mac vs pc vs LINUX?!?!?!?!?!?

XyncheMac is the better OS considering it's lack of bugs and viruses + they always look nice and almost always function properlyWindows has the best price and you can upgrade and do all kinds of whatever with itLinux... Idk

Mac is only good for the looks.
There are plenty of viri for Mac. :P
And it's functionality is no greater than it's cost.

linux can readily do far more than mac.

How about those CG artists/programmers? What OS do they prefer? I think it's Mac OS.
What render station do they use?

all major CGI programs have versions for every OS (win/mac/linux).

Replying to #44

Regardless, no OS will work if you have a station that can barely run Crysis. I'm sure CGI requires more than a station to render.
I think multiple CPUs tied to a single OS (single-control). (each CPU has to be able to run Crysis without a hitch)
I ASSUME as i have no practical knowledge whatsoever on such awesomeness that is CGI.

mac is also short for macintosh. just puttin that out there. So dont kill me.

Replying to #46

Uh...yeah. :P
Most people know that. Macintosh is an operating system as well...and Apple developed it to get rich...they were pretty ok, but once they got to a certain one, it went down the shitter.

allkratos · #45Regardless, no OS will work if you have a station that can barely run Crysis. I'm sure CGI requires more than a station to render.
I think multiple CPUs tied to a single OS (single-control). (each CPU has to be able to run Crysis without a hitch)
I ASSUME as i have no practical knowledge whatsoever on such awesomeness that is CGI.

you can render CGI on anything, it would just take a hell of a long time on a K6. (much longer than it would on more modern CPUs). There's two factors at play; CPU speed (individual core/processor speed on multicore/multiprocessor systems) dictates how long it takes to render a single frame, while number of cores/CPUs dictates how many frames you can render simultaneously. Thus there is more benefit to having more processors than there is to having faster ones.Theres also distributed rendering, which is where the job is split between multiple computers on a network, with each computer doing a few frames and sending them back to the server, then doing a few more. this is how its most often done, as only the software license limits how many machines you can use. Fast dual/quad core computers are quite cheap compared to a multiprocessor-multicore system (multiple CPUs each with multiple cores)

windows (pc)
xp was the first system i used...im not saying i dislike mac just because of that.
trust me i have used a mac to see if i liked it, went in with an open mind....came out with a headache
-the coloring is plain
-why's the close bar on the other side
-whats up with the bar on top
-and this rocketdock thing
In my brothers case he has a mish-mash of mac and windows, guessing he could not decide (macindows?,winmac?,macwin?)
I guess its a windows vista with mac icons...not sure though
the virus thing can be dealt with very easily....stop going into porn sites (unreliable ones :D)

I enjoy both Windows and Linux.At the moment I've got a dual boot of Microsoft XP Professional and Ubuntu and it suits my needs perfectly.I have the XP for using programs such as Photoshop etc. While I have Ubuntu souly used for online browsing. It literally takes a matter of seconds for my dated laptop to boot and surf the web using Ubuntu.

I vote Windows. Mac is overpriced, and Linux has benefits but it's too much work for me to bother with.

Replying to #51

It's not much work if you get the right distro.