Mac vs. PC....I NEED to be convinced. :)

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by charmianjoy, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. Aloha Friends,
    I am purchasing a new computer to help further my career in photography. My current computer is a Dell laptop that I used in college for papers/internet and it's way too slow now...plus I am unable to use callibration software on it. I have worked with Macs for imaging purposes in college, but that is about the extent of my Mac knowledge. I didn't find anything majorly groundbreaking with Macs that makes me think they are truly superior, but I keep hearing that they are for imaging.
    I am planning on getting an iMac...24inch / 3.66ghz / 500gb hdd / 512mb RAM etc etc...basically the best iMac that exists...including everything I want, the price tag is about $3200.
    Problem: I can get the the same thing in PC except a 750gb hdd for only $2100. I am divided. I have always wanted a Mac, but is it REALLY worth it?? Really people, I need a good educated answer.
    Also, I have heard that there is a reocurring problem with iMacs...after 2 years they just quit on you and lose all your information; of course I back everything up, but I want a computer that will last and be worth the $3200!
    Thank you for any input! :)
     
  2. 512MB RAM? Stop right there! You want at least 4GB of RAM if you're going to be working on large image files, or dealing with batch processing.
     
  3. A fully loaded 24" iMac is $2449. And it comes with a 750GB HD, and 4GB RAM. There is no 3.66 ghz version, it is 3.06ghz.
    I would also save $150 and get the 2.8ghz version instead.
    What I would do with the extra $$$ is to buy an airport extreme and a 2TB USB HD to use with time machine. Finally, I would buy the apple care extended warranty from LA Computer which always sells them MUCH cheaper than Apple ($120 vs. $169)
    Convinced yet?
     
  4. Charmian-as an iMac user, all I can say is (1) don't let anyone else convince you one way or another, you need to convince yourself so if you haven't already used a Mac, go to a store and use one to see what you think, (2) the comment about 512 MB of RAM has already been made, and (3) I suppose it's possible that someone's Mac crashed after 2 years-all computers are susceptible to a crash- but as far as this being a recurring problem with Macs, this is the first I have heard of it. I switched to Mac as IBM no longer made pc's and I didn't want Vista; I liked my pc but I love everything about my Mac (just wish there was a Mac version of Train Simulator!). Check out this Apple site re switching to Mac. regards, cb :)
    http://store.apple.com/ca/browse/campaigns/new_to_mac?mco=NDAxMDU0OA
     
  5. ooooopsss...yes it was 4gb RAM sorry! 512mb something else...obviously I don't know what I'm talking about. ;)
     
  6. Get the mac. Honestly. Vista is really terrible, but you'll never realize it until you've spent a few weeks with Leopard. I was a dedicated PC user for years until I finally bought a Mac. I'll never go back to PC.
     
  7. 512 is probably video memory. But get the mac, you 'll be able to run both operating systems on the same hardware. It's a win win situation. Get Parallels and you can both OS's at the same time. Bootcamp, which is downloadable from Apple will let you run one at a time.
     
  8. Thank you everyone.
    Okay, yes sorry for the confusion...it was 4gb RAM and 3.06ghz. So why should I get the 2.8ghz version if the 3.06 is faster...especially with a 750gb hdd? Is it just not that much faster?
    And thank you for the advice for the Apple Care Extended Warranty since that is definitely something I will be purchasing...I will check LA Computer.
    Can someone explain the ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB vs. NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS with 512MB memory for me?
    I definitely would prefer to get an Apple computer over a PC, I just want to make sure that the price tag is worthwhile. :)
     
  9. I have been a big fan of Apple for a decade, but every computer I've ever bought for myself is a PC.
    My current Dell Desktop, running Vista 64, is a dream for Photoshop and Lightroom, and it cost only $650 delivered last year, including 8 GB RAM (I already had a monitor). No Apple can touch it for less than $3000, partly because Apple chooses not to compete in the reasonably-priced desktop market segment.
    I would never buy an iMac for myself, although I recommend it to all my family members because they don't care about performance and are largely computer illiterate (I don't want them calling me with questions). The iMac serves their purposes nicely, because they don't care about the machine's drawbacks, which are:
    Drawbacks to iMac as I see them:
    (1) You are limited to one internal hard drive.
    (2) You are limited to 4GB RAM. (They have to change this ridiculous limitation soon enough, if you are willing to wait.)
    (3) The screen is Glossy, and it's only 24". Sure, you can buy a second screen $$$.
    (4) The price is not right, unless you value glitz over performance.
     
  10. i dont see the use of the faster processor (having try it for month with CS4 vs the smaller Imac 24inhc..) i would save money and get the bottom line imac fully load for a 1000$ less. Or go with a Mac Pro...
    but again, before you get 40000 answer saying that for less money you could have a pc even faster and more powerfull...i will say; you could have a pc for less money more powerfull and faster : )
     
  11. About a year ago, I bought a 24" iMac after having owned many, many PCs. (I had first ordered a Dell that was DOA; after several days of fighting with tech support I sent it back.) I like the iMac fine and don't regret the purchase at all, even knowing it was somewhat more expensive. I use it mainly for editing photos and it runs very smoothly and quickly. Nikon Capture NX2 was always a pain on my PC but is now very easy to use. Photoshop and Bridge run very well.
    But honestly, I can't put myself in the category of a Mac evangelist-it is still just a computer. Some things it does very well...much better than a PC. But it also has its own foibles that you have to learn to work with.
    One of the things that Mac does very well is the Time Machine automated backup--definitely you should budget for an external HD to take advantage of that feature.
     
  12. Very good points about PC's. I am still on the fence.
    My current PC has Windows XP, but I have used Vista on other computers and HATE IT.
    The best arguements I can come up with for Mac right now are the imaging related tools, security (they don't get viruses)....and...I've heard monitor callibration is internal?
    ...seems to me that the PC really is a better idea even though there are faithful Mac users out there.
     
  13. Buy the Mac, I'll keep my PC's. There's no answer to this argument, but it just brings out the worst in Apple Fanboys.
     
  14. Use what you're comfortable with. Mac users tout the security, usability and stability of their platform, but I have Mac stories that would curl their hair. I've read numerous horror stories about how crash prone and fussy PCs are, but that's not been my experience.

    You can make either machine work for you. Estwing and Craftsman both make fine hammers, but one is likely to feel better in your hands than the other. The one that fits is the tool to use.
     
  15. Actually it brings out the worst in both Windows and Apple fanboys.
    RAM limitation of 4 gb was mentioned. That will change with the release of the Snow Leopard OS later this year.
    This is another one of those "which is better" questions that only you can decide. I use both and prefer the Mac. Whatever. The differences are mostly interface, security, and troubleshooting related issues. One thing I prefer is the self contained applications of Macs (shared with Linux) and not having to track down troublesome dlls. I offer that just as an illustration.
    Said another way, this is like a Canon vs. Nikon question - only you can decide. For my money, the time the Mac saves me is well worth the additional money, money being repaid to me in time and longer equipment life for me. YMMV.
     
  16. I got a fully loaded 24" iMac for less than what you describe, so you may want to re-run those pricing figures.
    If you are going to do serious photoshop work on the Mac (or, I presume, PC) you'll want a very large hard drive (I'd get 1TB these days), 4GB RAM, and external drive(s) for backup purposes.
    One way to save some money is to not get the very fastest processor. One often pays a big premium for this, but the actual difference in performance is typically insignificant and even unnoticeable.
    Ultimately, if you price out equivalently equipped systems from Apple and the top-tier Windows vendors your pricing should end up being very close. If it isn't you are probably either not finding the best pricing or you are not actually specifying equivalent systems. (You can build your own PC system for less if that is your thing.)
    Dan
     
  17. Charmian, if you hate Vista, why are you on the fence? Seems like an easy choice.
    Chris Werner: are you saying that once Snow Leopard comes out (and you buy it) you can open up your iMac, remove, and toss out, the 4GB that you already paid for, and put in another 8GB to replace it? Even if you could, it sounds wasteful. You can buy a Dell today with 12 GB if you need it and it won't break the bank.
    But hey, it's only money.
    The analogy to Nikon vs. Canon sounds good on the surface, but it s a poor comparison. Both Nikon and Canon have a full line of DSLRs and lenses; I use one system, but I could just as easily use the other one (in any given year, a couple of lenses might exist in one system but not the other, but both systems aim to, and generally do, satisfy the same needs).
    Apple, on the other hand, does not have a full line of computers; if you happen to want one of the models they make, great. But they are missing, among other things, the one thing I wanted in a computer: a reasonably priced desktop. If you want a reasonably-priced desktop, you have to go with the PC. It's that simple.
    If money were not an issue, I very well might have bought a MacPro.
     
  18. Thank you everyone for the discussion! I know this always brings out the worst in Mac and PC fanboys but I still appreciate the comments. ;) Every comment brings up good points so I will definitely take all into consideration. I'm pretty comfortable on both PC and Mac, so I will do some more checking around for pricing comparisons...I have Photoshop on my PC so it would be beneficial to stay PC...but I love Mac's tools...aaah.
    Okay, THANK YOU once again.
     
  19. The Mac is the better tool, the PC is the cheaper tool. Make your choice.
     
  20. I like big and juicy orange..mmm so good.
     
  21. No brainer if you're value conscious: get a Dell loaded with XP, and buy an extra hard drive and memory at Newegg. I have two Dell desktops and they've been superb.
     
  22. My five year-old iMac and laptop are still chugging along, not ONE problem with either. Ever.
     
  23. I would wait on getting an iMac if you can. I love em, great steady photo tool, and I don't mind external drives for back-up and storage. But the biggest limit , though not currently a problem is the 4GB limit. My 2006 model uses 3GB at max and it works good. But I will sooner or later have to upgrade if I want to use the newer operating system/s. The rumor's are that there will soon be a choice of a quad core iMac. If that is true and they allow sufficiant ram to run it, you may have a very attractive solution.
    Manakash's "drawbacks" are sensible, however, I think when you look at the overall price of it including the monitor (though it is glossy), it's not that much of difference and it is a very smooth tool for photo editing.
     
  24. I recently went through this myself. I've been using Windows PCs for years. Convinced myself it was time to switch to Apple and then did the pricing comparisons. As of late last year, there simply was no comparison. From Dell, for $900 I got a quad-core fast Intel processor, 4 gig RAM, 750 gig hard drive, Windows XP (Vista was not acceptable to me.), nice ATI video card, etc., ample USB outlets and expansions slots, etc.
    Apple had nothing comparable for me because I already have a great photoshop monitor - an NEC Wuxi. Even if I had been ready to throw this out, I insist on the flexibility to upgrade to the monitor of MY choice. If I went with the twice as expensive iMac, the Apple display would be joined at the hip to the other hardware. So for me going Apple would have cost me - at a minimum - twice the price of going with the Dell. So I did the latter and am very happy.
    No brainer for me. As has been said, this is a gaping hole in Apple's product line. They know it. It's an effort to force upgrades to the extremely expensive (for me) Mac Pro. That's a lovely machine from lots of angles. But it's overkill for most 2D photographers.
    One last thing - Microsoft's new OS - now called "Windows 7" is supposed to be out in the fall and to have some wonderful attributes for photographers, including solid color management, etc. Apple already has many of these things, but the early reviews on the Windows 7 beta suggest that it will leave Vista in the dust. So, depending on how urgently you need your new machine, the relevant comparison may be Apple OS vs. Windows 7 (as opposed to Vista).
     
  25. It's all about OS X for me. It's more stable, it's better designed and it's constantly being worked on by Apple, with regular updates. 99.99999% of viruses cannot touch OS X, and for the forseeable future, it should stay that way.
     
  26. I say buy a PC. In the interest of full disclosure, I prefer Macs and own several, but I have no interest in convincing you one is better than the other. To each their own!
     
  27. My five year-old iMac and laptop are still chugging along, not ONE problem with either. Ever.​
    As should be the case with any pesonal computer. My wife, who inherits my PCs when I build new, is using one I put together in 1999. My current build will be 4 years old this Nov. and will serve me productively for 2 more years.
    99.99999% of viruses cannot touch OS X​
    Right. And 84.32% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
     
  28. Go cheap, buy the PC and let others enjoy the Mac!
     
  29. I been having my MacBook Pro for a yr now,,after 2wk with it ,I never look bk to Window ,,ever! if u get a Mac u be just the same...u get what u paid for...ABSOLUTELY Worth every cents....
     
  30. Am I the only one who likes Vista? I use it both at home and at work, works great for me. And it's pretty.
    But aside from personal taste, which I can't help you with, the three main reasons to get a PC are price, price and price. The one thing that I see going on for Macs is that they're less prone to virus infections.
     
  31. I'd agree with John De Mott's take on this: they all have their foibles. And you seem like someone who is comfortable using either platform, so the world is your oyster. I work in computing, and tend to switch platforms (for some reason) whenever I get a new computer. Apple does have the best OS at this point by most (but not all) criteria, but the OS is mostly plumbing: you spend most of your important time with you computer running your favorite applications. I'd rather put up with an inferior file browser than an inferior web browser... and in my experience browsers tend to work best on Windows.
    I tend to be more comfortable with Windows and Linux for whatever reason (I think it's mostly the keyboard layout), but I never understood how the apple products get labeled expensive. It's good value, for the most part, although with limited selection of models, and their warranties and support are even better value. The last time I bought a Mac, I wanted to get another high end thinkpad, but an ibook was half the price (and a little less deluxe to be sure). That ibook is still working as it begins its sixth year. I've dragged it around the world, done photoshop work, sound editing, and hardcore web application development on it. (The UNIX under the hood is way cool.) Apple replaced the display and keyboard at the end of the warranty period (though they hadn't failed outright), so it has a bright display and good keyboard. Awesome. When I can, I'll probably buy an imac - seems like a straigtforward way to have a good photoshop machine to me. Now if I could just get used to that weird keyboard....
     
  32. Buy both! My business and pleasure apps are on a PC. My art is on an iMac. It's like choosing between one camera system or another. Why not use both if there are benefits to both?
     
  33. That's why I use a PC, I pay for prformance not looks.
     
  34. I had a second thought here; there are MAC people and PC people, they know who they are and just move along accordingly; the problem is for those people who are trying to figure out which group they are; and the real problem is they want to be MAC people but at PC price, so they post on the internet trying to justify being a MAC person. Ever seen someone asking on the internet if they should buy target instead of Hermes ?
     
  35. but again, before you get 40000 answer saying that for less money you could have a pc even faster and more powerfull...i will say; you could have a pc for less money more powerfull and faster : )
    lol, good one.
    But I will sooner or later have to upgrade if I want to use the newer operating system/s. The rumor's are that there will soon be a choice of a quad core iMac. If that is true and they allow sufficiant ram to run it, you may have a very attractive solution.
    Attractive? Here you have an expensive machine from 2006 that is limited to 3 gig of ram. Like...that's just ridiculous. Year 2006 limited to 3 gig in a $2500 machine. Then, in order to use more ram, you have to buy another $2500 machine? Then rumours are that MAc is (finally) going Quad-core the very year that Intel is discontinuing them and going with i7 cpu? That's attractive? I call it a very expensive hassle to get more ram.
    Forget the iMac. It's an over grown laptop that comes with all the limitations of a laptop. Yet can't be taken anywhere like a laptop.
    You are aware that CS4 is limited to 3.2 gig of ram with Mac as CS4 runs in 32 bit? Windows, with a 64-bit OS, runs CS4 in 64-bit and can use as much ram as you can stuff in there. This might be important to you.
     
  36. The comments about Macs only using 4GB RAM are untrue. The Mac Pro's will go 8GB. For $$$ he's talkin, I'd go with one of those anyway.
    And the guys saying the Dells will go 12GB ram. Windows will only run over 4GB RAM if the 64 bit OS is installed. Otherwise, we are at the 4GB limit too. Most people will not use the 64 bit system because everything else is required to be 64bit too. So I'm told.
    I thought of going to a Mac a few months ago because my new HP with Vista was giving me some trouble. But I then thought about what I spent on my system and what I got and reasonably how often I was actually having trouble. Thing was, we always remember when we have trouble with our computers, but quickly forget when they worked great.
    I bought an HP with the Quad Core Phenom processor(forget the GHz) with 4GB Ram. It had 2 internal hard drives 500GB per. So I can write to both at the same time. I also bought HP's then top of the line 24" HD 1900x1200 monitor. Yes its glossy....so. Its profiled and I like the look it gives me. Never effects my work. And I'm apparently one of the few users who can print using Lightroom 2.0 and get good results. This setup was $1600 and it will fly. When its not bogged down with adware etc. This is the thing. If you buy a PC and never connect it to the internet, it wont give any trouble. If I have trouble with Vista crashing. Its usually an active X or some adware causing the issue. I can go through and clean it up, sort the registry and wolla, rockin and rollin. I have also found that Vista works in someways alot like Mac OS. Maybe the mentioned windows 7 will do it right. I also hear that by using Firefox instead of Internet Explorer, these issues tend to go away. And the PCs are so much more flexible.
     
