Which Mac Magizine?
- Thread starter Thaw
- Start date
I read Macwelt (the German MacWorld), MacUP (German magazine) and sometimes MacLife (German magazine. Sadly, none of this is on the list. American magazines I read: WIRED, that's it.
Btw.: Mac magazines don't make much sense any more to me, since all the info you get there was in the news on the net about three weeks before it's on paper.
I *love*, however, the German magazine c't http://heise.de - because it's open minded and fair to all players in the computer technic (c't) market. Mac press is always biased.
Btw.: Mac magazines don't make much sense any more to me, since all the info you get there was in the news on the net about three weeks before it's on paper.
I *love*, however, the German magazine c't http://heise.de - because it's open minded and fair to all players in the computer technic (c't) market. Mac press is always biased.
ex2bot
Registered Bot
I'm relatively new to the Mac (August), and I assumed MacWorld was the big Mac Magazine. When I read a couple issues, I was very much disappointed. Lots of fluff.
MacAddict is far superior. The editors don't take themselves too seriously, but the articles are usually quite practical and interesting.
Doug
MacAddict is far superior. The editors don't take themselves too seriously, but the articles are usually quite practical and interesting.
Doug
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
Haha, and c't is UNbiased?!?! Hahaha, that's a good one.
I'm remembering a report by c't that bashed the G4 because it was too slow and then appleturns.com revealed that they basically disabled the Velocity Engine AND they disabled the second processor.
Right. Unbiased.
MacAddict and MacWorld are the ones I subscribe to, but I agree with ksuther: too much stuff that I don't need. Maybe I should start making my own magazine...
Izzy
luv my lil' malteaser
I have a subscription to Macworld, but I'm debating whether or not I should renew it...the issues seem to be getting smaller and smaller. It takes me about an hour to read this magazine from cover to cover because there are so many advertisements. I remember back in the day when Macworld magazines were actually pretty thick...this was back when MacUser was around. As soon as MacUser was gone, the issues got smaller.
I'd love to get MacAddict...I've bought a few issues and have really loved them...
I'd love to get MacAddict...I've bought a few issues and have really loved them...
Mac Addict is a good read, has little useful information though. Just liek lal the others they fall sadly short of any news you cna get on the internet. I'd have to mention the excellent MacDesign magazine...formely MacToday IIRC. Edited by Scott Kelby (author of Macintosh: The Naked Truth, a mac user must read) It is truly entertaining and has tips and tutorials for many deisng programs that I actually like to have in print for reference. It may no b considered a true mac magazine as they don't cover some of the same topics and are in deed geared towards design. But do yourself a favor and go buy a copy, give it a look see if you haven't already.
uoba
Re: member
used to big the favourite in the UK, they employed a lot of top design agencies to do illustrations, designs and articles, to enhance it (we where one of them ), but it's slipped a bit recently.
We also have Macworld, same as US, and MacFormat, which is getting increasingly better.
), but it's slipped a bit recently.We also have Macworld, same as US, and MacFormat, which is getting increasingly better.
hulkaros
The Incredible...
While I buy constantly MacWorld UK, MacAddict US and a new Greek magazine the MacLand which seems to be the best of them so far, I think our Mac magazine options are NOT enough!
MacWorld is TOO basic with TOO much ads and NO humor...
MacAddict has humor but it is TOO basic...
MacLand well, we will see about it because it is new but it is bi-montlhy ;(
Well, I give a try on MacTech and see... If this will not be enough too, I will rely on the Internet for my Mac interests because if the magazines think that we don't need MORE info, MORE education, MORE articles, MORE of everything then I will think that I don't need any MORE of them
Anyways, we don't have many options: Even PS1 and PS2 have MORE magazines!
MacWorld is TOO basic with TOO much ads and NO humor...
MacAddict has humor but it is TOO basic...
MacLand well, we will see about it because it is new but it is bi-montlhy ;(
Well, I give a try on MacTech and see... If this will not be enough too, I will rely on the Internet for my Mac interests because if the magazines think that we don't need MORE info, MORE education, MORE articles, MORE of everything then I will think that I don't need any MORE of them
Anyways, we don't have many options: Even PS1 and PS2 have MORE magazines!
