which O/S on new Laptop

<p><em>UNLESS you can't get drivers for your peripherals, but I don't that is an issue with Windows 8.</em><br>

Are you kidding? Going to Windows 8 meant I had to give away my Epson 2100 printer, buy Vuescan for my Epson Expression 1680 scanner. abandon Photoshop 5.0 (I had Creative Suite 5.5 anyway) and replace several more utilities. I have worked every day with Windows 8 since last December and have found my way round it fairly well, which has not changed my view in any way that this was the most stupid and pointless upgrade ever!</p>

<p>I said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You can't run Aperture on a PC.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, I should've better qualified this statement, since it isn't completely accurate. What I should've said is that, <em>"Aperture is an OS X-only app."</em> Certainly, if so desired, you can run OS X apps on Intel-based systems in a virtual machine (VM) environment.</p>

<p>I think this question is impossible to answer. I happen to like Macs, been on them since the beginning. I have both, I use the Mac for editing and for managing the rest of my life and I use a PC for my RIP and it drives my scanner software. </p>

<p>I find the PC quite ugly. It's beyond me why these idiots can't hire a graphic designer to give the user something other than a very corporate look - or at least an option. I don't think it would be that hard if they weren't so stuck in their culture. I am also not sure that they do color management very well, altho' its a lot better than it used to be. I am entirely unsure whether they could put 24-36 Gigs of RAM to good use if it was installed. I doubt it. That's a big problem for me as I am used to working with large files, in the Gigabytes. Then there's the issue of each OS being more buggy than the last. No one is happy...</p>

<p>The Mac has a beautiful way of integrating things with the calendar, notifications and all kinds of constantly upgrading interface elements. These make things easy. Some times they under-power the features, like an address book that does almost nothing. But everything is elegant, and this is not a small factor. If I am going to work on something for 10 hours a day, I'd like it to have some artfulness to it.</p>

<p>OTOH, the relationship between Adobe and Apple is like watching a couple of crabby little 4-year-olds who both need a nap.</p>

<p>Then there is the question of how committed Apple is to powerful machines. They have just made a total mess out of the web server suite (OS X Server) and its unclear whether they will produce powerful tower machines in the future. They are very stuck in iPhones and iPads, Laptops and iMacs... will they pull a new tower out of their hat?</p>

<p>For me, I would have to wait until I have to the answer to that. I would happily suggest a powerful tower Mac over the PC if there was a future in it. If not, I would build out a great PC with all the trimmings. Changing over is not easy. I expect we will hear something, one way or the other, at their developer conference, June 10th. Until then I don't think we can answer this....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lenny said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Mac has a beautiful way of integrating things with the calendar, notifications and all kinds of constantly upgrading interface elements. These make things easy. Some times they under-power the features, like an address book that does almost nothing. But everything is elegant, and this is not a small factor. If I am going to work on something for 10 hours a day, I'd like it to have some artfulness to it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to agree. I've used both PCs and Macs since their inception, but Apple really has built some beautiful machines recently. And, as I said, the operating system <em>is</em> the computer, and OS X 10.8.3 (Mountain Lion) is quite an elegant piece of work. I think also worth mentioning is the complete lack of bloatware on Macs. Buy any branded PC, and you have a ton of software you neither asked for, nor wanted, cluttering up your system right from the start.</p>

<p>One more thing (a bit off-topic): Microsoft Office. Despite their years of consumer research, they've managed to make each iteration <em>harder</em> to use, with Office 2010 being the worst yet. Power-users will recognize familiar, plain-Jane, XP-ish, dialog-box screens, "hidden" under superficial "easy-interface," make-over pages, which only make getting to essential functions more circuitous (e.g., page-set up>margin settings, file>save as, etc.). I've since switched to Apple's Pages and Numbers at home. At only $19.99 each from the App Store, they're quite the bargain as well.</p>

<p>Lenny said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . it's unclear whether they will produce powerful tower machines in the future. They are very stuck in iPhones and iPads, Laptops and iMacs . . . will they pull a new tower out of their hat?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's been widely reported that Apple CEO, Tim Cook, told a customer shortly after the 2012 WWDC that, <em>"Our pro customers like you are really important to us. Although we didn't have a chance to talk about a new Mac Pro [at 2012's WWDC], don't worry as we're working on something really great for later next year [2013]."</em> So, a brand-spankin' new, Haswell-equipped, multi-core, multi-processor, OS X super-machine may soon be on its way.</p>

<p>Ralph, I guess I missed that. I certainly hope you are right - you've given me a ray of hope. Sometimes I think these concerns are leaked to gauge what people will say if they actually do discontinue something. I have been fighting with OS X Server recently and its been pretty awful. I guess we'll know in a couple of weeks. </p>

<p>Lenny said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sometimes I think these concerns are leaked to gauge what people will say if they actually do discontinue something.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's, of course, entirely possible. Hopefully, this rumor rings true.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, I've drunk the Kool-Aid, and it's <em>good</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is Apple's secret strategy.</p>

<p>That and an even older strategy of providing such COOOOL gear. ;)</p>

<p>I treasured the look on Bill Gates' face when Charlie Rose asked him what music he had on his iPod. </p>

<p>Historically, Mac OS did a much better job with color management. But it is my understanding that using icc profiles is now much easier with Windows, so that advantage is probably moot. However, I believe the Mac OS is still superior to Windows in terms of stability (it is based on Unix), and that it takes much less RAM to run. The latter fact is significant in terms of longevity. It seems that each new version of Windows hogs more and more memory. If that trend continues, then no matter what platform you buy, eventually you will need to add more RAM. But if you tend to throw out your computer every 2 to 3 years with an upgrade, then it might make more economic sense to go with Windows, considering the much less initial cost of the hardware.</p>

<p>Just get the Mac for the reliability factor alone. I have used Mac computer for years and have never had one problem with them. I stated with other brands and windows and it was one failed hard drive after another. In my mind there in only one computer to consider buying today and that is Mac. You get what you pay for.<br>

johndoddato.blogspot.com</p>