  37. My wife surprised me an iMac (I would have loved that big Mac Pro, but hey it was a gift) a few years ago after getting tired of hearing me cursing our PCs. We still do have some PCs in our house FWIW.
    I spent the last two days trying clean "spyware" and other junk off my daughter's desktop PC. I finally got it to run without bogging down but who knows how long it will run properly?
    We recently had to replace the HD in our other daughter's laptop. It had been running like PCs typically do when they get bogged down with junk, viruses or spyware, but finally I gave up and took it to a shop who diagnosed a bad HD. My wife has a relatively new PC that I have to tinker with to get rid of rouge programs from time to time.
    Now my iMac has some issues, such as not enough powered usb 2 ports or firewire for my taste. But then I use two scanners, a printer , an external HD, and card reader. Those are minor issues compared to the things listed above.
    Now to be fair, the problems with the PCs may be caused by my daughters downloading who knows what. Many of those downloaded games and applications are loaded with spyware and data mining programs. I recently learned that so called antivirus programs are actually just trojans designed to make you think you have viruses then make you go to websites to pay good money (for full activation) for nothing. This could have been happening to all the PCs I have been cursing over the past several years.
    OK here it comes ... I can't remember my iMAC ever behaving this way.
    Sure PCs are much cheaper and what I would do if you buy one is to fully back up from time to time ( photos and data files) and reformat the hard-drive, then reinstall Windows. I've done that many, many times and then they always run like champs for months. Also by reformatting you get rid of the "bundled" preinstalled useless applications you find on so many PCs these days.
    I've also figured that since they are so cheap you can buy a new one every 15 months and get the latest and greatest computer gear for not much money.
     
  38. if you want to do something else than photo editing, for exemple, programmation, playing games, flight simulator, etc.., buy a pc. If you want unlimmited customization of your machine, buy a pc...
    You can build your own PC from A to Z with anything of YOUR choice... the only thing you cannot choose is the OS.. I use XP because I dont like vista... I hope Windows 7 will be better !
     
  39. I you want to use an OS that came out in 2001 and can't use the full capabilities of a modern machine and doesn't possess the capabilities of a modern OS - buy a PC and use XP. If you want a modern, well designed, stable OS, get a Mac. If you want crap, use Vista. It's that simple. I think others have addressed most of the other issues at hand. The only thing I would add is that if you add the cost of software included with your Mac to the cost of a PC, it will significantly increase the price. Every unbiased analysis I've ever seen of total cost of ownership generally shows that the machines cost about the same. On a final note, should you get a Mac, I would argue against AppleCare if you have a qualifying AMEX card. Most (not all) of their cards double the manufacturer's warranty for up to a year - which means that you're paying $120-$150 for only one year of coverage (the third). I'm not sure if that is worth it to you (it wouldn't be for me).
     
  40. After using a PC for over 12 years - I converted to Mac three years ago. And I haven't looked back. I have the same G5 that has performed flawlessly. I recently purchased a Macbook Pro 18 months ago - both computers are fabulous - makes me wonder why I didn't switch years ago.
    When it comes right down to it - my Pop always told me, "You get what you pay for." - And it's so true.
    Get the Mac and don't look back!
     
  41. "This is the thing. If you buy a PC and never connect it to the internet, it wont give any trouble. If I have trouble with Vista crashing. Its usually an active X or some adware causing the issue. "​
    Hmm, that's odd. I built a PC and mine is connected to the internet 24/7. Maybe the problem isn't the hardware but the user, like always.
     
  42. It's amazing how this topic keeps coming up. I am not a computer hobbyist. Photography is my business. I simply want my computers to turn on and work. By neccessity over the years, I've been forced to learn more about the workings of computers than I really wanted.
    I used PCs for years and finally, determining the very large files I work with in Photoshop and high definition video editing, made it desirable to go to a MAC. So I purchased a MAC Pro with the 2.8 gig quad core processors, 8 gigs of ram and a couple of TB of HDs.
    The experience has generally been ok to good but it wasn't the Second Coming. Photoshop CS4 still crashes at times but not as often as CS3. Neither Adobe or Apple seem to be able to help me identify the cause. MAC video editing software sucks, to put it mildly, unless you go to Final Cut Pro, a very expensive proposition. The video software programs such as iMovie, have had no consistency from version to version.
    You say you want to run XP on your MAC with Parallels or VMFusion? Well fine, but don't plan on using firewire connected hard drives or video sources because they won't be recognized on the Windows side of things running on a MAC. To the best of my knowledge there is not yet a reasonable fix for this omission and handicap. So if you want to use SONY Vegas or other video editing programs on the PC side of things, it's a no-go.
    If you run Photoshop, the Finder will drive you nuts, continually popping up. I love graphical interfaces but all I can say is the MAC interface is too 'cute'. Getting from point A to B can be faster and more efficient on a PC.
    Half the time my MAC Pro will not recognize my Canon ipf 8000 printer, so the file gets transferred to my old standby PC running dual AMD processors in a dual boot setup with XP and Vista. It is old faithful. I can't remember the last time it crashed. When the MAC is crunching the numbers to stitch six 140 meg files from a SONY a900 it's a wonderful thing to behold but it is by no means perfect. As I said in another post, those who say they never looked back may never have looked forward.
     
  43. Charmian, I use a computer daily but I have to say I'm not extremely knowledgeable about them. The only input I can offer is that I got SO VERY TIRED of my prior computers having issues with spyware, etc. that I was convinced by a coworker to buy an iMac and I'm so glad I did! I now have no problems whatsoever with the issues of the past. I will continue to buy Apple products when the time comes. Yes, the price was more than other options but I certainly feel that over time it has been well worth it. I hope my opinion helps.
     
  44. To Eric> My PC is also connected 24/7, and I rarely ever have an issue. My statement was that it would help matters if it were not connected because most households have "other" users who get on the web and download.....evvveryything. Ex: my wife does not understand that when she thinks she is getting something for free, its not "free" They hit you with adware hoping to get you to buy something in the future. Thats all I was saying.
    I know a couple other photogs who build the monster PC's and never have them connected to the web. It doesnt even have an Anti Virus Software program installed. They did this solely for the processing power for editing and never have issues because they never go to the web. They connect the ethernet cable only for updates to microsoft or their programs, then its disconnected. They all use a "Local Houshold" Laptop PC using Firefox for internet surfing. But these monsters are his tools and used only as such. One day when I have their kind of money, I will build one of those machines.
     
  45. Could you guys stop bashing Vista, please?
    It's a much more stable platform than the damn XP. It's just takes some time to learn it.
    Currently running 32-bit Vista with 3GB ram, CS3 (Master Collection) and haven't had a single problem with it (for the past year).
    In all honesty I hate OSx and any flavor of Windows, but those are the only OS's that allow me to use Adobe programs (all of them). The only reason i went with PC is for the available choices of hardwear. I can pretty much build a monster of a machine with matched hardwear & it would still be cheaper than a similar Mac Pro.
    To my customers i always recomend getting the OS they are more comfortable working with, assuming the programs they use are available for both.
    Just my $.02
    P.S. you do realize the are no more Mac's. It's all Intel now. So the deciding factor is wich OS suits your needs better.
     
  46. Get the PC. I have a MAC on my desk at work and a PC at home. The PC is WAY faster and WAY cheaper. I like Vista. I have a virus checker and good firewall so viruses are not a problem. If Mac folks have to construct that strawman they are reaching. 64 bit Vista is far superior to anything mac has because of the ram limitation. This is no small thing when working with big projects.
    Mac users are a cult. If you are intent on spending your fortune on a brand name resist. Go to Newegg and build the biggest, baddest hottest, Vista machine and it will run circles around anything Mac has on the market today and leave you money for a nice.....
     
  47. You can find anecdotal support for either format as far as the user experience is concerned. There are many people on both sides who have had great experiences and horrendous experiences regarding reliability/customer service etc. In the end you are buying into a system that has it's own failure/problem rates. Is there any empirical evidence that there is a significant difference among the mainstream brands in this regard?
    I dont have much experience using Macs but as a PC user I do think the malware issue can be affectively and easily addressed; with appropriate antivirus and discretion while browsing the internet you can significanlty reduce (and maybe eliminate?) the chance of infection.
     
  48. "Forget the iMac. It's an over grown laptop that comes with all the limitations of a laptop. Yet can't be taken anywhere like a laptop."
    I wonder how many thousands have you put in to upgrade or switch your hot rods in the last 3 years. It seems on one thread it sounds like you upgrade or cross platforms with every new tech wrinkle. That sounds real cost effective. You probably think it's a brilliant idea to run raid 0 for photography just to get that little speed tweak. With Mac move to Intel, PC/Mac simply leap frog. Its not the tech, its the product cycles.
    I have had seamless 3 years of no hassle, no virus, no driver issues, can you say the same? Popping through my mere 2-4 gigs of photos a week. Good medium use with a good monitor, no problems, high resale, good deal. Right now? Scanning Med. Format Negs while I watch a video, write probably unneccessary post as the subject has been more than covered, and am writing a document for work on word. Not a hiccup. But I guess me and all the actual photographers and imaging professionals that depend on iMac's daily must just be naive. I'm expecting a good year or more of the same. I do like the horsepower available for less that PC offers, but I don't like the hassle involved in running a PC. I do think that OSX is much better OS that allows more focus on the work and less on the computer. It's worth the money to me, but it's an individual choice.
     
  49. Save the $ and buy a good PC (not absolute top of the line) - You fail to mention your software workflow - will photoshop CS4 be involved? Then you may want a 64-bit OS running it - either XP 64 or Vista 64, Windows 7 64 looks very promising. That said, when I installed CS4 I ended up using the 32-bit version more often due to lack of plug-in support on the 64-bit version. That should change in the future.
    My current setup that comes pretty close to 'chewing' through files, is top of the line 2-3 years ago, AMD X2 4600+, 4GB DDR RAM, 512MB NVidia card, 4 250GB data HD's, and a 74 GB Raptor HD for the OS & programs. BTW, the Raptor HD is the 2nd most important thing behind the amount and speed of RAM in my mind. Hard Disk speeds are often overlooked. Dual Monitors are 22" for main workspace, and an older 19" for panels and non-essential stuff like web, music,& videos while I work on files. The system in no way hinders my editing abilities, just takes a short bit longer on the more complex operations (which I rarely run anyway)
    My workflow is > Shoot w/nikon > Open .nef in Capture NX2 and do basic RAW adjustments > Export to CS4 as tiff and do all my contrast, color, sharpening, resizing, and final edits with layers, up to 15 on some files (I'm sure others use much more), alot of times going into 3-400 MB file sizes > Save > Repeat
    I am borderline techie, built the computer myself, can upgrade anything with ease, pretty good at diagnosing problems (and the goog takes care of the rest) so if you don't feel comfortable doing these things, you will probably want a good out of the box solution, and that may be a mac, at a costly premium that you could have spent on lenses, lighting, and whatever else you may need.
     
  50. Charmian here is something to think about. Do you have any one to turn to for either PC or Mac. It would be hard to have a PC or Mac computer & have any problems or questions & just have to run back to the store.
     
  51. Another thing to think about has more to do with the inherent limitations of the all-in-one (as you mentioned an iMac) design be it a Mac or a PC. There is definately somethign to be said for the expansion and connectivity that having a tower gives you; internal space as well as something as simple as the number of USB/firewire ports. In the long term why not give yourself the opportunity to upgrade components? Sure it may not be as pretty but that's what all that room under your desk is for anyway.
    This is especially true with displays; it seems every few months the external display prices drop as their size and performance increases. I feel that these days most well equipped machines are quite capable, but when dealing with photos the machine is only as good as the display's ability to accurately reproduce colors, resolve detail, and provide enough realestate to work with the images. Many posters above have stated how long they have enjoyed their computers but in three years I would think that there would be more reason to upgrade the display then upgrade the hardware driving it. Display performance will degrade over time; there is no way around that but a well equipped PC or Mac tower will still have the same processing ability in three years.
     
  52. hello Charmian,
    The best advice i can offer is to buy the base model of imac and upgrade the internals yourself. 4gb Ram costs 60 dollars...not the 300 upgrade apple charges. You'll need external harddrives to back you information anyway so don't focus on the HD either. The most important thing is to have basic power and the operating system you enjoy. Personally i love the mac, i switched a few years ago and won't go back. I boot both occasionally for games but that is all. My last bit of advice is if you enjoy the portability of a laptop, then get one! I own a macbook pro. with 2.5ghz and it provides ample power to run both photoshop/aperture among many other programs. I hook up to my external monitor and it's perfect! Now any trips you take, or photo sites you go to you'll still have your photo management with you.
    -Spencer-
     
  53. I wouldn't worry about the amount of USB and Firewire ports, thats what hubs are for. Plus, firewire can be daisy-chained from one device to the next. As far as display performance degrading over time, that may be true of cheaper displays, but my 20" Apple Cinema display has been running strong for 5 years on my Power Mac G5 with absolutely no degradation in quality or color. You can upgrade the display on an iMac, it's called adding a second display. Once you go to a dual display system, you will never want to go back to one monitor again. Have the photo in one display, and all your tools in the other for a complete and unobstructed view of what you are working on. I would buy an iMac in a heartbeat, but I have no need, my workhorse G5 has been so solid for the last 5 years, I have no need right now, and that says a lot compared to a PC. I have owned and built quite a few PCs over the years, but once I bought my first (and current) Mac, I will never spend real money for a PC ever again.
     
  54. I have a dual PC/Mac setup in the sense that I have a big top spec desktop PC (top spec 1 year ago though) and a new 2.4 Ghz MacBook with 4GB of RAM for when I travel (loaded with Lightroom 2, NX2, Photoshop etc). The MacBook processes files as fast as the desktop, doesn't hang, has a a friendly OS - in short I can't wait for my PC to die so I can replace it with an Imac. Having sweated Windows for 20 years (which I still have to use at work) I really wish I knew then what I know now.
    If money is a constraint then a PC is the only way - Apple certainly isn't economical - but it is a considerably more pleasant experience, in my opinion, living in Mac land.
     
  55. I am running a 12 year old Sony Vaio notebook purchased new. I still love it, I did change out the monitor last year, running XP home, not very fast but it gets the job done. I do not use IE, Mozilla Firefox instead (which is great!), also use Bazooka (freebie) instead of Norton AV and Irfanview instead of Photoshop. I tried to like PS but needed something more user friendly. Then I found Irfanview, small footprint and free. Amazing program.
    My oldest son and wife each purchased Macs. I tried to convert but no way.
    My youngest son just purchased a new notebook and I thought he would get the Mac, but he ended up with a PC notebook with everything for $600 (he said it has Vista version 2).
     
  56. Another thing to consider, as to why Macs work so well: Windows software is designed around the advantages and flaws of about a thousand different manufacturers products that can be used to build the computer. There are almost infinite combinations of parts that can be used to make a PC. Apple, however, builds the computer and designs the software to run it. That's called total integration, and it makes for a much smoother and more reliable machine. That also explains why some own PCs and never have problems, while others are a total nightmare. Certain hardware and software configurations just don't work well together. With Macs, that is never a problem because they were specifically made for each other (OS and hardware).
     
  57. Forgot to add it is so nice to have a c: and d: drive. I put all my pics and anything important on the d: drive and if it dies I can format the c: drive and reload XP with no harm to the d: drive.
     
  58. I've been using Macs for years; started with an LC II, now have a PPC G5. In my opinion, there is only one good reason to buy a Mac: Mac OS X. I prefer it to any version of Windows (don't forget you can stick with XP instead of getting Vista) and am more productive when using it.
    However, in this day and age, if you're a reasonably technically minded person (which, by your own admission, you're not but other thread readers may be) you can hack a version of Mac OS X onto a regular PC. Apple hardware is incredibly expensive when you consider what you're getting and price up an equivalent PC yourself.
    My machine is due for an upgrade soon but I won't be buying a Macintosh again. An iMac isn't going to fly because I can't upgrade the graphics card for gaming (plus most games developers don't make Mac versions) and can't install more HDDs, and a Mac Pro is insanely expensive. I'll build the PC myself and install OS X on top of that, alongside XP (or Windows 7 if it's worth it).
    With the money I've saved myself, if I really fancy it, I can buy some new glass. Photography is the reason we're all here, right? Why not buy a good enough computer and get yourself that new lens or body you've had your eye on?
     
  59. "not very fast but it gets the job done"
    that was a misquote. It is still plenty fast.
     
  60. I use PC because my budget limits my choice. I tell myself the range of software is better and its adaptability are an asset; but this is dependent on each user’s needs and the compatibility of the system as it integrates with a broader range of devices and applications.
    When my friends and colleges ask me what they should buy I usually say Mac because if they have to ask they probably aren’t equipped to get the most out of a PC and because I’d feel horrible and frustrated if someone asked me for help after buying a PC on my advice .
    Buying a PC from a willing and reputable IT supplier or consultant can be a good solution if the technician provides comprehensive after sales service.
     
  61. I switched to an Imac last year and here is what I like; a) it works, b) no ridiculous messages popping up all the time, c) the design; with wireless keyboard and mouse there are only 5 cables running into the machine and it doesn't need a specially designed computer desk. All in all the Imac design is very neat, clean, and elegant.
    No upgrade path? I have never upgraded their PCs and by the time I needed to, I really had to buy a whole new system anyway.
    This thread pretty thouroughly covers the pros and cons for a Mac/PC decision tree. Time to make a decision.
     
