To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No, he/she is _not_ saying that. Read his/her comment:
"OS X aside, the iLife suite alone has no equivalent on the XP machine unless you go out and pay extra for the software. And what iLife provides is software that is essential if you are going to do anything with audio/video on your computer."
He is saying that for the 'home' user, OSX comes out of the box with nice software to do audio/video stuff on your computer. If you want something similar on Windows XP, you need to buy it separately.
He said in the other post:
"I switched to a Mac several years ago after an endless struggle trying to get decent software to work with audio/video on a Windows machine. I spent a lot of money on software for that end and it never seemed to work very well."
Agreed, the second post is a bit less extreme, but I think he really does mean that macs are essential for audio video. And I think that is nonsense.
As for iLife, its probable real value is the retail price it sells for. Why would it be any different?







Member since:
2005-10-12
Are you really telling us that only 3% of the world is running software which permits them to do audio-visual applications? And within that 3%, that only iLife cuts it?
This is a denial of reality to the point of insanity!
Just think about the implications of one fact. Right now, whatever may happen in the future, right now Photoshop on MacIntel runs at one third speed, and will for at least a year. Think about what that means for audio visual applications on a Mac.
No, don't write. Think about it.