MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Marc McCal » Sat, 03 Jun 1995 04:00:00




> Path: failure.news.pilot.net!newsprime.pilot.net!x15.pilot.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!pendragon!ames!hookup!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!news.ak.net!news

> Newsgroups: alt.binaries.multimedia,alt.binaries.pictures.misc,alt.binaries.pictures.utilities,comp.compression,comp.graphics,comp.graphics.animation,comp.multimedia
> Subject: Re: MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia
> Date: 31 May 1995 12:58:12 GMT
> Organization: mua
> Lines: 23
> Distribution: world


> NNTP-Posting-Host: term1-s10.ak.net
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.4
> Xref: failure.news.pilot.net alt.binaries.multimedia:27970 alt.binaries.pictures.misc:32662 alt.binaries.pictures.utilities:17429 comp.compression:9127 comp.graphics:25676 comp.graphics.animation:11889 comp.multimedia:21041


> >bah,
> >you and i and everyone else in the entire world knows that the
> >MACINTOSH was made for multimedia and DTP. You know it. Sure, windoze
> >and os/poo have their share of graphics and video etc shit but the mac
> >(ppc esp) was simply created to be a multimedia machine. I have both
> >puters right here, I am not an ignorant mac user, nor a dipshit pc
> >user. The PC is good for everything BUT graphics and multimedia, no
> >matter the OS. The mac is good at that, not at anything else, well
> >maybe some other things.

> >my 3.5 canadian cents
> >-brian

> >******************************************
> >*             Munchkin On IRC            *
> >*     http://www.halcyon.com/larryf/     *
> >******************************************

> What can the mac do with graphics that the pc can't?

Oh please! you MAC users have your heads buried so deep into a hole you have
NO IDEA whats up in the REAL computer world!
I was woried about the PC's presence in the grafix world after the unveiling
of the PowerPC.... that is until I saw one in action. The powerPC 601 is
slower than a 486-66 with a $100 graphics card!

And by the way , I am now running Windows 95... which blows windows3.1 away in
the multimedia dept. It's gonna be a sad year for Apple in '95

also, wish you could see Descent on my PC... you would burn your friggn' MAC!
Didn't they just release wolfenstein on the MAC? hahahahah =)

Dream on, MAC Fanatics! your superiority exists only amongst yourselves! Just
wait till P^ is out this year! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH =)

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Mats AAhlbe » Thu, 08 Jun 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>Oh please! you MAC users have your heads buried so deep into a hole you have
>NO IDEA whats up in the REAL computer world!
>I was woried about the PC's presence in the grafix world after the unveiling
>of the PowerPC.... that is until I saw one in action. The powerPC 601 is
>slower than a 486-66 with a $100 graphics card!

>And by the way , I am now running Windows 95... which blows windows3.1 away
in
>the multimedia dept. It's gonna be a sad year for Apple in '95

>also, wish you could see Descent on my PC... you would burn your friggn' MAC!
>Didn't they just release wolfenstein on the MAC? hahahahah =)

>Dream on, MAC Fanatics! your superiority exists only amongst yourselves! Just
>wait till P^ is out this year! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH =)

Hmmm you hav got it wrong. The PC is very well adapted to low res games as
descent to give them high speed. I use both PC and Mac alot and i hav tried
to run Photoshop on both systems. A Pentium 90 mhz with 16 Megs o RAM and a
Macintosh Quadra 700 20 Mhz with 16 Megs. The mac runs Photosop about three
times as fast when handling a 10 meg picture. And to tell you something about
Wolfensten it has been out for mac for a looong time and it is in high RES not
Low res as the PC version.. That is why it took them some time to do it they
had to remake all the graphics to the mac version. and descent is sceduled
to Oktober november...