  62. I thought the world hated Vista ! i have a xp pc and a vista laptop and after using xp vista is rubbish i hate it i have heard microsoft is working on some thing new if that is so vista has got to be rubbish and they know it !but mac i dont know much about but i do know that most programs are made for pc !how many on this site use mac's !that is the anwser ! i think this site needs a poll for voting on differant subjects .cheers.
     
  63. Hi. It took my friend 2 years to convince me to try a Mac. I ended up in an Apple Store, tried out various ones, and ended up with a Mac Book Pro. Yes, the purchase price did hurt compared to a PC notebook. However, I made my business website in a very short time using iWeb and that saved me more than the cost of the MacBook Pro. I find the iLife and iWork suites very easy to use. Software upgrades are VERY reasonably priced ($79 US for example) vs. horribly expensive PC software.
    My advice is if you have the cash, try a Mac. Go to your nearest Apple store and check them out.
     
  64. <quote>Mac...24inch / 3.66ghz / 500gb hdd / 512mb RAM etc etc...basic</quote>
    Hmm, 512Mb RAM? Sounds like a machine of the nineties. Serious machines today sport 3-4Gb RAM. But at least 2.
    I have a PC equipped with Windows Vista, I also have a Macbook pro. I own several Linux machines.
    I only use the Windows machine for online banking, since my stupid bank can't or won't figure out how to write standards compliant code. They think 'standard' == Microsoft. I play with the Mac, but mostly my wife uses it, as I find it counter intuitive.
    95% of my time is spent on Linux (work==systems development) and (play==photo management). If you don't think you'd get along with Linux, I'd suggest Mac.
     
  65. It really doesn matter. Here i have a couple of dozen PC's and have very little is any of the issues Mac folks rant about PC's. Macs are more goober proof if one has folks that assume; do dumb stuff. A new old stock 64 bit XP box with 8 gigs of ram here is used with CS4 to handle giant files; the box was 450 bucks as new old stock off of ebay 18 months ago; the extra ram several hundred more. A dumb HP mini tower from Office depo last month was 349 bucks; 3 gigs of ram; dual core; Vista; it runs CS2 just fine; it is radially quicker than the Imac 20" unit we got back in 2006 and cost 40 percent of its price. There will be no end to macv versus pc debates. Soem folks can use PC's for a decade with no issues; others screw them up quickly; thus a mac is a safe more expensive buy ; but cheaper for them because of their pc woes.
     
  66. Most discussion here has focused on HARDWARE (I'm happy with my 24" iMac with 2GB memory and extra external drives), but for photography use I don't think nearly enough has been said about software. Photoshop works great on the Mac. Elements works great on the Mac. But I seldom use those because I depend so much on Apple APERTURE as my all-purpose image editing/cataloging software. It is an outstanding program, and IMHO justifies buying a Mac just to be able to run it. It works and works extremely well. Sometimes quality is worth a premium.
    I won't jump into the hardware argument except to this extent -- I've used both, and prefer to use Macs. We are an "all-Mac" shop at work, and its funny how new employees end up purchasing Macs over PCs as their personal home computers when they upgrade.... but that is another story. (BTW - we haven't had a computer virus at work in six years, knock on wood.)
     
  67. a pc? are you out of your mind...??
     
  68. Charmain, this same discussion was just held here, ad infinitum. All you've done is dredge it all up again.
    If you'll look at that lengthy discussion, all you will find are platitudes and generalizations about Mac being "better". However, to recap my comments, I'll post them here:
    Not one Mac user who's posted here has given me any compelling reason (not one) to leave the PC world and shell out the bucks for a Mac. All I've read are platitudes and generalizations (kind of like an Obama speech).
    Again, bottom line is that there is little difference between a modern PC with recent processor and plenty of RAM, compared with a comparably equipped Mac, save for the operating system and the price tag. You basically have two different personal computers that look different, but do the same thing. Only the PC does it WAAAAAY cheaper. PC wins.
    Then, compare the differences on the software end of things. You have two different OS's, one works with 10% of the software available on the market, and the other works with the other 90%. PC wins.
    There is NOTHING you can do on a Mac that I cannot do on a PC. I can run Quark, Photoshop, ACDSee, Lightroom, Illustrator, Flash, InDesign, or whatever I want, and it works just as well, and does exactly the same thing (no, I can't run Aperture, but there are plenty of other solutions to do the same thing). And, there are TONS of other programs and applications I can use that Mac owners can't. PC wins.
    I've known folks for years who swear by their Macs, but they can't for the life of them give me ANY compelling reason to get one myself. They just swear it's "better". Bottom line: there is NOTHING you can do on a Mac that I can't do on a PC cheaper and just as fast. And there's a TON of programs I can run on a PC that you probably can't run on a Mac, unless it's an Intel version. PC software and hardware still outnumbers Mac 10-1, and, the hardware is still cheaper by a long shot.
     
  69. a pc? are you out of your mind...??​
    You know, one of the reasons I migrated to PCs after getting out of the Mac-only environment of design school was the attitude voiced above. Heaven knows our Macs had issues. I can remember trying nearly in vain to get a final project to print in the graphics lab. The server just kept crashing and crashing (remember the little bomb icon?) I saw it dozens, if not hundreds, of times in about a 6 hour period. Not humorous.
    I sat next to a guy at a restaurant recently, using a Toshiba laptop to catch up on a few things. When he saw me doing a quick edit in Photoshop, he expressed amazement that anyone would use a PC for graphics work. Surely I must be a hobbyist? When he learned that I was a bit beyond the hobbyist level, his amazement quickly faded and he began to voice his disdain for the entire realm of Windows computing. When he finally stopped to catch his breath, I asked him if he'd ever owned a PC. Triumphantly, he said, "Of course not!"
    To which I replied, "Then you have my permission to STFU." The situation quickly deteriorated. Thank goodness he had enough sense to leave or he might have ended up owning his first PC in the form of a Toshiba suppository.
     
  70. I agree, Howard. The Mac world is FULL of elitists, who are all so self-affirmed that THEY have the answer, THEY have seen the light, that THEY are using the smart solution, and if YOU'RE smart, then YOU'LL buy one too. And if you use a PC, well then, you just must be living in the dark ages among the unwashed masses. It's ridiculous.
    We don't see this sort of elitism in the PC world. We don't see that unfounded snobbishness. And that is why I think I'll stay in the PC world. I've been doing high-end graphics work on PCs for years and as I said, the Mac does not have a monopoly on graphics software, it's the other way around.
     
  71. I can shake hands with Howard
    We also used Macs at school and man were they a horror. They kept crashing and you'd get that little rainbow wheel just spinning around for minutes on end.

    I've never understoodd why a Mac is superior to a PC when it comes to graphic design. They both do exactly the same. Also: lots of applications online don't work well on a Mac....
     
  72. Here's an example of Jobs-ian minimalism that typifies the Mac world. I just picked up a used iPod, just to keep some tunes on. My receiver at home as an iPod dock, and my car has an iPod compatible connector for the stereo, so I figured 'why not?'. Never having owned one before, I figure all the functions out except for the power on/off function. I can't see any way to turn the darn thing off. Now, knowing what I know about Macs not having eject buttons on their disc drives because Jobs hath deemed them barbaric and obsolete, I know there must be some way to turn it off. I have to read the manual very thoroughly, because buried in the text is the answer. I read the manual over and over 2 or 3 times. Then, I look in the index under "P" for power, and find it's mentioned on page so and so. Sure enough, you have to press the Play/Pause button for 2 seconds to get the thing to shut down.
    This sort of minimalism is just ridiculous. It's like that whole dragging the disc to the trash can to eject it thing. It takes things to the extreme.
     
  73. @Steve/ why would a Mac user need to give you reason to switch? can you make your own decision?..and why do you need to switch if you are happy? Garisson can give me all good reason to switch, and i wont..but i listen to what he said and open my eye and that give me new perspective..not enough to get a PC, but to understand whats on the other side on the fence, and because i always learn when he or Kelly bring infos..i like to learn, like to have new material. Does that make me want a PC..nope, but i fell more inform.
    @Kelly/ so can you tell me if i have to send flower to a guy or a girl..or simply hit Steve for is assumption that make me sleep badly?
    @Howard/ you have seen mac crash, i have seen PC going out of control after installing a sony mp3 player : )..i also have seen a brand new car have is ligth panel always off because of a false wired connection..*X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* append everytime, everywhere, on anything..a bomb icon was the nemesis of OS 7-8-9..good thing they have create os X after..like they have create windows XP , vista and Windows 7 (why 7?..why not 2009 i dont get it, but maybe is the next number version?)
    @All/ Still the same argument everytime..$, virus, compatibility, bla bla bla..my advice buy anything you want, you got the money, you dont care about the fact that a mac is more expensive for nothing, like me, get a Mac. You are money conscious, you dont want to spend it on something just for the image or the look or the OS..get a PC.
    For the record, i am a top Mac addict, affionado, ellitist professional across the universe...i will never think of me buying a PC and will sell my Plasma TV to get the $ to get a Mac before BUT i am a intellingent person who understand that when you put aside $, people make there own choice and buy wathever they are comfortable with; i will never give you crap advice about the missing eject button on a Cd as a important reson to get a PC, i will not even talk about virus because you should have a anti virus on any platform anyway, i will not even talk about the incompatibility of Vista / XP / OS X ... because the most problem i have seen for the past 20years always come from a user point of view more often that from a machine.
    As i say before i have a Mac because i like the feel of is OS, i like the look of the machine itself, and because all my client, my friend and people i sue to send work to have a Mac, so why would i get a PC? this is my personnal reason to get Mac.
    Oh, i also like Hermes vs Target and will never ask witch one i should buy since i know what i like ; )
     
  74. Ah Steve, would you stop bringing that hold trash thing .. you dont like minimalist, get a zune or whatever mp3 player that have a on/off sleep button on it..or get a cd player : )
     
  75. "..We don't see this sort of elitism in the PC world.."
    look at any pc vs mac thread..you will see it both way. Just have a look here : )
     
  76. Iris, if i remember Mac use to be superior because of the lack of color amnagement with PC..certainly not true anymore indeed, but it like people still using Quark; when you get the hang on something its hard to switch on something else, even knowing that Indesign is by far better and cheaper : )..Oh wait! its like Mac vs PC?! again its a matter of what you know, and $..dam.
     
  77. Howard, I hear ya... It's come down to an argument of style vs. sensibility between PC & Mac it seems. It's like when people get their eye on clothing that costs twice as much as a lesser brand. They both keep you warm, they both last about the same length, one is just more refined design wise and to some people that is important, others not so much. In Mac's defense there are some PC makers that overcharge too for style, namely Sony & Alienware.
    I was just helping a friend get up to speed with Capture NX on a macbook. So much animation going on I can't imagine the image processing speed wasn't slowed down by it. Also he spent 20 minutes trying to figure out where the hell iPhoto kept his images files when it imported them. Not very user friendly in that regard.
    Charmain, to stress again, the superiority complex for macs and graphics has been long dead. There will be people that try to convince you they make better monitors, but in your position as someone still early in photography, I wouldn't throw down extra cash on 'pro' computer gear, when you should be making sure you have pro camera gear first. Maybe you can afford all of it very soon though, in that case go for it.
     
  78. Mumble.
    I have a Mac running 10.4.11. It's old (1999) but it still runs fine, if slow for modern apps. I just replaced my 8 yo Dell with a new Gateway running Vista x64. I haven't had an OS crash from either box in months. In fact, the Vista machine has NEVER had a crash that took down the OS, except when software from the Crucial Memory site caused a BSOD. Crucial admits a problem.
    Bomb messages are obsolete now. OS X (post 10.2) is as stable as Vista or XP. The problem is cost. My Gateway (Vista x64, AMD Phenom, 8GB RAM, 256 Ati, 640GB HD, etc.) cost $500. A Mac Pro is two grand. Viruses are indeed a problem on Wintel, but not a 1500 dollar or more problem. Vista works fine. There are annoying permissions messages, but you can turn them off. My Mac asks for my password before installing software, just like Vista asks for admin permission.
    PS CS4 64-bit is amazingly fast. Plugins are becoming available. It's all good.
    Les
     
  79. Patrick, I think in spite of our differences with Mac/PC, we would be great friends in real life!
     
  80. Him sure, honestly : )
     
  81. If you needed certain applications or games not existent in the Mac world yet, and could stay off the internet or buy the virus protection programs needed on a constant basis, then a PC would be the way to go and perhaps Windows 7 will work out fine, especially with security. Reviews are positive. I've have both PC's and Mac's, but prefer my old G3 iMac which keeps plugging along, and I love the ease of use. The only thing I have run into is problems getting a selection of peripherals such as a webcam, but my machine is ancient by todays standards. The up side to the Mac is the underlying Unix like operating system and viruses, the downside is, like any computer, things can get quirky if you know what I mean. The problems I've encountered with my friends PC's since I repair them is they slow down alot, they get inundated with MS company and other application crap, they get viruses, and they breakdown more. Probably a result of using low bidding suppliers. Still I'm (eventually) setting up a PC for imaging but it will not be used for anything else. Other option, it's becoming a Linux world, but I'm uncertain as to imaging programs there. Btw, any Mac can be easily setup as a server.
     
  82. Hi Barry, didn't mean to make my first post sound confrontational. I was just pointing out that i think it's fuktarded that for the equivalent of PC just simply updating the bios, you can't add an extra gig of ram in your iMac. The slots are there for you to run 2 X 2 gig, iMac's sold a few months after can take 4 gig. Aren't you a little pissed you can't get a small update from Apple and then install an extra gig of ram? Instead, you have to sell the whole box and buy another one. Yeah, great system.
    I wonder how many thousands have you put in to upgrade or switch your hot rods in the last 3 years. It seems on one thread it sounds like you upgrade or cross platforms with every new tech wrinkle. That sounds real cost effective.


    I've only switched platforms, to PC, once. It seems that i average a new build every three years. I need two fast PC's, one for the desk, and one for the road. I'm like Patrick, I need two. I also have a third just for email/web. This may be where you've gotten the impression I run to the hardware store every six months.
    If one starts their PC life with a great ATX case, then it is just a matter of a swapping out parts. My oldest machine, my email/web box, is a five year old dual core P4. It has 2 gig of ram. Still poky and snappy and could easily put 4 gig of ram in there, but is the slow poke of the three and don't need even 2 gig for the web. I'll swap out the mobo & cpu ect in a couple months for an i7 920 and 6 gigs of ram. For $800 and a sunday, I'll have a current sytem and save the landfill of e-waste. This updated box will become my road box, and the current road box will be demoted as a web/email machine. I always keep my work stations off-line. I run two boxes, a work station and an email box, side by side connected to one monitor/keyboard/mouse with a $80 KVM switch. I'm not sure why I bother with an email dedicated box though? I've never had a malware/virus/spyware issue in 10 years of PC use. Point is, I'd shudder at the cost of two Mac Pro's. And I'd have to sell them, like you, in order to get modern speed.
    You probably think it's a brilliant idea to run raid 0 for photography just to get that little speed tweak.
    Well, yeah man. Hard drive speed is our bottleneck now. It's not a "little speed tweak". It's huge speed increase that's well worth the ten seconds of bios settings. That's why photographers and video editors do it. Ever tried it? Please indicate why you think it is a bad idea. If it's the "if one drive goes down, you lose everything" argument, it's a moot point to those that back up their data. Because hard drives are so reliable now, the chance for one to go down is very slim.
    I have had seamless 3 years of no hassle, no virus, no driver issues, can you say the same?
    No driver issues, Barry? Your Epson has always worked? You were able to use your software from Tiger/IBm on Intel/Leopard? No forced upgrades? I recall 3800 posts with OSX/Epson/CS3. Three years isn't anything to be impressed by anyways. But absolutely, my now fiver yr old email machine has been flawless. And soon, for $800, it'll be faster than a $4K Mac Pro. It's easy to build a rock solid PC and play it safe on the net. Because PC is the market share, we get drivers first. We get plugins and raw updates from Adobe first. We get CS4 in 64 bit first. Any one of my three PC's can load 8 different OS's and run 10 year old software. In either 32 and 64 bit versions, we can run XP, Vista, Windows 7, and Ubuntu. Heck, if I was abit more of geek, I could hack OSX onto one of them :)
    I do like the horsepower available for less that PC offers, but I don't like the hassle involved in running a PC. I do think that OSX is much better OS that allows more focus on the work and less on the computer. It's worth the money to me, but it's an individual choice.
    See, I don't have any PC hassle. Great parts and a great tech makes a great box. Most that swtch to Mac usually come from poor PC experiences from poor PC's. My workstations take no maintenance at all. They are off-line. My email machine, big deal, it runs a $40 anti-virus program. I've got several friends that have switched and about half have stayed. One went from an $800 two year old Dell that was taken everywhere on the net that it shouldn't, loaded games (worse thing), did the MSN and free smiley's with a hotmail account. Ran like crud, new spyware conflicted with pre-installed Dell bloatware, couldn't rebuild it himslef, wouldn't pay $200 for a fresh install, gave up with all the "free online computer scans" and then he bought an iMac, after I begged him too, and can't shut up about how great it is. Well, for 3 X the cost, it should be! My x-gf dumped $6K into Mac Pro and soon longed for the flexablity of PC. She felt like she was held for ransom by a monopoly. I had to indicate to her that she was. Hers was in the shop 4 times in like 1.5 yrs. My 1/3 the cost PC box is faster and I'm soon fighting to get onto my own PC. I deal with Mac people all the time on a pro level, that spinning disk goes around and around and mumbles like "where did that go?" "where did I put that?" "how come it hasn't printed yet?"
     
