In reply to a post by CurlyWhirly:

No.

I saw an article on Click saying that as so many people use androids, smartphones, etc for internet access that the PC and laptop market will just die making it not commercially viable for Microsoft to put in the R & D costs.

There are going to be plenty of laptops and desktops around for a few years yet and they are still producing them.


Some people still need powerful machines, something that you can't get with a tablet. Try editing a large video project on a tablet or how about doing some desktop publishing or producing music. I am sure there are many other things that could not really be done on a tablet.


A lot of people that uses tablets just browse the net, have a peak at their facebook, watch the odd video and that is about it.

In reply to a post by CurlyWhirly:

I have no intention of buying Windows 8 and not just because I wouldn't be able to use the new Metro interface as I haven't got access to touch screen technology.

I said that as well and what have I got running on my desktop machine? windows 8. But I did not pay for it, someone else did that.

You don't need a touch screen for Metro, and if you want to by pass it yo can use something like classic start, which is what I have done.

I still think the metro screen is just not right for the OS.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Some people still need powerful machines, something that you can't get with a tablet. Try editing a large video project on a tablet or how about doing some desktop publishing or producing music. I am sure there are many other things that could not really be done on a tablet.

Such as large scale data entry where you need a decent tactile keyboard with a very basic desktop and monitor.

Right, so M$ never stole anything. Ok, if you like to believe that....

Yes, pretty machines that in general outperform Windows machines.

Good rebuttal.

Yes and you know a lot of people.

In reply to a post by NaNook:

Yes, pretty machines that in general outperform Windows machines.

If you say so. I'd guess that you don't actually work in the industry. You get less bang for your buck from Apple, that's just fact.

Just look at the current hardware offerings from Apple, price the components elsewhere, include build costs by a professional and you'll find your wallet much lighter if you still decide to go with Apple. Use the same budget from Apple for a new build and you'll have a computer that will outperform most manufacturer offerings for years to come. I built my home one 4 years ago with high specs, cost around a £1000, don't expect to have to build another one for another few years yet, hasn't struggled to run anything I've thrown at it yet.

Not to mention Apples ridiculous glossy screens, much prefer my Dell 27" IPS over the Apple Thunderbolt, you can actually see things on the screen without having to worry about room lighting.

OS wise, I really don't like the direction either are making at the moment, OSX has turned into a sales platform and 8 is heading the same way. I work on my computers, tablets are for leisure time.

No of course not.

In reply to a post by NaNook:

Yes, pretty machines that in general outperform Windows machines.

Depends on what the hardware is, no doubt a Apple that is using a I7 will out perform a windows machine that is have a I5 as it main CPU,.

TBH, i don't think there is a awful lot of performance difference if both machines have the same hardware, certainly if you compare OSX with windows 7.
some of the software for the MAC is nicer to use and may have some different features.

My AMD quad core 3.5Ghz machine is not that much slower at rendering a video than my friends I5 IMac, that is using the same software Adobe after effects. Strange really as her machine got hardware rendering, mine have not as my graphics card is pretty old.

I am not picking sides as I like apple Machines and the OS, but I still like my windows 7 machines, ok it is windows 8 again at the moment. i also like Linux and as I said before, if I could get a decent video editor and effect software for Linux, I would change over tomorrow, ok not tomorrow as I need a bit of time to learn the software, but you know what I mean.

BTW, i hate Adobe stuff, but After effects is good for what it does, but as a video editor, I prefer Vegas. i also like final cut, certainly the new version which have back ground rendering.