Hope this cleared the subject..
MVh Mats ?hlberg


 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by delli.. » Fri, 09 Jun 1995 04:00:00


What kind of pathetic idiot thinks PC's are better because of Doom?
Yes, I want lousy graphics.  Get a clue.  Look at Marathon compared to
Doom, Doom II, or Dark Forces.  No contest, Marathon wins.  Game
developers understand the average PC user has come to expect less
quality and that's what they give.  Yes, There is a 10 to 1 advantage
in the number of software applications but who cares?  90% of it is
crap.

Thanks,
Dave

I was sad because I had no shoes then I met a man with Windows.

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Dr. Mike Hawke » Fri, 09 Jun 1995 04:00:00


Please- can we keep this newsgroup to compression-related topics and
not a flame war between mac vs. PC users.

Thanks.

--
Mike Hawkes.

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by video.. » Sun, 11 Jun 1995 04:00:00



>What kind of pathetic idiot thinks PC's are better because of Doom?
>Yes, I want lousy graphics.  Get a clue.  Look at Marathon compared to
>Doom, Doom II, or Dark Forces.  No contest, Marathon wins.  Game

Agreed, still doom can be fun deathmached and networked but that does not
make a PC better.

Quote:>developers understand the average PC user has come to expect less
>quality and that's what they give.  Yes, There is a 10 to 1 advantage
>in the number of software applications but who cares?  90% of it is
>crap.

See here is the rub, I bet they made 100x more $$$ on doom than on
marathon, in fact they were down right brave to put out a game for a Mac,
and yes your right is HAS to be better quality, and more work, and more
time, and take more money and effort to make, fo maybe 100th the return
on the money.  And because of this I spent 4-5K on a high end PC not a
High end mac, and so will others.. so that hurts Mac's

I don't think the PC is better, can't stand the beasts, I'll agree that
the mac is better in many ways, but that software reality, and economics
is going to kill you. I hope it does not i hope IBM/Mac kick intel's but
and i'll happly dump my pentium for the "PPC standard" that everyone is
develping for.... but I have for years spent money on the best hardware,
and the best OS... guess what   If the software companys can't make a
bunch of $$ on your system, it's history.
--
.__________________________________________________________________________.
|   -== When Dreams Become Reality ==-                    -= IM Design=-   |
|"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""|"""""""""""""""""""""|""""""""""""""""""""|


| Mosaic Home Page: file://ftp.netcom.com/pub/vi/videoman/web/HOME.html    |
|3 Amiga's and a 100Mhz Pentium/triton/f&w SCSI/4Meg Stealth-VIDEO/3601CD  |
~""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Steven Georg Goodrid » Sun, 11 Jun 1995 04:00:00



Quote:>> well so... run os/2  Or as we are talking REAL run WIN NT real 32 bit
>> real muti tasking .. it kicks, it's hard to belive MS made it!  

>I have to agree on the Window NT 3.5, it is very nice.  I've run it, and
>it was very difficult to make it crash. It 's biggest flaw has to be the
>system requirements.  I still like the Macintosh better, and think that
>for multitasking one Unix still takes the cake.

Unix is best for multi-user multitasking, but OS/2 and NT threads provide
better real-time performance in a single-user environment.  Preemptive,
priority-based threads are better for time-critical control, communication
and multimedia applications than is Unix's round-robin process scheduling.
For example, OS/2's multimedia subsystem uses threads to to ensure smooth
performance despite changes in system load. With a fast PC and the right
sound card, one can play multiple .avi files and .wav files at the same time
to illustrate this.

Steve Goodridge
NCSU

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Sharon DiOr » Mon, 12 Jun 1995 04:00:00




> >What kind of pathetic idiot thinks PC's are better because of Doom?
> >Yes, I want lousy graphics.  Get a clue.  Look at Marathon compared to
> >Doom, Doom II, or Dark Forces.  No contest, Marathon wins.  Game

> Agreed, still doom can be fun deathmached and networked but that does not
> make a PC better.