  83. Look, let's all be totally honest here. You buy a Mac and spend the extra cash because it's the sexiest looking piece of computer kit on the market, bar none. That's the only reason. As already mentioned, for the equivalent cash you'll buy a PC with enough horsepower to knock the equivalent Mac into next week.
    Without doubt Mac OS is better, but it is NOT better enough to warrant the extra cost. Mac is beautiful design, Mac looks fantastic, even in the shittiest office, but at the end of the day it comes down to pounds, shillings and pence and raw horse power. I don't buy this Vista will give you grief argument - it's only used by the Mac and Linux fanboys who have little more to do than jerk off over their pride and joy. I'm using Vista daily and haven't had a problem. LR2.3, CS4 and DPP work flawlessly and that's all I need to care about. Ask a Mac user who isn't a fanboy and they'll give you a more balanced answer. It's like the Nikon/Canon argument. Neither is REALLY better than the other. It's just what you get used to using.
     
  84. >>> You buy a Mac and spend the extra cash because it's the sexiest looking piece of computer kit on the market, bar none. That's the only reason.
    Dead wrong. I buy a Mac for OS X. It's about productivity, zero hassles and zero virus issues.
    My Mac "desktop computer" is underneath my desk - haven't looked at it in a couple years.
     
  85. >>>Dead wrong. I buy a Mac for OS X. It's about productivity, zero hassles and zero virus issues. My Mac "desktop computer" is underneath my desk - haven't looked at it in a couple years.
    Fanboy? Strange that. My box is under my desk, it's hassle free and I don't get viruses. Same as you there then. But I think my box cost a lot less than yours (with an Eizo monitor). But I guess that because yours cost more it has to be better, aka the old adage, you get what you pay for - right?
     
  86. I love macs but I keep finding myself buying PC's. I just dont have the cash to buy expensive hardware when PCs are almost as good.
    Yes, a mac is normally better for this type of stuff, but I think it would be a better idea to save some money on hardware and buy better software.
    Regarding vista. If you can hold off for a while, windows 7 will be much better. If you need a computer now, consider the Mac route. But if price is any sort of factor, I would save up for a few more months (june when every windows computer will come with a free upgrade to 7).
    One final note. If you get a PC, get some linux distro for your laptop. Make that your internet computer and dont let the pc anywhere near the net. Ive never had mine crash but ive never browsed the web with it... For virus protection, Macs can only be beat by linux.
     
  87. I don't really know why I'm contributing to this thread because I have nothing new to say, but I can't resist.
    I was a pc user for many years and didn't really mind it too much. I got used to working in a certain way and put up with the foibles of the windows systems I used. i wasn't mad keen on the slowing down of the systems and the headaches and glitches with networking and so forth. I had antivirus and antispware software installed and was fairly careful in how I browsed. I only once got a virus, though I did pick up quite a lot of other bits and pieces which I didn't like.
    I switched to mac a couple of years ago. First at my work and then afer using the OS for two or three months, i bought an iMac. I personally find the mac system a lot less hassle. I don't have to worry at all about viruses, and I believe that OSX is a lot more secure in that it won't install anything unless you let it. My wife's son has a pc laptop with Vista and I have used it once or twice and each time I have been glad that I switched to the mac.
    I find most day to day hassles I had with my pc ( and I'm not saying they drove me to drink or anything) don't happen with my mac or if they do happen, they happen an awful lot less. If I want to network it it is a simple click or two of the mouse. Windows, to my mind, is a lot more complex.
    Now this might just be because I am used to the mac but I don't believe it is. I ran windows via Boot Camp on my mac for a long time until I realised I hadn't used it at all for the past 12 months and deleted it.
    I believe the fact that Apple control the hardware and the software in any of their computers makes the whole thing more likely to work well as a whole. I suppose this is both their strength and their limitation. I don't suffer from the Apple religion, ( and Steve Jobs gets on my wick from time to time ), but for me the mac can get things done reliably and well. I didn't find it to be a revolution it just seemed easier all round.
    I have the older white iMac with a nice matte screen. At the moment Apple don't offer the matte option in their current iMac range. This glossy doesn't really appeal to me much although I know many photographers use it without issues. It might bother you or it might not.
    Those are my ramblings on the subject. I have to say though that if you really really need to be convinced then maybe you should just go with the pc. You have used both and if you are not convinced the Mac is worth the extra money then why not save cash and buy a windows machine.
    Anyway good luck with whatever you buy : )
    William
     
  88. >>> Fanboy?
    No. Why the immature and snarky remark?
    >>> But I guess that because yours cost more it has to be better, aka the old adage, you get what you pay for - right?
    No, Again, because I choose to use OS X.
     
  89. I was a bit harsh about my tone. Garrison sorry about that. Yes, I would like to get 4 GB ram in my system if I could I would go to Leopard. But I thought that was an Intel limitation on their mother board and not a bios issue. Am I wrong?
    No, I've not had any driver issues or problems with Epson printers etc. I'm using Tiger not Leopard. Did have one brief issue with my Nikon scanner but that was my error and quickly fixed, that's it.
    I used to build PC's in my day and knew what I was doing (more or less). Sure, if you don't connect to the internet, you don't have to worry about viruses......as much. You still can get em easy enough everytime someone brings you a file on a disk or other device. So, you run an extra machine for connectivity. That's fine, it works for you, but as inexpensive as that machine is, it's still an extra machine. I remember going to manufactures sites everytime I changed a sound card or a video card, or always looking for the latest video driver more likely, that type of thing. Then there were the cd burning software issues that I suffer at work today still, all the time on our admittidly cheapo, ram starved underpowered systems there on Vista. Its always a sparkling challange wether our CDDVD burner/reader is going to be able to read someone else's disk. Most of that is because are stripped to the bone office comuters and not what one would have at home for high end photo work. But still the same, have had very little to no problems like that at home on a 3 year old computer.
    I agree with how you go about building PC's. Start with a good case and power supply and then rebuild every couple of years, depending on how fast stuff changes and how often you want to tweek it. I used the same case for 3 or was it 4 rebuilds + "tweaks". From the Celeron Overclock days to the AMD days. I used to think the "mac just works" people were wackos, I thought it was overpriced, underpowered hardware, until I went to photo school and started using iMacs and power macs there. I then decided to "switch" when it was time for my next upgrade and went for the mac and I really, surprisingly, haven't looked back especially when Mac went to Intel (many apple fanatics thought that was treason). It really is OSX that makes it work.
    And Garrison, I have to say, speed is great with Raid 0. I know you move stuff through quickly, I don't know what your requirements are for back-up, but isn't it risky using that configuration?. Surely you back it all up somewhere else? Or is your business just pass through where you don't need to long term store images?
     
  90. I read a few posts about PCs slowing down over time and this is true because a PC still uses a registry (the heart of many PC issues). The registry literally tracks everything on a PC, but the more stuff on the PC, the slower it gets since the registry has more to track. Just like any large database- the larger the database, the slower it gets. It's a good idea to do a clean install of any OS from time to time; it's just that OS X is a breeze to install compared to Windows XP/Vista. And yes, I have installed both. As to what computer a person should get, if you have to ask, get a PC. It really is that simple. Only you will know if/when you need to switch. My personal example is as follows: back in 2000 I think, we needed to get a laptop for some design classes and since the classes were all on Mac we got a 400MHz Powerbook with a whopping 512MB of RAM. At the time I was doing some video editing on a PC.... I think it was a Gateway, somewhere around 1.2 GHz (I remember it being about 3x faster than the Powerbook) with 2GB Ram. The Gateway was a tower with a 2nd internal drive- one for the OS and one for my video files. As was par for the course, I was frustrated trying to get something done on the PC. When I look back, the worse part was not knowing if I was at fault, or the PC. In any event, if I tried to scrub through the timeline on the PC it was very, very choppy- skipping frames all over. I had no idea that it shouldn't be this way. That's just the way it worked on the PC. For fun, I loaded my video project on our Powerbook. Using iMovie I could seamlessly scrub through over an hours worth of content. Here I had a laptop that was three times slower in clock speed, with a slower internal hard drive that held both the OS and the video files with one-quarter the Ram and yet I could scrub video without any issue. To say I was amazed would be an understatement. We bought an iMac. All I can remember from our early years of switching was how amazed I was at how it just worked. I remember my first project and my new iMac froze (it does happen). Naturally I was upset until I realized I had been editing this project for over 3-weeks without so much as a restart. It dawned on me that that feat was never possible on our PC for whatever the reason (I really don't care: one worked, one didn't). I have been a Mac fanboy/elitist/call me what you will since. Now I also teach a few Community Ed classes on basic computer info (as well as digital cameras and editing). And for these classes I typically use XP. And after a few hours of using XP, I am thrilled to get back to my Macs! But that's me. Again, I don't care what somebody else uses. I don't care if you can build your own computer/car/house/better mousetrap than the next guy. I have no interest in doing any of those things. I want to sit down, get me work done, and enjoy life. My Macs allow me to do that. I never had a PC that did. And I maintain a few friends PCs and all I hear about computer issues. Granted, many are users issues- but not all (I've never had to drill down into a Macs registry to fix something- a Mac doesn't use one!). Anyway, that's why we switched. If you don't have a reason to switch, then don't.
     
  91. This is just like the film vs. digital debate...try out the Mac and if you like it go all the way. I'm a PC user (and builder) and simply prefer not to switch.
    Jesse
     
  92. >>> No, Again, because I choose to use OS X.


    But my Vista box is 'probably' more powerful than your Mac with 'probably' a better monitor, that is highly productive, hassle free and without virus problems. It is endlessly expandable at a sensible money, but costs probably half what you paid.

    Now OS X is without doubt a superior operating system than Vista, but as my main point stated, it isn't worth anywhere near the extra you have to pay for the privalege of running it. We all hear the 'horror' stories of Windows virus attacks, but keeping virus free isn't difficult in a Windows environment.

    And ask yourself the question, if Mac was such a brilliant deal, why don't people buy more of them? Simple answer; inital cost, later releases of drivers and software updates and expensive upgrades. Don't get me wrong, Mac's are good pieces of kit but I'd feel like Mr Jobs was taking the pee out of me if I bought one and frankly that EF 135mm 2.0L lens is better in my kit bag than the equivalent amount of money in Jobs' pocket.
     
  93. Ford vs. Chevy. Nikon vs. Canon. Digital vs. Film. Republican vs. Democrat. Conservative vs. Liberal. PC vs. Mac. Abbot vs. Costello. Ah, the great debates.
     
  94. >>> But my Vista box is 'probably' more powerful than your Mac with 'probably' a better monitor, that is highly productive, hassle free and without virus problems. It is endlessly expandable at a sensible money, but costs probably half what you paid.
    How nice for you...
    Why are you so upset with others' choices?
     
  95. Everybody is saying how Mac's are stable and don't crush.
    Any one out there with a OSX 10.3? try going to google maps using safari and tell me what happens. It crashes and spits out some error.
    Can you update safari on a 10.3 to a newer version? According to the Mac store - you can't. You either need to upgrade to a 10.4 or buy an entirely new Mac (10.5 didn't come out when this was happening).
    Tell me that is not an extortion.
    You can install any version of IE, Firefox, or most other software on an 8 year old PC running XP and it will be free.
    As much as i hate Microsoft, they don't force you to buy new OS just to upgrade IE to the latest version (and this is just one example).
    Also, every one and their brother is talking about how bloated the Vista is. How about the bloat and the resource consumption of the 10.5? (i'm sorry for not knowing which number corresponds to wich cat). try checking the resources of the Mac just running the OS and tell me the numbers.
    Yes, the 10.5 is a thing of beauty. It's polished, refined and very cool (talking about looks here) and i love watching some one working on one, but the machine to run the thing needs to be very fast.
    Same machine running Vista is litteraly gonna run circles around the Mac. I'm talking about a direct comparison. My friends own a business in NYC, one of them is a Mac fan for as long as i know him, the other is a speed freak (in everything).
    The Mac friend bought himself top of the line MacPro (can't remember the exact specs now) and was raving about how fast hi's Mac is compared to the others year old PC.
    So the other guy asked me to build him the exact same machine from parts, and install Vista on it (we are talking both 32-bit systems). I did, we installed CS3 on both systems, rebooted them both, let the OS settle down for about 10 minutes after boot, started up PS, oppened the same file, ran an image resize on a picture from a 72dpi to 3600dpi. Gues which one finished first? And what was the difference it time?
    The PC finished first with Mac trailing it with more than 3 minutes behined.
    Does this proove that the PC's are better? NO it just means they have a slight edge it performance (Vista vs. OSX) on the same hardware.
    It didn't make my Mac friend switch to PC, he just likes the feel of the OSX. Just like the other one like the way Vista feels.
    To each his own.
    Just a story. :)
     
  96. The sad thing is, in the last 3 thread about mac vs pc, if someone count it, you will see that theres not that much people from the mac side that really told you that...Why do PC user feel the need to point finger and justify there mac angryness?
    Mac vs PC is and will ever be a childish war that dont need to be appening..
    I would like to read from a PC user the same as me a Mac ellist / maniac / affionado said not so long ago..it is so hard?
    "Still the same argument everytime..$, virus, compatibility, bla bla bla..my advice buy anything you want, you got the money, you dont care about the fact that a mac is more expensive for nothing, like me, get a Mac. You are money conscious, you dont want to spend it on something just for the image or the look or the OS..get a PC "
    Why do PC user always bring $ as a argument..do i hurt your feeling because i can afford one? do you feel a injustice because i can afford 3? why should you care! why should you care if the OP could buy a mac? what do i care what other buy..money or not, i still respect other people choice. Theres is no religion / politic partie / camera brand / computer brand in the top player better than the other..in the end its mainly a matter of taste, OS taste, design taste..thats it.
    _____
    Oh by the way, i have a mac pro with raid drive, i use it because it give me a speed boost, and i dont keep anything on it for a long period (not a backup drive) and i have more backup made than a normal user will ever do in is life, because i WORK with my Mac, i dont play game : )
     
  97. There are PCs that you buy in stores and there are PCs that you build yourself. Very different...
     
  98. and i think Mac people refer a lot of time on those cheap HP pavillon PC at best buy as there PC reference...as PC user use OS 9 and older OS X version as there crashing reference ; )
     
  99. Nice post, yet scary Patrick, If you lose one of your raid drives you will wish you were just playing game:) I've got 5 friggen external drives from 2 160's 360, 500 and TB and it's never enough. I know commercial photogs that keep a set by the desk, a back-up of those in cabinets, and another set at the bank. One openly wonders if film isn't a better storage medium at the end of the day. The storage problem will become THE problem for serious and professional photogs running work through computers, but that's another topic.
     
  100. Barry, i dont say that i have only 1 raid ..heres my detail setup;
    disk 1 & 2 mount as raid 0 for speed; application and client file (images are on it)
    disk 3 is a clone copy (meaning i can start from it anytime and continue to work until i replace the raid) of the 1 & 2. The clone copy is made EVERY WEEKS, Friday night.
    disk 4 is the IN PROGRESS job backup, basically the backup of all my client images, update manually everyday end of the day (for folder where change have been made only indeed)
    disk 5 (external firewire 800 lacie rugged) is the back up again of those same client file, that i bring home with me in case that i want to work on them, as a external backup, in case *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* append at my studio.
    DVD double layered for all the finish job that have been delivered. Not a obligation as when i deliver the file the clients know that i dont keep backup, they should do there own. When the file are out and print they are not my responsability anymore, yet i like to have a copy of them just in case i can save someone ass. I burn 2-3 everyweek..im at DVD 226 as whe speak.
    I have a mackbook pro unibody that act as a second computer at home with a Apple 24inch LED (LOVE IT) that have the exact same software as my macpro, so i can work on it if major *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* append.
    Oh and i might have a new Imac 24inch (i know i just sell mine 3 weeks ago) as a second station for retoucher assistant...
    So as you can see i am a very stupid Mac owner that get 3 slow computer because they look cool, even knowing that it is far slower tahn is PC counter part..but what can i say..i like shiny metal thing LOL.
     
  101. There is a stigma that Macs have fewer (or no) software issues than PCs. I think everyone should understand that any time a company (and there are LOTS of them) produces software for ANY platform, there are always bugs that have to be worked out. We also need to recognize that many companies do their beta testing with product IN THE FIELD, because it's cheaper or more expedient in bringing their product to market. This doesn't bode well for any user, whether Mac or PC, but we have to deal with it.
    So let's separate these software bugs/issues/crashes from the issue of whether the Mac or PC platform has more merits, and advise the OP accordingly. Charmain NEEDED to be convinced, so let's convince him/her of the facts, cost benefits, differences in ease of use, etc., which is what I was trying to do.
     
