Forum Moderators: phranque
Just wondering what computer most of you use for Web Design.
GeoffB
We all use macs.
;-)
;)
I started in this business in 1983, I got to use a Mac before they were even "for sale", as a competitor to Apple!
Macs were evil then, and I still consider them evil now. They might be great, but, in my mind they will always be evil....LOL!
Asking me to use a Mac would be like asking me to drink Pepsi, it will never happen....LOL!
So the IBM PC clones have had their problems, most due to popularity actually! I'm sure Mac's would be in the same boat if they had taken 90%+ of the marketplace :)
A web designer needs a good screen, good software, a great mouse, the PC manufacturer almost becomes irrelevant!
I like Sony for flat PC screens, I like MS for mice, I like ACE and Cute for Webmaster software.
I currently have a Sony PC box (2 years old). It's about to go to the dumpster though......haven't made a decision on who is next yet?
I think differently, I use a PC. ;)
I've been on computers since around 1977-1978 and have used both for extended periods of time. PC's are the most practical in terms of the ratio of raw power to money spent. I don't care if the computer is tie-dyed, I just want it to do what it has to do. Don't tell me macs don't crash because I've had the frustration of using under-rammed macs and it isn't fun. When OS X came out they were saying that it wouldn't crash as much as previous ones. But before OS-X came out they never admitted their systems were proned to crashing. Huh?
Having switched back and forth between the two for years at a time, the state of the art has reached a point where the practical choice on many levels is a PC. Now the question is do you wait until late 2007 for the quad-cores to come out or commit to a dual core? Do you opt for dual SLI graphics cards set up or just go for a single card that smokes and double up later when the price goes down and you really, really, really need one? Four gigs of ram or just two gigs?
I'm about to buy a new computer and am opting for a level below dual-core extreme and going for four gigs of ram. Having it built with a custom case with multiple fans and premium parts throughout, made to order. I want a PC with muscle, and dollar for dollar PC's deliver on many different levels.
Now that Macs are moving to Intel hardware, I'm not sure what the point is.
Why not work in an environment that is highly compatible with your server environment? (Which in most cases is Linux.) The big difference, of course, is that you most likely will run X-Windows and a desktop on a Linux development machine. But, other than that, you'll find most everything is the same or very similar.
Why use something completely different (Windows), or "close but no cigar"? (OSX).
That said, for some reason, Rubyists seem to love Macs. I think it has to do with the company that developed Rails being Mac fans, and falling in love with a certain text editor. I've gone the IDE route, though, and am loving RadRails, an Eclipse plugin that runs just fine on Linux.
I love rebooting only once every few months.
Well, I can only speak for the exceptionally discerning
This is so typical of most Mac user's it's just not funny any more. I've been working with Macs since system 5.0/Mac Classics in desktop publishing and on the web. I have a G3 sitting here I use for compatibility testing.
I have no platform prejudice and can say without a doubt that there is not a single thing that makes a Macintosh superior to a Windows-based computer in any way. Not one. In fact it presents many more limitations in software and hardware.
Sorry for feeding the troll, to answer OP, for the last 10 years I have developed on Windows, but testing on various hardware and software platforms and browser brand/version is critical, not optional - including Mac.
I build my own PCs so I'm spending more money on the components I value.
Now that Macs are moving to Intel hardware, I'm not sure what the point is.
They make even more money ;)
Not to hijack this thread, but:
Compare apples to apples (no pun intended) any one of their systems be it a laptop/desktop with exactly the same hardware (Intel processor(s),ATI/NVIDIA graphics etc) to a PC configured the same way and you will see Apple charging 2-5 times more in many cases.
Why? The big argument was MACs were superior due to their CPU/Bus. But, since moving to Intel processors they are claiming their laptops are 25% faster? I guess I just don't understand why their operating system is 1/2 the price of Windows XP, they use the same hardware, yet they cost 2-5 times as much as a simliar PC.
To further my earlier answer - "my own" - I'd like to point out that I consider myself a "hard-core" WAMP coder. That would be "Windows, Apache, MySQL, Perl/PHP." I respectfully disagree that one would need to purchase a Mac for xAMP setup. For example, what about a dual-boot setup, Windows and Linux? Or just chuck out Windows and install Linux. If there's a reason as to why a Mac is truly the best Linux-like box for xAMP, I'd like to know what I've been missing out on.
I've been running this setup for years, and it so closely mimics my Linux hosting environment that I can only think of one problem I've had in that time: taint checking in Perl. (Taint checking is an extra layer of security one can employ in their Perl programs (which doesn't seem to be used enough by coders). Windows doesn't like taint checking in the shebang line.)
FTR: Windows 2000, 2 GHz Pentium, 2 GB RAM, "big" hard drive, average video card
What I try to do is get my dev system as close to my hosting system as possible. Provides me with a true test scenario.
Mack.
and nothing moves between it and the others except by USB keys and discs that are scoured and cleared via an intermediate machine whose sole purpose is to be the sterilisation area before being loaded onto other devices for onward distribution ..emails included ..once bitten ..twice shy
and 2 laptops do the same for on the road ..
YMMV ..I sleep on both my ears ..( translated ..more or less ;-)) ../so I now have NWF/ ...from the original français ) ...
yossarian was right ..
many thanks for your opinions and the info about how and what systems you use to design and build.
I suppose like many people who dont really know about 'computers themselves' ie:ram/memory/bytes and so on, I just assumed MAC's were way superior than anything else, cos its a mac. he he!
But I think i have made up my mind and will continue on a PC, but a good one. Not one built from by brother in law that crashes as soon as you have dreamweaver, photoshop and another high end program open at once.
cheers for all your help guys/girls....if any comented.
Geoff
- Dual core
- plenty of RAM (1GB if running Linux, 2GB if running Windows)
- Invest in a really good power supply. This will cost $100-$200, not $29.95.
- don't scrimp on hard disk quality. Although expensive, SCSI drives are still the king of quality. However, they require a special controller, and cost outrageously more than IDE or EIDE drives. It's not the fact that they are SCSI that makes them so good - it's that they are at this point used exclusively for servers, and manufacturers target that market. There are only a small handful of EIDE drives (with a small handful = 1) that approach this quality. Do some research, and find out what EIDE drive is being used most in servers.
Of these suggestions, the most important one is the power supply. The least-respected and most-important component of your system.
WAMP
For example, what about a dual-boot setup, Windows and Linux?
Or just chuck out Windows and install Linux.
If there's a reason as to why a Mac is truly the best Linux-like box for xAMP, I'd like to know what I've been missing out on.