Doom networked is cool to play but hell on network bandwidth (and a
network administrator - ME).  But that's beside the point.  The graphics
are rudimentary.  Programming games for Macs takes more technical skill -
hence the lack of choice, but the better quality of Mac games.

Quote:> >developers understand the average PC user has come to expect less
> >quality and that's what they give.  Yes, There is a 10 to 1 advantage
> >in the number of software applications but who cares?  90% of it is
> >crap.

> See here is the rub, I bet they made 100x more $$$ on doom than on
> marathon, in fact they were down right brave to put out a game for a Mac,
> and yes your right is HAS to be better quality, and more work, and more
> time, and take more money and effort to make, fo maybe 100th the return
> on the money.  And because of this I spent 4-5K on a high end PC not a
> High end mac, and so will others.. so that hurts Mac's

I just don't buy the software excuse for not choosing a Mac.  This may
have been the case when the Mac was a 128K machine and the only software
for it came on the machine.  Anything worth having comes on both
platforms.  The notable exceptions (particularly in corporate consulting)
are some software tools for implementing large-scale systems in corporate
structures, and those crappy games I see in the discount bin for $5.00.

Quote:> I don't think the PC is better, can't stand the beasts, I'll agree that
> the mac is better in many ways, but that software reality, and economics
> is going to kill you. I hope it does not i hope IBM/Mac kick intel's but
> and i'll happly dump my pentium for the "PPC standard" that everyone is
> develping for.... but I have for years spent money on the best hardware,
> and the best OS... guess what   If the software companys can't make a
> bunch of $$ on your system, it's history.

But see, the software reality is that there are still people willing to
pay for quality.  People have been saying that the Mac is doomed for how
long now?  Um, since it was introduced?  It's a quality machine that even
at it's worst is easier to use, and at it's best is a powerful multimedia
(face it, Mac's are the true multimedia machine since the start) platform
that is also very nice for other things.

Peace.

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Sharon DiOr » Mon, 12 Jun 1995 04:00:00



> well so... run os/2  Or as we are talking REAL run WIN NT real 32 bit
> real muti tasking .. it kicks, it's hard to belive MS made it!  

It does kick.  Too bad nobody is buying it for anything besides servers.
 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by FJ Madd » Tue, 13 Jun 1995 04:00:00


Ummm... Try an Acorn (ITS RISC based, British and does FMV at 25fps, no
hardware assistance)
I like Macs too... Progress is through respecting diversity, not pandering
to a monoculture.
:-}#
 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Steven Georg Goodrid » Tue, 13 Jun 1995 04:00:00





>> well so... run os/2  Or as we are talking REAL run WIN NT real 32 bit
>> real muti tasking .. it kicks, it's hard to belive MS made it!  

>It does kick.  Too bad nobody is buying it for anything besides servers.

OS/2, on the other hand, is selling like mad.  As are OS/2 apps. Indelible
Blue, a mail-order company that only sells OS/2 software, is currently
one of the 10 fastest growing companies in North Carolina.

And OS/2's multimedia features (and driver support) are more extensive
than NT's.

Steve Goodridge
NCSU

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Steven Georg Goodrid » Wed, 14 Jun 1995 04:00:00






>>For example, OS/2's multimedia subsystem uses threads to to ensure smooth
>>performance despite changes in system load. With a fast PC and the right
>>sound card, one can play multiple .avi files and .wav files at the same time
>>to illustrate this.

>A Mac can do this sort of thing just fine, too. You don't even need the
>"right" sound card.

Of course. Mac hardware is built for this sort of thing. But a lot of PC
hardware and device drivers were designed with lower expectations in mind
(DOS and Windows.)  So we OS/2 users have to be careful to avoid all the
*on the market.  Not every sound card manufacturer supports OS/2,
especially when it comes to those features that OS/2 does better than
Windows.  But if we shop smart, OS/2 users can do things Windows users
cannot (without spending a lot more money.) OS/2 users aren't dazzled
by pretty boxes on the shelf of the local software stores. They plan
ahead and are particular about what they run (and they all get
catalogs from Indelible Blue.)  If they didn't care, they wouldn't
be using OS/2 in the first place.