  102. now whe can be finally be friend Steve, on the internet also : )
     
  103. >>>Why are you so upset with others' choices?
    Far from upset old fella. But the thread starter wanted a REALLY GOOD reason to buy a Mac instead of a PC. As usual, the Mac fanboys come out in force trying to sell us the virtues of an over-priced computer that has over-priced add-ons and limited upgrade potential.
    I'd suggest to Charmain that OS X and sexy looks isn't a 'REALLY GOOD' enough reason to spend all that hard earned extra money on buying a Mac. As this is a photography site I'd assume she is a photographer or has an interest in photography, so the extra cash she would have to shell out for a Mac against a comparable PC is better off spent on buying some nice glass and/or a decent monitor/printer to go with that shiny new PC.
    As a photographer or someone interested in photography, wouldn't you agree?
     
  104. >>> Far from upset old fella.
    But you sure seem that way with all the high school-ish bluster ("But my Vista box is 'probably' more powerful than your Mac with 'probably' a better monitor, ...). Why do you care so much about what other's do? I'm sure Vista is a great system.
    >>> As a photographer or someone interested in photography, wouldn't you agree?
    No. As a photographer, I much prefer OS X and will gladly pay for using it.
     
  105. Brad im glad you also do this with other ..even if youre right THIS time (i was wondering if you have something against me) ; )
    touching wood, it didtn append to us in this new year! LOL.
     
  106. Based on my experiences, get the Mac. You'll be glad you did, and you'll wonder why you put up with Windows for so long.
    I simply find the Windows UI to be incredibly clunky, awkward, and badly designed. Often, it feels as if there's an AI program running in the background determining what I least want to do so Windows can do that by default (like how clicking once in some [only some, gotta keep it inconsistant so as to keep the nasty surprises coming] text input windows selects ALL THE TEXT by default). And then there's the idiotic windows and menu keys sitting like landmines next to the space bar, waiting to be stepped on and cause modal changes in whatever app. is running. And heaven help you if you want to cut and paste between a command prompt window and nearly any other application -- the UI for doing so in a prompt window is unbelievably awkward and bizarre (and utterly inconsistant with anything else).
    In contrast, the Mac has mostly felt (not always -- just mostly) consistant, intuitive and natural. The command key is merely a shift-like modifier key, so when I trip over it, it does nothing by itself. And the choice of using a separate, dedicated key for menu shortcuts means Comnand-C is *always* "copy" and Comnand-V *always* "paste" (even in terminal windows -- imagine that, one interface that works right everywhere!).
    I have to use Windows at work and I absolutely hate it. In fact, I grabbed a spare machine and put Linux on it so I can do most of my work in the Gnome desktop -- which isn't as well thought-out as the Mac, but doesn't suck as badly as Windoze. It says something about a company's product when even volunteers who mostly work for nothing manage to produce something better.
    On top of that, I'm a long time (20+ years) UNIX shell user, so being able to launch a Terminal window and getting a genuine UNIX command prompt (sorry, Cygwin just doesn't cut it in this department) is a big plus for the Mac for me.
    Of course, this is 100% my own personal biases -- but what else did you expect from such a question?
     
  107. "..As usual, the Mac fanboys come out in force trying to sell us the virtues of an over-priced computer that has over-priced add-ons and limited upgrade potential..."
    just curious Paul if you can point me (i assume you have a lot quote to show, as you put a S at fanboys) where my fanboy buddy have done that in this long thread..because all i see from the start is many PC user (see here i didtn say ALL but MANY..different wording) saying the same *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* all over...$ $ $.
    Money aside, what else can be use as a argument that NOBODY KNOWS in this PC vs MAC stupid thread (Steve dont bring the eject button or the trash thing please ; P
     
  108. Ah, just for fun, let start a idiot war like this on the digital camera forum!
    Nikon vs. Canon....I NEED to be convinced. :)
     
  109. Im a MacBook Pro flippa! LOL
     
  110. >>>No. As a photographer, I much prefer OS X and will gladly pay for using it.
    :eek:)) :eek:)) Now I know you're on a wind-up.
     
  111. Patrick. Look the whole point is you can get more horsepower for a lot less with a PC and the the thread starter is obviously concerned about cost. I've already stated that OS X is a better op system than Vista, but for want of repeating myself, it just isn't worth the extra money.
    If a Mac was the same price as an equivalent PC, Mac would win the war hands down. I don't know what the Apple market share is, but it has to be less than 10%. Why is that do you think?
    Why is the Mac so much more expensive? It doesn't deliver more power £ for £. It is safer to use than a Windows machine, but given the correct precautions, Windows users can keep themselves safe. So really you're just paying for good looks and, 30 minutes less time installing and configuring your AV software...? I'm intrigued what extra you can do with your Mac in a day to day environ.
     
  112. Paul, as i said, money aside, what argument can you give me other than the usal one? none. So its exactly my point; if a PC was the same price as a Mac, all people could use is the OS difference.
    It just doestn worth the extra money for you, but for me i prefer to work in a Mac environement..whe cant fight about taste. As for the market share..who care? idotn have Microsoft or Apple action, and i dont buy one or the pther because they have a bigger share..i buy a Mac because i like it. The real questions is why there share was only 6% years ago, and since the Imac arrival its now 10% because in major part of all the PC user that switch? they must have switch for soem reason that only them can assume right.
    Why did the Mac is so expensive? i dotn know i like to think its because they build it with better piece. Why did BMW is so expensive? why do Moet & CHandon champagne is so expensive? it should be because of a quality issue?
    What do i do extra vs a PC user in my day to day environment? i work , i dont play game: )
    For that i have a expensive Wii, a expensive Playstation 3, and a doestn worth anything now original Xbox OH MY GOD i use a microsoft devil machine ! aaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.
     
  113. Just as the BMW driver doesn't mind paying a little extra to drive a fancier car, the Mac user doesn't seem to mind paying extra to compute.
    The OP seemed to be value conscious so I tried to interest him in a Toyota/ Dell.
    In both examples, cars and computers, it comes down to the same reality, transportation and computing. It shouldn't be too hard to figure-out how you want to drive or compute.
     
  114. >>> Now I know you're on a wind-up
    What ever that means.... If windows floats your boat go for it. I prefer OS X. Why do you get so upset about what others choose?
    Do you also care so strongly about which camera and lens I use? How about my car? My shoes (Eccos) - too expensive for you?
     
  115. Folks brains are wired differently too; some folks may want a car with just idiot lights; a race driver might rotate the gages and have the dials pointing horizontal when all is well; plus just a few idiot lights; or none.
    Thus if somebody wants a 28" iMac with a neutron CPU and the Monkey OS that will not run CS2; but runs CS3 and CS4; they might be happy.

    The totally silly thing about threads like this is there is usually no mention of what size files are going to be worked on.
    The FTP server I am on now running old win2000 and having two clients uploading files to it still can be used to work on photoshop at the same time. One of our phase One 35 megapixel scan is 105 megs; the box can rotate one of theses files 90 degrees in 0.4 seconds. The box is just a new old stock intel box; no name clone with a 2.8 Ghz Prescott CPU; it was 158 bucks off of ebay with a legal win2000 copy full install disc about 2 years ago. I built it as a ftp box; it has cs2 on it to crop files and do batches too; a customer may want some downsized files too in their FTP area; besides the full scans.
    Rotating a 300 meg 4x5 scan takes 1.4 seconds on this box; it is faster than the imac 20" unit we got for a retoucher that cost us 6 times more. Both can only hold 2 gigs of ram. Rotating a 500 meg file 90 degrees takes 6.8 seconds; a 600 meg file takes 35.7 seconds; ie I am running out of ram compaired to the file I am working on.
    All this is while *waiting* on a clients files; the test doesnt seem to bog the server's upload/download speed. It is just a test with an old obsolete box; it is just a single core cpu; it just has intergrated graphics too.
     
  116. You don't need to be convinced. I bet on, when you start working with the MAC, after a month, you will say; I never going to go back to PC.
     
  117. I mostly agree Paul. For me, I use Photoshop as my primary tool. Working within Photoshop, there is no difference between the OS platforms.....just looks. Photoshop on the Mac and PC both process my images. But for me, I picked up a more powerful PC for less money than the slower Mac.
    But I'm sure like the film vs digital threads, this one will remain at the top for a while.
     
  118. Been using PCs since 1986..Early Apple before that. We now have two pc's and two macs. Why was I in the dos/windows wilderness for so long. There is no comparison.
    Better performance
    Much more resilient
    More photo software
    No viruses
    Easier to use
    Just brilliant!
     
  119. Oh, Stephen, don't get me started here. Too late, you have. There is nothing quantifiable by your statements.
    a) Better performance: in what respect? Comparable ram? Comparable processor speeds? There are lots of Macs out there my current PC can smoke in terms of processing speed. There are so many parameters in ANY computing platform that can affect speed, you can't make a sweeping generalization that "Macs have better performance". Computers constantly get faster, no matter who makes them. Compare a 2008 Mac to a 2009 model, and the newer one will have better performance.
    b) Much more resilient: in what respect? Physical sturdiness? Stability of the OS? Stability of the processing platform? I can draw comparisons between Windows-based PCs and Macs all day long that will show in some respects that each platform is "resilient" in one way or another. You just can't quantify this. There are too many Mac models and too many PC models out there to make such an all-encompassing statement.
    c) More photo software: Uh, NO. PC software outnumbers Mac software 10-1, and there are a TON of specialized applications for PC that are either available for Mac while many are not available for Mac. There are only a small number that are Mac only, perhaps Capture and Aperture. Again, there is NOTHING you can do on a Mac that I cannot do on a PC. Period.
    d: No viruses: Uh, NO. Mac users suffer from viruses too. Now, because Macs are outnumbered by PCs 10-1 in the marketplace, there may be more PCs affected by viruses than Macs, but you simply cannot say that Macs don't suffer from viruses. Perhaps there is some hidden conspiracy by underground Mac fanatics that they only write viruses that affect PCs? If so, they're not winning the war.
    e) Easier to use: in what respect? Among which demographic? Veteran users or novices? I've used both, and the lack of a right mouse button to accomplish simple tasks is very frustrating on a Mac. Ejecting a disc is not intuitive to learn on a Mac. The lack of a file extension on your files makes it difficult on a Mac to know what kind of file you're working with, where it's clearly seen on a PC file. I find Macs a much more frustrating platform to use, and I'm a veteran user. But you can't just say Macs are easier to use, end of story. Each platform requires a learning curve, neither noticeably easier than the other.
     
  120. my question is, is there anybody who is a windows user that have tried MAC , and concluded that window is better than MAC?
     
  121. Sorry, Steve. Stephen is right.
    There have been recent trojans released that attack Mac OS, but there is no virus that will effect Mac OS X.
     
  122. stp

    stp

    Charmian, join the National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP) for $99 per year, you'll receive the absolute best photoshop magazine monthly, and you'll get a hefty discount for many, many products, including Apple computers, that will pay for your membership several times over.
     
  123. Nolax- for what it's worth I am directly responsible for four people switching (not including myself) and I don't know how many indirectly. Of the four I am aware of, the person that had the most difficult time was my wife (which actually makes 5). I am certain that had I not been adamant about the switch, she would have went back to Windows. She simply didn't like the learning curve. She knew how to do everything on Windows. One example, burning a disc. Back then you inserted a disc into a Windows machine and opened some sort of program to burn a disc and navigated that programs methodology to find and burn your files. On the Mac, you simply dragged the files to the disc icon and hit burn in the Finder window. This simplicity was a source of much frustration for awhile as she learned a new system. Everyone else I know lovers their Mac. When I sold an iMac to an associate, it was over a year before I was called for computer support. And even then the iMac only required a re-start. And that was the first re-start since I had sold it! There are a few stories here and there of people switching back, and for the most part it is generally because they were not motivated to switch (in which case I always say to stay with a PC). Since there wasn't a motivation to switch, there was no motivation to take the time to learn a new system. And any new system will take some getting use to.
     
  124. Nolax Montemar , Feb 25, 2009; 09:08 p.m.
    my question is, is there anybody who is a windows user that have tried MAC , and concluded that window is better than MAC?

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, for some specifics, there are some Windows programs that are superior to software available for a MAC and that software WILL NOT run with Windows when operated on a MAC platform using Parallels or VMFusion. The argument of using Windows on a MAC is not completely valid.

    This entire discussion is rather silly as both platforms meet certain needs and so far as viruses and trojans are concerns, with a good anti-virus program the issue is almost moot. Analyze your needs and software availability, and budget, and go from there.
     
  125. Would you want to buy an operating system from a company that told its employees last week- " ooops we made a mistake with your paychecks and by golly you need to send us some money because we overpaid you " if they cannot get payroll correct, what hope is there for the OS ?
     
  126. Or you could run Windows via Bootcamp and have an actual Windows computer without the emulation software.
     
  127. Barry Fisher 12:50 p.m. I was a bit harsh about my tone. Garrison sorry about that. Yes, I would like to get 4 GB ram in my system if I could I would go to Leopard. But I thought that was an Intel limitation on their mother board and not a bios issue. Am I wrong?
    Peace man. I'm not sure about the limitation. Seem odd if it was Intel as they've been supporting 4 gig on dual core boards for a couple years before your iMac came out.
    And Garrison, I have to say, speed is great with Raid 0. I know you move stuff through quickly, I don't know what your requirements are for back-up, but isn't it risky using that configuration?. Surely you back it all up somewhere else? Or is your business just pass through where you don't need to long term store images?
    Years ago I used to have hesitations about RAID O as the software and hardware wasn't what it is today. And hdd's weren't as reliable. The P4 email box I spoke about earlier has original first release WD Raptors in RAID O. Over kill for an email box, but it was once my workstation. Still after all these years, not a problem. The "on the road" box I spoke about has 4 x 250 WD hdd's in it but they are coming out as I type and being replaced with WD 640's. I don't trust hdd's with OS after three years on my work boxes so out they come. But three years later, not a problem with those four hdd's in raid o. Today though, RAID is as reliable as your hdd's imo. I only use software raid now and the new Intel Matrix is great and easy. My #1 desktop is built inside an Antec P182 and has seven hdd's. I have two WD 640's in raid o for OS/apps and then an additional two WD 250's in raid o for the scratch and LR library. With 8 gigs of ram and a quad running Vista 64, this box flies like no other I've seen. I feel lucky it's mine. The other three hdd's are an array of sizes for storage. They'll be coming out soon when the WD 2TB drives drop in price.
    Anyways, three boxes in five years and no problem with raid o. To be safe, yes, I back it all up. First, I back the system itself up. I use Ghost v14 now. When I get the raid set up and the OS installed with updates, I make a ghost image called "OS Only". Then I carry on loading my apps like LR and CS4 and do all the updates for those and make another ghost image called "OS and Apps". They take 20 mins each and is small insurance. Then after a week or two of dialing it in and installing presets/plugins etc etc, I make another ghost image called "Final".
    But before I make my first OS Ghost image, I move "Documents and Settings" from C drive to D drive. This is critical for windows users, imo. 'Docs and Settings' has all the user account stuff in it, along with desktop files that might be saved there. It also includes "My Documents". When this is moved to D drive, I can safely lose Windows on C drive at any time without losing my data. It also means I can restore my ghost images to C drive without having to back any data up as it's all off of C drive. Many fret the chore of doing a clean install of Windows once a year to tidy things up and get that "new" computer feel back. I just restore a ghost image and it's done in 20mins. This is also the safest virus/spyware protection. Having Docs and Settings on D drive also makes backing up D Drive a snap. I just drag the folder on D drive over to an external.
    For data, I'm steadfastly disciplined here, I immediately burn the contents of my cf card to dvd before I format my cf cards. This dvd is called "Originals" and goes into the disaster recovery pile. I then work and edit, and when done, make two more DVD copies and called "Finals". One copy stays in the office, one copy goes and joins the "originals" in the disaster location. Once a month, or depending on throughput, I grab my external hdd's from the disaster location and then mirror my internals. I use a docking station with eSata. These are cool and no more need for many cases with drives. You just dock a bare drive, power on and it is seen as an internal with sata2 speed. Hdd's in static bags and bubble bags take up so much less room! But the idea is that I could lose my office to fire/theft, and just have to build a box up, install my mirrored drives, and be up and running within the amount of time it takes to build a box.
    Patrick Lavoie Money aside, what else can be use as a argument that NOBODY KNOWS in this PC vs MAC stupid thread (Steve dont bring the eject button or the trash thing please ; P
    Do you mean equal money, P? Sans monitor, you'd have to drop the iMac down to $600 in order to be equal with a PC speed for the money. Then Mac market share would have to grow so that software is written for it on a equal manner as that as Windows. At the moment, for me, it isn't the price at all. Mac's are slower, have less software and hardware options.
    Nolax Montemar , Feb 25, 2009; 09:08 p.m.
    my question is, is there anybody who is a windows user that have tried MAC , and concluded that window is better than MAC?

    me. Mac's are icky. I jumped ship when they were down to 3% of market share and almost filed for chapter 11.
    More photo software
    where do you guys get this stuff? there is way less software and plugins available for Mac. When both are available, the Windows version is released first as PC has market share in the photo/graphics industry.
    I had a good chuckle the other day. I was looking something up in Martin Evening's LR book and he says out right "...I'm normally a Mac user, but I choose to run LR via Windows XP when shooting tethered. This is because the Canon software happens to work abut 4-5 times faster in Windows than it does on the Mac." p. 67 of the LR 2 book. I just put that bit in there to see if anyone actually read this epic post. But it's true, look it up.
     
