine for me.
Sadly, even if I had the loot to buy a new top of the line Apple product, I would stick with the PC. I don't want to relearn how to use a computer again after all these years!

[J-specCb4]

I didn't discredit you. I didn't even mention you. I don't know you used photoshop. I didn't know you used lightroom. When it comes to media arts you produce what you know with the level of your skill. thats IT. there NO more to the argument. No mac, no pc. NOTHING. It comes right down to your skills. I am not questioning your skills. I know you produce really GOOD fucking work. When I look at GOOD work, do I give a shit what you used? Nikon? Canon? Olympus? Mac? PC? A fucking dark room? No. ESPECIALLY if i were a client. Do I give a damn what you used to put my wedding album together? FUCK no. I'm not going to not hire a photographer just because he uses a mac. Or vice versa.

Maybe my post was unclear. I didnt discredit photoshop. I really wanted to mention things that just suck the creativity out of a person. Picasa, Lightroom. Etc. One click. Color curves, brightness, exposure. All Corrected.

I'm saying, the argument that mac's flourish in the media arts is completely invalid.

i wastn even talking about me man i was completely just speaking of the fact that clicking the fix button does much less than u would think. im not gonna argue with u over the statement u made about them not flourishing in the media arts field because we could go back and fourth all day, but i will say that it DOES work better for me and many others who do what i do, and that is a FACT.

[owequitit]

I don't disagree with 98 not being up to XP level by any means, but you speak as if Ms was on the right track with 95, and 98 blew it for them. 98 was superior to 95 in every way. I worked for a computer company from '99 to '02, and worked on hundreds of machines, in doctors' and lawyers' offices, the local housing authority, and an pc educational program in a low-income housing facilty. Plenty of the computers we worked on, especially in the educational facility, still had 95 on them when I started, and nearly every system that we had a recurring problem with, installing 98 decreased the number of service calls for them by a good bit. When ME came out, we installed it on a computer for one lawyer that always wanted to be on the cutting edge or whatever, and the number of service calls we had for that system nearly tripled. It had 98 before we installed ME. And I knew plenty of people that used the "blue screen of death" phrase before 98 even came out. Btw, I had seen that blue screen even back on 3.1.
I have a pc that dual boots between 98 and mandrake linux, and it freezes more often with linux than with 98, although I believe it does have a faulty motherboard.

I'm glad you worked for a computer company. My dad does too, so does one of my best friends. What is your point?

Out of all the 95,98,ME,2000,XP machines we have dealt with, which was a TON, 98 and ME consistently had the most problems and the most crashes. At no point did I defend 95 or any other one. The ONLY MS OS I will defend are DOS, and XP, because I haven't had a lot of issues with either of them.

I didn't say there was no blue screen prior to 98, I said it became a word in the jargon with 98. Could still have been a result of the proliferation of the PC though. A lot of households were still buying the first computer in that time frame.

[owequitit]

I'm not sure how this makes their product any less of a premium. Their piss poor mentality is trying to make money in my opinion. Lock people into iTunes and they will pay, lock people's batteries up and they will pay, make accessories that one has to buy from you and they will pay. You know what I'm talking about. A piss poor mentality or a business strategy? Apple isn't exactly the only company that does something like this. You pay more for their design and ease of use of all the products flowing together. And for it simply being from apple. But, smart people can get around most of these setbacks. And those that don't care can pay.

More money=less customer consideration= not premium.

You obviously value shit differently. Leave it at that.

[ilovemycb7]

More money=less customer consideration=premium.

You obviously value shit differently. Leave it at that.

Damnit. You win again. I'm lost. Maybe one day...

Enjoy your posts as always.

I'll go back in my corner and enjoy my Mac in private.

[owequitit]

Damnit. You win again. I'm lost. Maybe one day...

Enjoy your posts as always.

I'll go back in my corner and enjoy my Mac in private.

Made a typo. Edited my post.

[ilovemycb7]

Made a typo. Edited my post.

[sandman61377]

I'm glad you worked for a computer company. My dad does too, so does one of my best friends. What is your point?

Out of all the 95,98,ME,2000,XP machines we have dealt with, which was a TON, 98 and ME consistently had the most problems and the most crashes. At no point did I defend 95 or any other one. The ONLY MS OS I will defend are DOS, and XP, because I haven't had a lot of issues with either of them.

I didn't say there was no blue screen prior to 98, I said it became a word in the jargon with 98. Could still have been a result of the proliferation of the PC though. A lot of households were still buying the first computer in that time frame.

My point was similar to the statement you make here. Out of all the 95, & 98 machines I have dealt with, which was a TON (after that first sytem with ME, we wouldn't install it on anybody else's computers, so I've only dealt with a handfull of ME systems, or 2000 systems for that matter even though it was a better OS than ME) 95 consistently crashed WAY more than 98. I haven't dealt with as many different XP systems, since I wasn't at that job anymore when XP came out, but between work computers, friends and family, and my own personal systems, its still been quite a few.
As for defending them, well, I didn't really say you were, but this statement:

The only reason Apple is still around, is because Microsoft got too big for their britches, and made Windows 98, which was so horrendous, that many stopped using PC's altogether. Even in the dedicated graphics arena, video production etc, the PC was tearing Mac up and very quickly replacing it as the standard of the industry. But with Windows 98, they lost it because big production houses can't afford to put up with that kind of shit. Had Windows XP been the next step after 95, or had NT been more widespread, that may not have been the case.

very much looks like you are saying that 95 was on the right track for them, but 98 wasn't. All I'm really saying is that, in my experiance, there isn't a single thing that 98 doesnt do better than 95, so if that general time period made things worse for MS, then it had to have started with 95.
And I know you weren't saying that the blue screen of death started with 98, i was mearly commenting on how with the people I knew at the time, that term was already a word in the jargon before 98 came out.

[bcjammerx]

building a laptop or pc is 100% relevant as it gives me 100% of what I would want...but...I could buy an even cheaper desktop/laptop and still...point is the same

My point as to the "jeans" is that only the pretentious snobs try to act as if it makes something better, because it most certainly doesn't. In fact, those "higher" priced jeans don't usually last as long or hold up to use as much But still...lots of folks by HP and don't care about their poor service...cool...fine...no biggy.

NEITHER are BETTER...one simply appeals to you more...we get that...the point being made...neither is actually better...for you price seems to not matter...for most everyone else...it does. Ok fine...doesn't make macs better.

[d112crzy]

The thinner and lighter weight is worth something too. The quality of the case, a product that doesn't feel cheap and get squeaky with age.

You've never had much experience with multiple laptops have you?

I could destroy your precious mac book with my IBM/Lenovo laptop(literally).

Any software you can get with a Mac, you can get with a PC, but the other way around is not true unless you install windows. Case and point, tuning software.


I guess it can come down to: having a Ferrari, or having a 10 second Honda. Both fast, one's just extremely less expensive and still as reliable and no where near as expensive to fix when broken.