Most sound cards work under OS/2 (like Creative labs) but the MWAVE-based
sound cards from IBM have the best multitasking sound capabilities.

Macs are great. PC's are great too - if they run a mature, 32-bit
operating system, IMHO. One simply has to choose the right hardware and
software.  There's a lot of *out there that needs to be avoided.

Steve Goodridge
NCSU

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Michael Luchenits » Wed, 14 Jun 1995 04:00:00


: What kind of pathetic idiot thinks PC's are better because of Doom?
: Yes, I want lousy graphics.  Get a clue.  Look at Marathon compared to
: Doom, Doom II, or Dark Forces.  No contest, Marathon wins.  Game
: developers understand the average PC user has come to expect less
: quality and that's what they give.  Yes, There is a 10 to 1 advantage
: in the number of software applications but who cares?  90% of it is
: crap.

   How many of you Mac-owners out there can run Marathon full-screen
high-detail without slowdown.... !?!?!? Not too many people have high-end
PowerMacs..
--
                                                      -Al
                                                    <ILSY>

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by ZOMB » Wed, 14 Jun 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>Macs are great. PC's are great too - if they run a mature, 32-bit
>operating system, IMHO. One simply has to choose the right hardware and
>software.  There's a lot of *out there that needs to be avoided.

I agree. What little experience w/ PC's I've had, I've loved OS/2 and
hated Windoze. Question, tho. Isn't it kind of hard to get applications
ported to OS/2? Just seems like it's the red-headed step child of software
developement. But , maybe I'm wrong. Just wondering.

Keith Lango
the Zombie Group
Graphic/Advertising Design

"It's always funny 'til someone gets hurt-then it's just hillarious." FNM

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Lawrence D1Olivei » Wed, 14 Jun 1995 04:00:00




>For example, OS/2's multimedia subsystem uses threads to to ensure smooth
>performance despite changes in system load. With a fast PC and the right
>sound card, one can play multiple .avi files and .wav files at the same time
>to illustrate this.

A Mac can do this sort of thing just fine, too. You don't even need the
"right" sound card.
 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Steven Georg Goodrid » Wed, 14 Jun 1995 04:00:00




>In article


>> And I would like to thank MAC for setting the standards, because now I
>> can "afford" to have the "technical prowess' that Win 95 provides.

>Well, I'm glad.  I can't "afford" to wait for the technical prowess.  I
>need it now.

>Sharon

Exactly why I'm using OS/2 for all of my graphics and image processing.
Threads and a 32-bit flat memory model make OS/2 very powerful.

I've been doing computer vision with OS/2 for 10 months now.  I'm
never going back to Windows.  But I might try MacOS.

Steve Goodridge
NCSU

 
 
 

1. MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Hmmm, there are two sides to this coin. There are a lot of (older)
Windows programs that will run on OS/2 but NOT on Windows NT, Windows
3.11 or Windows '95. Backwards compatibility is a tough problem, not
only for the competitors of Microsoft.

Microsoft's solution for these problem, "upgrade your applications", is
not always appreciated. Especially large companies seem to like OS/2
because it preserves investments better than Windows does.

Take care,

Nico de Vries [AIP-NL UltraCompressor development]

2. W2K versus Windows .NET Server 2003

3. Crypt font

4. X an OS? (was Re: MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia)

5. eventlog: IdePort1 is not ready for access

6. HP6200c versus X6EL versus P636 versus UMAX 2400s

7. SNMPv2 versus IPSEC versus SSL versus Kerberos

8. Mac Versus PC - Epson ES-1200

9. Compability problem Excel 5(Mac) versus Excel7(PC)

10. MAC vs Windows PC vs OS/2 PC vs THIS NEWSGROUP