  128. (Robert Morehouse wrote: "There have been recent trojans released that attack Mac OS, but there is no virus that will effect Mac OS X.")
    Robert, you omitted one word from your sentence..."yet". Give it time. You cannot say that with any certainty.
    Also, you used the word "effect" instead of the word "affect". You should learn the difference.
    By the way, I've used a PC for years now with no antivirus software and have no viruses. I'm just careful. And as others have observed, with proper AV software and good practices, it's almost a non-issue anyway.
     
  129. That is a tome allright..:) I, did get a little dizzy following all that Garrison, I have to confess, no bad on you. But it sounds a lot like in mac talk is "cloning" and now they use time machine. I don't burn DVD's of my stuff. I know a lot of people do, but I just think they don't last that long, and it's in the long run it's less time consuming, and less expensive to just buy drives. I can have a drive or two with my cloned OSX and program drive. It can actually be a fairly small partition depending on how you want to set it up. It's funny, I have a 500 GB drive for my internal drive and I had gotten up to about 260 gigs or so. And now I've been able to move video data I had to maintain due to lack of external drives, and now I only use about 120 GBs of my main drive for all my programs. You really don't need a huge main drive if you port all your data off of it.
    I think the iMac's over all, are pretty up in the mid-range in brute performance. Besides the ram not being expandable, they are expandible in many ways you wouldn't think of. They handle a second monitor quite nicely, You can port many external drives. They do not take eSata yet, but firewire 800 works pretty well and I've not found it a problem for even large photographs. It will chug through a 500 MB MF scan in photoshop without disruption. It will render a couple of hundred of 50mb tiffs out of Aperture or Lightroom quite handly and quite fast. It may take a few minutes, but not more than that. If you have 5000 to render at once, you might want something faster, but I'm not sure you'd really need it that much. So it would take an hour or more. If you really need brute speed, then you would go to plan b. But while you're rendering, You could also be working on images in photoshop, or doing your web stuff or other work at the same time. Not bad for mid range glorified laptop. It really is OSX.
     
  130. For me its simple. Buy the Mac. I have no bad words for PC's, I'm not an Apple 'Fanboy' but it simply is the case that Mac OS X crashes less, is faster and easier to use and much less complicated than Vista. I know as I use both (Vista laptop for work). I've had macs for my home computer for the last 9 years now - NO regrets. As regards the specification/price thing, sometimes you will see PC deals that appear to give you much more spec for your money, but once you investigate, you find that they give you no more performance. Simple - Mac OS X uses less processor power and RAM resources than XP or Vista, so the illusion of a faster processor on the PC is just that. Also, processor speed is not the only factor, cache sizes and bus rates are probably just as important. Macs generally have very generous specs in this area, hence their stellar performance for size of processor. Its a bit like having a Ferrari - all that power doesn't help if you are in a traffic jam, whilst the Ford station wagon zooms down the freeway!
     
  131. I still love my 6 years old dell dimension 4700($399). It works excellent, hasnt disappoint me yet. Upgraded to vista and 2.5Gb ram (cheap), its still working very fast until now.
    Mac is cute tho.
     
  132. Owned PC's for years. Every 90 days a trip to the computer shop to fix a glitch. Moved to the jungle got a MAC laptop. Few problems, no viruses, for the last 7 years, regular free updates on line. There is really no choice unless you're a tech wienie and like to fiddle with your computer.
     
  133. >>>Brad said: What ever that means.... If windows floats your boat go for it. I prefer OS X. Why do you get so upset about what others choose? Do you also care so strongly about which camera and lens I use? How about my car? My shoes (Eccos) - too expensive for you?
    Whatever that means? That you would recommend the thread starter should buy a Mac over a PC instead of spending the extra money on a really great lens for her camera! Quite remarkably.
    I think you're becoming a one trick pony with your 'why do you care argument'. I don't care what computer you use. I would use a Mac too if I felt I could get the same power for the same amount of money, but if I handed over all that cash to Apple my computing power and productivity would be less than what I currently have. Pointless!
    The thread starter wanted some advice and the only thing I can really see coming through from the Mac camp is that Mac OS is better. Well how better? Not two three times the price better. Mac owners come over as very elitist in my opinion. You obviously have to feel you're getting something so much better than the PC camp to justify the ridiculous amount of money you have shelled out for a sexy looking piece of under-powered kit.
    I wear Eccos too, and Rieker, but what's you point Brad? Ever heard the term comparing Apples and Pears?
    Patrick. It is not about money. The comparison is that, £ for £ you get much more POWER, your options to EXPAND your system are greater, you have BETTER ACCESS to software, you generally get software and driver updates BEFORE Mac users, and you'll pay LESS to upgrade your box. I do not believe Mac components are any better quality than the comparable PC components. You're just buying into some of the best marketing hype seen. I'll say again, there is a reason Mac has less than 10% market share. I haven't yet heard from a Mac user why that is (though I could have missed that in the above posts).
     
  134. >>>Nolax said: But it's true, look it up.
    It certainly is. I have the book right next to me. I studied at the same college as Martin, and he really does know his stuff.
     
  135. OMG: I am a little behind the times. I had no idea of the latest costs for a decent Mac. I have just gone to the Apple website and used the configuration tool and configured a Mac Pro to the same spec as my current PC (including monitor).
    $8,748.00 WHATTTTTTTTTTTTT!
    Charmain, do yourself a favour. Go buy a Canon 5DMk2 a nice 24-70 2.8L lens a shiny new PC and a great Eizo monitor, a copy of CS4 Extended for the same price as above! How can anyone seriously hand over this cash for a box that looks great and because Stevie J says it's just fantastic at Macworld. $8,748.00 you're having a laugh Mr Jobs
     
  136. Owned PC's for years. Every 90 days a trip to the computer shop to fix a glitch.​
    You know, I've read statements like this countless times from Mac users and I have to confess that I can't fathom why they have issues when so many others do not. I suppose the problem could be related to an event the occurred in a close friend's family. When his wife's uncle announced at a family gathering that he had bought a Mac and loved it, one of his uber-gamer nephews said (only half in jest), "That's because you're too stupid to use a real computer."
    Now, before you get out the flame throwers, remember that Apple's raison d'etre was to provide a computer for people who were perplexed and frustrated by the command line interfaces of the day, i.e., a machine that could be used simply and elegantly to do work or create art without getting in the way. To that end, the Mac has been a smashing success.
     
  137. >>>i.e., a machine that could be used simply and elegantly to do work or create art without getting in the way. To that end, the Mac has been a smashing success.
    Yet nowadays both Mac and PC users use the same software to achieve the same results without the machine getting in the way. I don't think the nephew got it quite right. Mac users aren't too stupid to use a PC, they're just too stupid to see through the Apple hype ;o)
    Mr Jobs, how do you sleep at night...
     
  138. Steve C,
    You did knot say that their will bee a virus for Mac OS in the future, implying that they exist all ready, sew I sea know knead to include the word "yet" in my earlier answer.
    With or without "yet", my earlier answer is still write, "there are know known Mac OS virus that effects Mac OS."
    By the way, if you can't produce evidence of a true Mac virus, feel free to correct my homonyms. Personally, I'd rather stick to the topic.
     
  139. "..they're just too stupid to see through the Apple hype.."
    or maybe if you where not so up tight, you will by now understnad that maybe they just like OS X, and money is not a problem when you like something. nothing to do with marketing. I repeat, its a question of TASTE.
    My monster station that make my living everyday cost me 3000$; 4 x 500gig internal HD, 6gig of RAM, dual core 2.4 ghz. I pay it cash and i make the same amount of money to cover it ..the same day. I work as a photo retoucher, make my living doing so 50hrs a week, and work on 200-300meg file regularly, at least 8 times a day..so as you can see money is definatly not a problem, and if i could use OS X on a PC alike station i would (if someone before me tried it..i like to try the psion station, but im not ready to sopend 2000 on something that doestn work, like the old power computing clone)
    If you are out of argument or angry about people who got money Paul, dont be arrogant. accept the fact that taste could make people do stupid choice from your point of view, even if they are really inteligent one. Like 70% of the US citizen who have huge mega 4x4 truck and never hit the wild..its a stupid choice, but if they have the money and they like it..what can i say?
     
  140. I worked in the manufacturing sector of the electronics industry for many years and I've seen both good and badly engineered designs. If you look inside a MAC Pro you'll see the HDs, memory, component parts are no different in quality than those found in a mid level PC. However, if you look at the internal industrial design, it's very clean with a motherboard with plug in sockets for memory and hard drives. There isn't a rat's nest of wiring with extra mechanical connections in the data and voltage paths like you'll find in a PC. That makes for cleaner air flow and convection and may be part of the reason why statically MACs are considered to be a bit more reliable than PCs.
    The MAC Pro in terms of mechanical/industrial design is more like a very high end audio component (Mark Levinson, Krell, Boulder, etc.) PCs are not. That is why you pay more. Machined alloys costs more than stamped steel. At the retail level machined metalwork can represent a significant part of product costs. The differences are quite easy to see.
     
  141. Patrick, take a step backward and read the first line of the original post. Charmain wants to further her career in photography. I cannot believe you or any other in the Mac camp would even suggest she spends the money on a Mac when to further her career she should be spending money in the following areas: decent lenses, courses in Photoshop, business development, cameras and additional equipment. When she has furthered her career and she has the gear to take on jobs and succeed, you might then consider recommending she spends three times the cost of a PC on a Mac.
    It beggers belief.
    It seems it is you who keeps going on about how much money you have and spend. Quite distasteful in my opinion. I have NO problem with what people earn. Good luck. All I am concern myself with is earning a decent living that my family and I can enjoy all the things we do. I do have a problem when Mac users on a crusade try to sell over-priced kit to a starting out photographer who is best advised to not listen to anything you guys have to say. Buying a Mac over a PC will NOT further he photographic career. Period. Maybe you could answer my question about market share and why, if the Mac is so superior it has less than 10% market share? Surely something so superior would be a market leader?
    And finally, do you really think 7 out of 10 cars on American roads are 4x4's?
     
  142. Now, Robert, I must correct you "yet" again, because in your last response, you did not differentiate between a virus for Mac OS and Mac OS X the way you did in the previous one. And, the response didn't really make sense anyway, in the context of what I said.
    To reiterate, you simply can't say that there is no virus that affects Max OS X. There may be one out there right now. Perhaps there is some devious individual (maybe a PC user) who is concocting a virus that will bring the latest Mac OS X to it's knees, you simply don't know. All you CAN say is that because there are way fewer Macs than PCs, those who write viruses simply have a bigger target with the PC, thereby giving the Mac a little extra protection.
     
  143. Hello gang, looks we got old fanny battle going again, original post was forgotten.
    Patrick, I think you are running OS X on PC station, since MAC using Intel processors now, so it is the same computers with difference in OS only, as for the mega 4x4 tracks, looks like people stop making stupid choices, that brought big three on brink of bankruptcy. People who got real money, not borrowed, rare commodity now.
     
  144. Paul, the OP mention he is ready to buy a Imac 24 inch the big model..i was the first toi say that the smaller one should do just fine. The OP already know that a similar PC would cost less. What the OP need is a reason to go with one or the other..and that is mainly a question of taste.
    I keep bringing the money issue because you keep saying that mac user are stupid, that the market share is low...who cares? i dont buy something because it have high % of share..i buy something because i like it. If i was consern about share i had bought microsoft one a long time ago! You alreayd know i got money since i said i have 3 mac...and you already know im a stupid marketing follower also, the point is i dont care how much you do and i dont care about how much people think i do...the point is i can buy myself a mac, and if the OP think he could also get one..whats the problem


    "..I do have a problem when Mac users on a crusade try to sell over-priced kit to a starting out photographer who is best advised to not listen to anything you guys have to say..."
    Now whe are talking about liberty of speach and PC ellitist here or what?


    "..Buying a Mac over a PC will NOT further he photographic career.."
    who said that? if the OP can afford a mac, a 1ds mar III, a full kit of lens and a pro photo pack..who are whe to juge? none of this material would help him if he suck technically or artisticaly..pc or mac.


    "..why, if the Mac is so superior it has less than 10% market share.."
    again, who said that? not me anyway..i keep saying is a question of TASTE, i never said it was superior..dam you are seruously confuse and stuck to this market share / superior thing or what?
    As for the truck thing, i honestly dont know what are the real number, i just know that many US family have 2-3 car, and most of them have a huge mega gaznivore truck for nothing...but now whe are far from the mac vs pc so i will stop this there.
    Whe should all take a big breath, and let this thread go..because now it look too personal and stupid reason are coming in (me included).
    Charmain, im sure you got what you need to make a stupid or not choice ; )
     
  145. I don't burn DVD's of my stuff. I know a lot of people do, but I just think they don't last that long, and it's in the long run it's less time consuming, and less expensive to just buy drives.
    I don't trust drives or dvd's; so i do both :)
    It really is OSX.
    I'm all for Unix and Linux. The only OS I can give thumbs up to is Ubuntu. I'm simply amazed by how it loads onto almost everything. It's so lite, it can run on 512 meg of ram. Give it a shot and download the 'live cd', burn it to cd, then reboot. It just runs on ram without touching your hdd/os. And somehow finds a network connection. Minutes later after booting, one is presented with a desktop with a Firefox icon and coonects to google. I've installed Ubuntu onto old P2's and given them away to the needy. This is an OS. It's the hardest to hack, (OSX the easiest, then XP, then Vista), runs the lightest, and it's free/opens source. It'd be a nail in the coffin for Mac and MS if Adobe ported to Linux. And it's going to happen one day when we finally get rid of these huge expensive computers on our desks and just have monitor/keyboard that connects us to the clouds and we work/edit onlilne.
    I cannot believe you or any other in the Mac camp would even suggest she spends the money on a Mac
    I kinda agree with this. There's bigger priorities for a new photographer and a PC for cheaper makes sense.
    Maybe you could answer my question about market share and why, if the Mac is so superior has it less than 10% market share? Surely something so superior would be a market leader?
    Mac doesn't want to be a market leader. Being #1 isn't always the priority. There's a lot to be said about being 2nd and doing it well. Of all the working computers in the world, 2% are Mac. Of all the connected on-line computers, 8% are Mac. Mac had its largest market share in Q4 of 2008 with 9.2%. They've dipped back down a little this Q. Most of their sales are laptops, not desktops.
     
  146. My take on Mac is they are very good, but expensive. I suppose one could say the same thing about BMW's. Several Mac users above mention using either Boot Camp or Parallels to run windows software. That works, but is a lot less convenient than having new Mac versions of everything which costs $$$. Sometimes its possible to switch licenses provided you have the current version. Something as essential to photography as Photoshop really needs to be run in native Apple mode. Any other approach defeats the whole purpose of buying a Mac. The user still has to spend $140 on a copy of XP and another $80 for Parallels if they go that route. Dual boot probably provides better performance while in the windows mode, but then Apple applications are not available simultaneously. In any event, the windows partition or VM must be maintained with anti virus and updates as if it were a separate machine. Folks who use boot camp or Parallels will tell you its so easy and wonderful, but my opinion from running various other dual boot or VM set ups is its a pain.
    As far as desktop vs notebook goes, I will take a notebook any day, no matter what OS it runs.
     
  147. I use a Dell laptop for work, my own personal macbook for photo work and school work--I definitely prefer the Mac. The Dell is a very nice, brand new Latitude, and it has more problems than my 3 year old Macbook.
    There's a reason any department that deals with design work at my University has Macs, across the board.
     
  148. I have used both Macs and PCs, and both are just machines. They break. They screw up. You will never persuade the smug Mac acolytes that they are paying through the nose for the myth of superiority, stability and virus invincibility. I have recently built a PC (I am hardly a techie, and it was simple to do) for less than $3500 with Intel Core i7, 12 GB DDR3 RAM, total of 3.8 TB of HD storage, 64 bit Vista OS, and 24" HP LP2475w LCD monitor. Photoshop CS4 runs in 64 bit mode on this machine. 64 bit Photoshop is not supported on Mac OS X. You can't buy an equally spec'd out Mac, but if you could, it would run you about $10,000. Vista 64 is a solid OS, don't let the Apple marketeers convince you otherwise. (That's not to say that Vista is absolutely great; Microsoft did not do a good job with its rollout). But you have to decide: do you want a cost-effective reliable high performance system, or do you want to tithe at the Church of the Immacintosh and worship at the altar of St. Jobs? Don't buy a Mac, Dell, HP, etc. Invest a weekend and build your own Vista 64 machine.
     