Originally posted by simX
Haha, and c't is UNbiased?!?! Hahaha, that's a good one.
I'm remembering a report by c't that bashed the G4 because it was too slow and then appleturns.com revealed that they basically disabled the Velocity Engine AND they disabled the second processor.
Right. Unbiased.
From your post I see that you haven't read the c't article at all. Thus you also haven't seen their explanations of why what was tested in which way. Maybe you should do that right now.
Citing appleturns.com as a source shows how you're easily influenced. Of *course* appleturns wasn't happy with the tests.
The tests were about SPEC benchmarks. And c't wrote a *very* unbiased article.
I didn't say they're neutral in their articles. That would be *very* uninteresting to read. They are hard but fair - and have a very good knowledge about quite everything around.
The whole article of c't can be found (translated to english) here: http://heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
fryke: I read the article, don't worry. The SPEC benchmark is right where c't is biased. The SPEC benchmark still favors processors with higher clock cycles with regards to floating point operations, and it DOES NOT TAKE THE VELOCITY ENGINE into account. That's exactly where c't messed up, and they still haven't made any correction to the article.
Using the SPEC benchmark is certainly not unbiased. The only way you can reliably take performance tests is by taking real-life situations like 3D rendering, scrolling in PDF files, Photoshop, raw processing applications like SETI@home or Blast, etc. You cannot reliably use one little thing to bash or promote a processor.
Using the SPEC benchmark is certainly not unbiased. The only way you can reliably take performance tests is by taking real-life situations like 3D rendering, scrolling in PDF files, Photoshop, raw processing applications like SETI@home or Blast, etc. You cannot reliably use one little thing to bash or promote a processor.
I know all that, SimX.
But they didn't want to test the G4 against the Pentiums in the first place, they saw that the new SPEC suite was available and put the G4 to its test, as they always do.
So if you want to blame anybody, blame SPEC.
Even *if* c't can be blamed for this (which I think is wrong), c't is still a great read every 2 weeks. And the Mac magazines, which I called biased, wouldn't even touch the SPEC suite. Not because they think it's biased, but because they wouldn't even know much more than we readers know about processors and their inner workings.
But they didn't want to test the G4 against the Pentiums in the first place, they saw that the new SPEC suite was available and put the G4 to its test, as they always do.
So if you want to blame anybody, blame SPEC.
Even *if* c't can be blamed for this (which I think is wrong), c't is still a great read every 2 weeks. And the Mac magazines, which I called biased, wouldn't even touch the SPEC suite. Not because they think it's biased, but because they wouldn't even know much more than we readers know about processors and their inner workings.
Abou MacDesign. I think that Mag is crud. Its about design, but the mag is a basic looking mag, no cool design layout. Most of the tutorials I have seen are tacky crap. I look at every issue at Borders bookstore, and I never bought one.
MacAddict. I had a MacAddict thread going in the front end forums. Most of the comments were negative. same in this thread.
I honestly think there are zero high quality Mac mags. Time for a revolution.
MacAddict. I had a MacAddict thread going in the front end forums. Most of the comments were negative. same in this thread.
I honestly think there are zero high quality Mac mags. Time for a revolution.
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
Originally posted by fryke
I know all that, SimX.
But they didn't want to test the G4 against the Pentiums in the first place, they saw that the new SPEC suite was available and put the G4 to its test, as they always do.
So if you want to blame anybody, blame SPEC.
Even *if* c't can be blamed for this (which I think is wrong), c't is still a great read every 2 weeks. And the Mac magazines, which I called biased, wouldn't even touch the SPEC suite. Not because they think it's biased, but because they wouldn't even know much more than we readers know about processors and their inner workings.
The least c't could have done was say that the SPEC performance suite is biased against the G4. But they presented the results of the SPEC suite as unbiased results.
Plus, other Mac magazines don't touch the SPEC suite because it means *zilch* to anyone who uses a Mac. We all know that we are more productive on a Mac, regardless of megahertz, and this information that c't is proposing only insures that misinformation is broadcasted in the technology sector.
Admittidely, I haven't read anything else of c't, but I think this is a strong indication of their leanings.