>Chances are, if a MAC computer is featured in a film, > it is because Apple PAID the producers to put it in their >movie. I really can't believe film producers would be making >any statement about technical merit of differing computer >platforms - rather, just which manufacturer would pay the >most for advertising time in the movie.
Totally, completely, utterly FALSE. Until VERY recently, Apple made no effort to have their computers in film. They were chosen because they were the preferred computer of an influential producer, director, or even actor. And even recently, Apple’s only contribution to the film would be the loan of a computer to the effort, and often times, Apple would be requested by the film company to buy the loaned hardware after filming. Please, if you are going to make such a specific statement, make sure it is accurate, because there is no truth to your statement at all. I admit that I can understand how you could have extrapolated such a statement because many companies DO pay to have their products on display in a film, but this isn’t the case for the Mac. It is used because it is a popular computer in the entertainment industry. They best example is the Mac that has been in every shot of Jerry Seinfeld’s apartment. The first Mac was Jerry’s personal computer that he had upgraded to a newer model.
>and to be down right honest the mac can't do in a lifetime >half of what my 400 Mhz Pentium II can do in a heatbeat >(not just because of speed, sometimes things just can't be >customized or tweaked on a mac)!!!
I love this one!!! Considering a 400Mhz G3 Mac can crunch numbers, graphics, or whatever at roughly twice the speed of a 450Mhz Pentium II(BYTE's benchmarks, a decidedly PC centric publication, not mine), I can only assume that your problems with Mac’s are user related and not hardware related.