  149. You will never persuade the smug Mac acolytes that they are paying through the nose for the myth of superiority,​
    I am well aware that Macs cost more than Windows systems. I personally detest the Windows user interface, which strikes me as clunky and poorly thought-out. I am willing to pay more for a system that doesn't irritate the sh*t out of me every time I use it. For me, that extra money is money well spent. Snobbery has nothing to do with it.
    Really, your accusation is like calling anyone who prefers to live in something other than a 30-year-old single-wide a "house snob", or anyone who prefers a Hasselblad over a Kiev a "camera snob".
     
  150. "I personally detest the Windows user interface, which strikes me as clunky and poorly thought-out. "

    Hmm. After having viewed Mac interfaces, including OS X, they look amazingly similar and work pretty much the same way. Task bar at the bottom for Windows (but you can change it to the top if you like) and at the top for Mac, pull-down menus, maximize minimize and close buttons, scroll bars, icons that popup, etc. Yep, both interfaces work pretty much the same way, they just look different. Oh, I guess because the Mac interface has that cute brushed metal effect and gel-like buttons, it's not as clunky or poorly thought-out.
     
  151. Chris C.,
    You are correct in that I did not differentiate between OS X and earlier Mac OSes in my last post, however, as Mac OS X has been the only supported Mac OS for years, any reference to Mac OS generally refers to Mac OS X.
    And, sorry, but you are still wrong. There is no Mac virus. If I am wrong, provide me a link to a description of the virus at any of the AV software website. You can't.
    Yes, someone may be concocting one right now . . . but until they finish and release it to the Mac community, it doesn't exist. Someday, that may happen, but today, as I have already said, there is no virus for Mac OS X.
     
  152. "I personally detest the Windows user interface, which strikes me as clunky and poorly thought-out."
    Well you've single-handedly blown the biggest Apple accusation doing the rounds for years, that Windows is a Mac interface rip-off. Well done sir. :eek:)
     
  153. I've installed Ubuntu onto old P2's and given them away to the needy. This is an OS. It's the hardest to hack, (OSX the easiest, then XP, then Vista)​
    What? There are -0- known viruses for OS X. There have been a few "proof of concept" sponsored attacks. And in each of these cases the person either had the admin password or the user punched in their password (I think they downloaded an infected JPEG) to allow the attack. I think there is a few more than that for Windows. As to why there is less on the Mac- I don't care; there just is.
    Some of the top reasons I like my Macs...
    1) More stable. Apple designs both the hardware and the software. This makes the machine inherently more stable. Whereas Microsoft makes an operating system and the rest of the world makes the parts. Each has their advantages/disadvantages. An MS box will essentially try to work with an almost infinite number of device/hardware/software. Great if you need all that. I don't. I need to turn it on and get my work done. The stability I enjoy with my Mac allows me to do this. You simply can't have it both ways: if the OS is designed by a one party and the hardware by another, and this design allows you to use any MOBO, graphics card, software dating back to the early 80s and more, it simply can't be more stable than an integrated system that only runs "current" software (meaning the switch to OS X left behind OS 9 and earlier users.). That's not to say you can't get a stable PC but by the numbers, a Mac will be more stable. It isn't a myth, it's a simple fact. One system supports EVERYTHING, one doesn't. Come one people, use your head- which do you think will be more stable????? For all you computer builder out there (which seems to be the only way to get a stable PC according to PC users!), isn't it true that some hardware is better supported than others???
    2) Contrary to popular belief in this thread, my Mac doesn't think I'm stupid. I can actually open my applications folder without an issue. As opposed to opening the Programs folder on a PC where you are warned you shouldn't be looking at this, you have no reason too. I don't get nauseating pop up ballon warnings that my AV is expired, I have unused items on my desktop (? why in the name of all that's good is that the business of my OS?), that my Firewall doesn't measure up and so on.
    3) My storage devices mount right to my desktop and I can name them anything I want. I don't care for the lettering system, I don't care to go to "my computer" (another window) to access a letter drive hard drive. I like to throw in 2008 Weddings 1st Quarter and another for 2nd quarter and know what they are- not needing to remember one D and the other is F. Or if I can't remember the Windows designated drive letter, I then need to explore the drive to figure it out. I don't get irritating pop ups asking me what I want to do each time I throw a new hard drive in.
    3) I actually like the fact there is less software on the Mac. Again, more stable. I can't go to Best Buy and rummage through the $10 bargain bin for obscure software that may actually bring my computer to it's knee's. However, Apple does have the software I NEED: Photoshop, Aperture (yes I tired Lightroom and didn't care for it), Final Cut Studio (the best software value on the planet. Color was a stand alone app for $6000 until Apple bought them), and let's not forget iLife included with any Mac purchase. That's right, a fully functioning "jukebox" with iTunes. Not a disabled copy of Music Match that insists you buy the full version. Of course now PC users can download iTunes! iLife also has iMovie, iPhoto, iWeb, and Garage Band. Say what you want, these are powerful programs included. Here is a challenge for a PC user: go find a program that does what Garage Band does for under $600 (hint: there isn't one).
    4) I like not dealing with Registry issues or DLL issues- I don't have those on a Mac.
    5) I like that a program doesn't act like it's the sole purpose of my computer. If I do a "save as" command, I don't HAVE to complete it, I can check my mail, search my drives and so on and come back to it. My system isn't hijacked by my software.
    6) I like knowing that the people I have helped switch to a Mac are grateful. Of course according to this thread they are all stupid for not having bought a cheap PC and a better lens. Although I think they would put it another way.
    7) I happen to like the fact that I don't need to take a weekend to build my computer so I could brag about how stable my computer was, or how cheap it was to build. I get to brag about my computer anyway! I didn't build my car or my house either.
    The list really goes on. But I will say it again: buy a PC. If you have no reason to switch then don't. Everyone I have helped switch has had a reason: tired of viruses or protecting against them, crashing systems and so on. Come to think of it, many of them are college graduates. A few have Masters Degrees. I need to fire them off an email letting them know of their stupidity.
     
  154. Pirates of the Silicon Valley. Windows did "steal" Apples GUI. Steve got it from Xerox I believe it was (legally) and Bill simply took it from Apple. It's just that Apple does it better. In the end, Apple lost the lawsuit simply because by the time it reached the end, MS had more money. It's actually a tragedy of law if you study it. An example of how the law can't keep up. There is no doubt that MS stole the GUI from Apple, in the end I think the claim was that they didn't steal the GUI so much as get the idea from them. And that the GUI wasn't intellectual property, but rather like a road. You can't claim intellectual property of a road, that's just one of the way's transportation works. BS really.
     
  155. What? There are -0- known viruses for OS X. There have been a few "proof of concept" sponsored attacks. And in each of these cases the person either had the admin password or the user punched in their password (I think they downloaded an infected JPEG) to allow the attack. I think there is a few more than that for Windows.

    Do not confuse viruses with the ability to hack entry into an OS, Mike.

    Zero known viruses for OSX? Sure about that?
     
  156. This solves you problem:
    -Buy a cheapest Mac lappy for ~$1000 (with college discount or something) to satisfy your like aand mobility;
    -Buy a loaded desktop PC for ~$1000 to process photo
    -buy one 24” (Apple or not) or two 22" monitor(s) for ~ or <$800

    You have more than what you need (or even want)!
     
  157. Windows did "steal" Apples GUI. Steve got it from Xerox I believe it was (legally) and Bill simply took it from Apple. It's just that Apple does it better. In the end, Apple lost the lawsuit simply because by the time it reached the end, MS had more money. It's actually a tragedy of law if you study it. An example of how the law can't keep up.
    I thought Bill and Steve built it together?
    Bill still wrote Steve a huge check. Helped Apple rebound from an almost near chapter 11 situation. One can look at it like MS saved Apples ass. :) MS funded the iPod :)
     
  158. David Wu , Feb 26, 2009; 01:03 p.m.
    This solves you problem:

    -Buy a cheapest Mac lappy for ~$1000 (with college discount or something) to satisfy your like aand mobility;
    -Buy a loaded desktop PC for ~$1000 to process photo
    -buy one 24” (Apple or not) or two 22" monitor(s) for ~ or <$800
    FWIW, the high end Dell Super/Ultra Sharp monitors are from the same OEM supplier that Apple uses. Internally the displays are essentially the same except the I/O package on the Dells is far superior for about half the cost, including a three year warranty with advance exchange.
     
  159. David Wu , Feb 26, 2009; 01:03 p.m.
    This solves you problem:
    -Buy a cheapest Mac lappy for ~$1000 (with college discount or something) to satisfy your like aand mobility;
    -Buy a loaded desktop PC for ~$1000 to process photo
    -buy one 24” (Apple or not) or two 22" monitor(s) for ~ or <$800
    FWIW, the high end Dell Super/Ultra Sharp monitors are from the same OEM supplier that Apple uses. Internally the displays are essentially the same except the I/O package on the Dells is far superior for about half the cost, including a three year warranty with advance exchange.
     
  160. David Wu , Feb 26, 2009; 01:03 p.m.
    This solves you problem:

    -Buy a cheapest Mac lappy for ~$1000 (with college discount or something) to satisfy your like aand mobility;
    -Buy a loaded desktop PC for ~$1000 to process photo
    -buy one 24” (Apple or not) or two 22" monitor(s) for ~ or <$800
    FWIW, the high end Dell Super/Ultra Sharp monitors are from the same OEM supplier that Apple uses. Internally the displays are essentially the same except the I/O package on the Dells is far superior for about half the cost, including a three year warranty with advance exchange.
     
  161. My apologies for the duplicate posts.
     
  162. Oh, I guess because the Mac interface has that cute brushed metal effect and gel-like buttons, it's not as clunky or poorly thought-out.​
    That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Read my first post (that's the second one you're responding to) in this forum for some of my gripes with the Windows UI.
    Well you've single-handedly blown the biggest Apple accusation doing the rounds for years, that Windows is a Mac interface rip-off. Well done sir. :eek:)​
    The German loan-word "ersatz" comes to mind....
     
  163. Actually, out of everything I posted I was hoping for that Garage Band alternative! If you want to claim OS X is easier to hack than Windows.... well ok. I take a hack to mean something not good, a third party modify my system for malicious purposes whether via a Trojan, a Worm, a virus or what have you. I don't care where you put the numbers: Windows has more problems in this area than a Mac. Could things change. Sure. But for the past 9 years, Windows has had thousands of attacks. If you can find even 10 proof of concepts for OS X I would be surprised. And again, I don't care why. I just enjoy it.
     
  164. I can add nothing to the arguments against the Mac--i've never owned one and can count the time I've used one in minutes. I'm sure they are capable machines or they would not have persisted this long on niche appeal alone.
    I can, however, address some of the "issues" that some are raising about pcs and Windows. Are they buggy and crash-prone? No. Crashes and slow downs are a result of poorly written code on the part of hardware and software manufacturers. I have four networked computers in my home and six in my office. With the exception of three notebooks, I built all of them myself. With the exception of the notebooks, they all run 24/7/365 and are continuously connected to the internet. I have four computers running Vista, one running XP and five running Win2000. They never crash. The oldest computer I have running in the office is a Pentium 2 that was built in 1999 and it has not been turned off for more than a week in the last ten years (ymmv). I do keep current antivirus software. I do not download "free" software from the internet, use peer-to-peer services or open unsolicited e-mail. I do not think I have to go to extremes to prevent virus infections.
    I will not try to talk you out of buying a Mac, but I will try to talk you out of buying a PC. By that, I mean build one instead. If you can play with Tinker Toys, you can build a PC. Then it comes with no useless and resource hogging pre-installed software. You can decide exactly what hardware components and what software versions you want installed. You will also know what your future upgrade capacity will be. PC components are crazy cheap right now and you can build one that will fly for a song.
    And don't listen to anyone who tries to tell you that Vista is terrible. I don't know where this comes from--perhaps others may have had problems, but it is just not my experience. If you don't like some particular feature of Vista, it can be turned off. Give me ten minutes with you're Vista machine and I will make it look and feel exactly like XP. Still not convinced? Then buy XP. The advantage there is that you can perform a clean install with an upgrade disc (and save more $$) if you know someone who has an old Windows disc laying around. (I've actually done this with Vista as well, but it's not as easy).
    Bottom line, if you want the Mac, get it and be happy. But don't spend that kind of money on a Mac because other people have told you how crappy, clunky, buggy, crashy, etc. pcs are. It just ain't the case.
     
  165. Please see #1 of my long winded post. There is no argument against it. It's common sense. Please understand that I am not saying you can't have a stable PC, but the fundamental difference between the Mac and PC makes the Mac more stable. You don't get to claim that you have 1000s or more hardware and software choices for the PC and then claim they are more stable.
     
  166. If you go for the iMac wait a bit, they are due for a refresh (same with the pros). I'm a Mac guy, mostly because that is what I've always used. I've had to use PCs at work for the last few years and they are fine, but many of my friends and family who use PCs have had many virus/malware problems, while I've had none (not to say it isn't possible).
     
  167. So what is the Registry...
    http://ask-leo.com/why_does_windows_have_a_registry.html
     
  168. I only used Mac's a few times. Once, in the late 1990's I had to do graphics works on Macs in college. People kept telling me how they were the most awesome machines for graphics. Except they weren't because they randomly crashed literally every 5 to 10 minutes, even just sitting there. It was beyond frustrating, it was stupid. I've been told that this problem has been fixed, but man, what a waste of time and energy that was!
    Fast forward about 6 years. It's about 2003. My friend has a Mac and she wants some of the MP3's that I have stored on CD. Now, being that I'm a sensible person who understands how computers work and how to make computers work efficiently, I figured I could just pop in the CD, slide the files in their folders directly onto the machine, avoid all of the automated bullshit and be done. Boy was I wrong. For one, the files didn't actually go to the folders I pointed them to, but to random points all over the harddrive. Secondly, apparently iTunes doesn't use the tag system build into MP3's but uses it's own special little system. Which means that when I drag and dropped the folders, none of the files got tagged and when I directed iTunes to open them, all of these files which open WITH tags on dozens of different PC machines, opened without tags. About 30 CD's worth of data. 4 or 5 hours after getting the mess straightened out, I decided I was done with Macs. Supposedly these issues are also fixed. I don't like automation and I don't like it on Macs or PCs. Im a Windows 2000 man, and unfortunately it's swiftly approaching the days when I can't use my favorite operating system. An operating system that works and is compact and not a memory hog and makes sense to a person who doesn't like idiot warnings on every button and who refuses to try to decode the meaningless and annoying stop light in the top corner of every window. Bugger.
     
  169. I think the OP should get the iMac, and not really have to think about all the little tweaks running a home pc entails. When I did it they became so second nature I didn't even think of them as a problem. It wasn't until I switched that I realized all the time spent on it. But even if OP decides to go PC for a supposidly price/performance edge which at the end of the day is not what some here would have you think. Time is worth money too. But no doubt both systems will work.
     
  170. Mike Bisom - Please do not say something without being able to back it up.
    Apple doesn't make any of it's computer hardware (the electronics). They are all supplied to them by various manufacturers (Intel, Broadcom, Atheros, Nvidia, ATI, etc.). The only part they make is the shell of the computer (and they don't make it either, it's done by a different company, Apple just designes it).
    Next is the OSX, which is in fact 2 different OS's one on top of another.
    The kernel is Mach5 with a BSD layer sitting on top of it.
    And even after working with only limited number of hardware they specificaly request from manufactures, they still have problems with a lot of the drivers working properly.
    Just get your facts straight befor posting.
     
  171. I think it is crazy to spent more than $700 + $500 (for the screen) on a computer.
    $450 just got me a 3.0GHz Intel Core2 (quad-core clocked at 2.4GHz was same price), 4GB of memory, 500GB hard drive.
    The performance/$ depreciates way too quickly. You are better off buying a nice screen, a $700 computer this year, and then a $700 computer in another 2-3 years.
     
  172. I had the same delima 3 months ago. I got the 24 inch imac and have been somewhat pleased. The screen is amazing. Nothing else compares in PC, IMO. I will say I am still confused by the Apple people who almost talk about their computers in hushed tones as if they were Holy. I haven't really found that. Yeah, It's a good computer. But imacs are expensive and I am really not sure they are worth the difference. If I were you I would go to an Apple store and play with the machines. Don't order it online without playing with it a lot. That is one positive thing about Apple. They are very proud of their products and will gladly talk to you for hours. The in store training is helpful. Good luck.
     
  173. This is like a Nikon v. Canon post.
    Both work well. Each has supporters & detractors. Play with both, compare prices for hardware & software, pick one that you like. Whichever it is, it will be fine.
     
  174. Its my birthday today, turn 35 ..woooohoooo.
    just want to be the 170 post for this long non sense thread!
     
  175. Rubo Arisakesyan, please get your own facts straight. We both know that MS sells an OS while other vendors make the hardware. MS is NOT a hardware company and Intel is NOT a software company. Apple controls the OS and the hardware to run it. They are an integrated concept no matter who supplies the parts. If Apple didn't control the process we would have all sorts of clones. Just because Intel supplies the MOBO doesn't mean that Apple isn't an integrated hardware/software solution. And to argue that Apple doesn't make it's own OS is equally absurd. Using that logic, then nothing belongs to anyone since it's a derivative of something. And while any computer can have driver issues, my point is that if you have 1000's of pieces of hardware from various vendors you are FAR more likely to have driver issues. So please get your own facts straight before posting.
     
  176. When did i confuse you, about MS being a hardware company (it is in fact, XBox comes to mind).
    And Intel is NOT software company (it is in fact, they have software division too).
    I never implied they are not integrated hardware/software solution.
    I simply stated that they DO NOT make the hardware in the comps they sell.
    I also never implied they do not make the OS. They just stole the pieces for it from a few open source projects :)
    Combined them, put a fair share of polish on them (which is the only part about Apple i like) and sold it as their own.
    My facts are straight. I make my leaving fixing computers (both PC and Apple alike), designing systems (for a lot of different uses) and have written (well put together) couple of Linux distros, so i know what it takes to make a hardware work with any give OS.
    But this is getting out of hand, so what you say we bury the hatchets and go shoot some pics :)
     
  177. I have used both macs and PCs (PC at work with Vista - great for the work environment). For personal use I will always have a Mac..i t is easier, more intuitive to use, less problem to keep "clean" (people who create viruses tend to do it on macs, and they don't dirty their own swimming pool) and keep running, and for photowork, their monitors are extremely accurate colorwise. And to be honest up front, the first mac I ever used was an Apple IIC - the one with a typewrite looking keyboard, and the multi-colored striped apple for a logo - back when punctuation was coded into what you typed - before the era of Microsoft. Then I had a little mac that was the cube, and people where I worked (a high tech systems engineering company since bought by ITT Corporation ) wondered why someone in the Contracts Dept. needed a computer; that was 1986. I was given an older unit the engineers didn't want any more. Yes, I tend to be pro mac,...but at the turn of the century I had a great Dell laptop provided by my employer...fine for its intended purpose. My first personal laptop was a mac Titanium with a 15" screen and a whole 20G HD. whoooo - a whole 20G (I couldn't afford to upgrade to 40 or 60). It came in the first shipment of those units to Mac Warehouse.....and I loved that thing. The screen went bad, a problem with some early ones, after about 3 or 4 years, and I goat a PowerBook G4 in 2005. Still have it... use it for hours a day.
    Dell makes a couple of monitors that are half the price and about as good, color wise as the mac... but as for the machine itself,...I have hauled my 12" PowerBook G4 all over the world for over 3 years (including living on a sailboat in a saltwater environment and taking it on several scuba diving live-aboard trips). Finally, last May, at the end of the 3 year extended warranty I bought (which also includes all the phone support and Apple Store Genius Bar support you need for no additional cost) my hard drive and CD/DVD drive were replaced..... at no cost! The only problem I have ever had was with the old iPhoto (yes, I had over 5000 JPG large/fine pix on it) and the CD became very cranky about burning CDs - sometimes it would; sometimes it wouldn't. The new MacBook Pro is incredible - check out the video on the Apple site - the thing is machined out of a single piece of metal...you can see what this does to the unit's strength and durability. Someone once said that the beauty of a mac is that it works so well to begin with, and that the beauty of a PC is that their SW to make it work works so well. If you don't need tons of games, mega accounting programs, a server, etc., I'd suggest you get a mac, get Photoshop CS4 or Elements, Microsoft Office Suite for Mac (it's totally compatible with any PC communication) and relax and enjoy a great product. If you really like left clicking, something unknown in the mac world, and loading software instead of dragging and dropping, get a PC. I'm not being "a smarty" - people have habits and preferences. (I had a terrible time remembering to left click the mouse when I was using Excel on the PC at work - drove me nuts). But with the new macs, you can have the best of both worlds - they are dual processor. Finally, there is a reason that the majority of professional graphic artists, designers, etc. use the mac. I'd suggest that you visit an Apple Store if possible and get some hands on pro advice. BTW, Best Buy is now selling Apple - and they have an 12 and 18 month @ no interest payment programs if that helps. By the way, I do all of my PS work on my 12" PowerBook G4; I don't have a second monitor... or a second computer.
    Whatever your final decision is, make certain it is one that you are comfortable with and that it is need-based. Then you'll be happy. Good luck.
     
  178. I don't imagine that Charmian will even read my post as this thread has grown to unbelievalbe proportions, but here is my two cents anyways....
    Don't believe all the crap about "Vista sucks and Leopard rules". The real motto for Mac is "Crash Different". I currently own both machines. I have an iMac for my kids, a Dell PC laptop for work and a couple of custom built PC's in my home. I honestly have more problems with the Mac.
    I am also "that guy" that all of my friends and family come to with their computer problems. I would say that I get a proportional amount of 'harrassing' from the Mac owners as I do the PC owners. Perception is that Mac's have fewer problems, less crashes, etc. but the reality I believe is that less people own Mac's than PC's. I also find that most of the people I know that own Mac's, expect less from their computer than you or I would. The same type of user who owns a PC probably has a similar satisfaction level, given their low expectations.
    One more generalization... PC's and the Windows OS get a bad rap sometimes for what is deemed an instable and unreliable operating system. What I find among the PC owners I know is that most of their troubles are self-inflicted. --Don't download that file-- --Don't open that email-- --Don't watch that viral video-- etc. etc.
    To me the budget consideraton is a sizable one. You have stated that you can get an equivalent PC for $2100. I would challenge that and say that you can find an equivalent PC for less than $1500. The extra $$$ for a Mac is going entirely to the glitz, a less cluttered desktop and some innovation in design and ergonomics. Which is fine, if that is what you want to spend the $$$ on. But don't think that you are paying an extra $1700 for better performance, reliability or ease of use. It just isn't the case.
     
  179. Sorry, there are way too many responses to this thread, so forgive in advance if I'm repeating any advice. One thing you may want to consider is the level of customer support you can possibly get from Apple. I like the fact that there are multiple locations, where a customer can bring their equipment for diagnosis/repair/replacement.
    Frankly I can't vouch for the quality of service recived on a Mac. I've never owned one, as I'm one of those folks that build their own PCs and will always build a substantially cheaper PC to the Mac equivalent. Every time I build a PC (every 3-5 years) I always see what the others have (Apple, Costco, Etc.), but I haven't been able to justify the cost difference, which on my last build was about 40%. However, I love the service I get from Apple when dealing with my iPods, which I can't build myself.
    Based on the inital posts (I read the first 20 or so), it seems that you're not the person that builds their own PC. Taking that into consideration, if I didn't service my own computers, I'd buy Apple... and I'm going to check them out again when shopping for another PC.
     
  180. [accidentally posted twice...sorry]
     
  181. @ Greg Coad. Don't concur Greg, if you mean performance as in speed of a particular operation, I can more or less agree on some things, not on others. If you mean performance as to stability, seamless interoperability between parts and stableness, than i do think Mac "out perform" there pc cousins. And I also don't buy your reliability assessment, it's not been my experience or any pc/mac owners experience I know. Do Macs breakdown etc. sure, all computers do, but generally software/hardware interface problems do not happen on macs like they do with pc's, unless its some teething problem on a brand new release that always soon gets weeded out. Many mac users always wait for the 1st revision of a computer before buying. this is the way of the hardware world now.
    Most questions I get from PC users (a lot at work) are, this thing won't read this cd or dvd, or this brand DVD won't burn in Nero very well, is it the program, the media or the hardware? Those types of questions.
    From mac photogs I talke to, virtually all computer related questions are, what external drive should I get. What imaging program do you like best. Its not machine/software problems, except one friend who's now 5 yr old power book was losing his hard drive over time and was slowing down and he wanted to know what the problem was and what he should replace it with.
    Mac limitation on what video cards and other peripherals they use are both its weakness and its strengh. So maybe your selection of cards to put on your mac pro is small, but what's good about this system is that all the drivers are set up pretty much in OSX, every periphial that is made for the mac, will work without conflicting with the other pc hardware. (Yes these are all PC's, mac included) They will work with the mac programs. This is not the case with pc's. The proliferation of hardware choices, while a good thing in many ways, also makes life difficult for the home builder who doesn't know what they're doing and can be very time consuming even to experienced builders in getting all the drivers, reading about issues between certain moboards, sound cards and video cards, etc.
    That's what I've been seeing the last several years. It seems that ymmv.
     
  182. They will both do the job. There are pros and cons. I've used both computers. Apple always has cool little Mac things they come up with, cool stuff really. Windows can do cool things too. In my experience Apple stuff always costs more than PC stuff. There seems to be tons more PC software than Mac, but Mac will have the software to do just about anything you want to do. As far as systems crashing, all computers eventually will have a failure. They are machine and electronics and hard drives eventually fail. Always back up your system.
    Find a library or school where you can work with a Mac, see if you like it. Coming from a PC there is a little learning curve, but it is Apple and will be easy to figure out.
    Either way you go, it will work. You need to make this choice. neither choice is wrong, it is just what path you prefer. Good luck.
     
  183. I was a PC user, and pretty much liked it. Lightroom never ran as it should on my PC. I bought a Mac, since then it's been really nice to work with this software and photoshop too. It didn't take much time to get used to Mac, there is one major issue, that in Photoshop you don't have the grey background like PC. I would say that is the BIGGEST flaw on Mac, but that's just me, you can get used to that.
    I still have my PC since I'm an architect and AutoCAD doesn't run on Mac, but for pictures, it's far better. Oh! and if you want desperately some PC stuff, you can install Windows on the same computer. 2 for the price of one!
     
  184. I am a die hard Dell Precision fan and will never switch to a MAC because I could never live withought a right click mouse button ;) seriously, it took me an hour to figure out how to open a CD tray on a MAC once. I hear that they are easier then PCs and I don't doubt it, but I have used PCs since Windows 3.1 so thats what I am used to. All that being said Vista is the worst operating system ever written and I would never run it. I even installed Vista on my laptop (again) a few weeks ago and convinced myself to really give it a shot, but I have since re-installed XP. If you like MACs get a MAC, if you like PCs get a PC (but put Windows XP on it).
     
  185. Charmian, I purchased an HP quad core 64 bit PC with 4 gig of ram and a beautiful glossy 24 inch screen that can turn ninety degrees to replace my older PC and CRT monitor. Vista seems to work just fine and fast and my Photoshop and plug in work well also. I paid $1100 but the price here in Virginia is now $950 and the price of the screen alone has dropped over $100 now to $350. To me it’s all binary but the PC is much less expensive and I am use to the Windows environment. My current PC turns on and runs as fast as a television set. Good luck in your decision. Andy
     
  186. I say go for the PC, and here's my reasoning.
    First off, Photoshop is the same on PC and Mac. The program doesn't change whatsoever, other than Windows gives you a a grey background (which I prefer, but that is moot). In all honesty, Photoshop CS4 should run better on Windows because it comes in an awesome 64-bit flavor, allowing you to use over 4GB of ram. I built my PC last summer with a Q6600 OC'ed to 3.2GHz, 8GB RAM DDR2 1000, GTX 260 (896 MB, before the 216 shader upgrade), and 2 640GB WD HDD's in RAID 0. I've used Mac, Linux (Ubuntu), XP, Vista, and I'm currently using the Windows 7 Beta. I always liked Vista and although it wasn't perfect, it never deserved a lot of the critical response it received. I like Mac too, but I don't see it as the end all, be all. I love/hate Linux at the same time, but unless you're a pro with WINE, don't consider that route... Basically, for the price, PC is a much better deal. I like both Mac and Windows. When Windows 7 releases this summer, it will be awesome. Go with the PC.
    Also, for your hard drives, get 640GB if you can. They have 2 320GB platters in them as opposed to the 3 250gb platters in the 750's, so you get better, quieter, and cooler performance.
     
  187. Hello Charmian
    In all honesty heres the deal.
    They both work and will do what you need. not one or the other will do better.
    The real difference is the price.
    can you afford to pay 2000 dollars for a mac. vs 800 dollars for a same spec pc.
    I use pc.
    (vista sucks but it isnt as bad as mac users say it is ;)
    (and i run linux for everyday work, windows for lightroom)
    Some day when i have loads of money.
    I will buy a mac. for one reason only.
    They look so nice and fantastic. That's about it.
    Get a pc if the mac will break your bank. ;)
    P.s
    The company i bought my pc at gives two types of insurance .
    one is a extention to the 2 years man. warranty. which cost 50 bucks.
    The other is a one time accidental damage warranty.. which cost 150 bucks.
    So i can get a new pc with in those 3 years for 200 bucks.
    If i accidentally drop a glass of water on my running laptop. Im not rich but im not cheap. so i hope it doesnt happen.
    Good luck
     
  188. What a funny thread. What strikes me is the number of Mac users who claim to have had constant issues with their PCs. When I look back to my own use, and those of all of my friends (only 1 is a Mac user) none of us....and mean none have had any virus problems (maybe you shouldn't have been surfing in the admin mode), or dll, or other issues. We turn on the computer, boot up Photoshop, and don't notice the OS at all. I can drag a file to my CD and it'll burn the file. I have right button on my mouse that is surprisingly useful. And Photoshop is no easier on the Mac than it is on a PC.
    My friend with the Mac does say one thing though: When a PC crashes for any reason, people go on and on about crppy windows, etc, etc. When a Mac dies, the Mac user will just say "That's computers for ya."
    If you like the bubbly gel look, then by all means get the Mac. If you just want to use LR, Photoshop, etc, then use whatever you like.....because it makes no difference!
     
  189. I love these kinda things... this argument has been around for decades now and I'm sure Chairman had no idea about the can of worms they opened...
    For me: Mac...
    When one's operating system blames you for not shutting it down correctly when it crashes (windows XP) then it's time to change.
    You dont get anything like the system hassels from a mac that you do a pc... nowadays to run a pc you've got to be a system analyst (or at least think you are one) ... everything is more polite and carefree on a mac... the whole system and set up is kind and friendly, and understandable...
    ...really, a Mac is part of the family!
     
  190. Are we finished now? Time to end this nonsense....and go take some pictures.
     
  191. The great thing about a computer notebook is that no matter how much you stuff into it, it doesn't get bigger or heavier.​
    [​IMG] Bill Gates (1955 - ) , Business @ The Speed of Thought
     
  192. Quality is more important than quantity. One home run is much better than two doubles.​

    Steve Jobs (1955 - ) , Business Week
     
  193. Hopefully, those 2 quote will close this thrtead with humour, so whe can return to our usual mac spinning wheel of death and non sense vista alert : )
     
  194. Hopefully, those 2 quote will close this thrtead with humour, so whe can return to our usual mac spinning wheel of death and non sense vista alert : )
    I doubt it. But hey, happy b-day. Hows the head? But I'd like someone to correct my earlier comment, if it is possible.
    Garrison K. , Feb 26, 2009; 01:07 p.m.

    Mike Bisom , Feb 26, 2009; 01:00 p.m.Windows did "steal" Apples GUI. Steve got it from Xerox I believe it was (legally) and Bill simply took it from Apple. It's just that Apple does it better. In the end, Apple lost the lawsuit simply because by the time it reached the end, MS had more money. It's actually a tragedy of law if you study it. An example of how the law can't keep up.


    I thought Bill and Steve built it together? Bill still wrote Steve a huge check. Helped Apple rebound from an almost near chapter 11 situation. One can look at it like MS saved Apples ass. :) MS funded the iPod :)
     
  195. hey, thanks! i tought people where too in this mac vs pc thing to even notice it : )
    Nice indian food, a bottle of red wine with some friend, family thing...i sleep happy and wake up this morning at 6am as always ready to rock the day.
     
  196. oh boy thats temptation....
    00Sasv-112059584.jpg
     
  197. Funny how so many of the windows users talk about they hate this and my computer crashes and this is tolerated and windows vista sucks but hey its cheap get a pc. A MAC IS A PC. In the end how much did it cost you in time and money to get the job done. You are the only one that knows that.
     
  198. Lets return to what i do best..on a mac or pc computer..i still will deliver the same retouching quality ; )
    My latest job, Buffalo jeans.
    00Satq-112067584.jpg
     
  199. Wow Patrick, Apple really changed the two actors representing "Mac" and "PC"!
    I think I'm going to like these commercials a lot better....
     
  200. LOL. PC never look that good ; )
     
  201. >>>oh boy thats temptation....
    Paddy, where's the monitor old fella? Bang on another $1500 for something half decent. Ooops, we're at $3,500. And 750Gb is never enough and you'll need at least two to pop them into a Raid. Then another drive for the PS scratch disk. Crikey, now we're getting closer to the real deal $4,500 to $5,000.
    I'm reminded of a song: Chumbawamba & Credit to the Nation - Enough is Enough ;o)
     
  202. >>>My latest job, Buffalo jeans.
    Is that the best a Mac can do? Where's the detail in the jeans?
    Patrick, the devil's in the detail ;o)
     
  203. Im not responsible for the photographers light..i should have look at this on is..ah never mind : )
    As for the monitor i alreayd have a NEC 26inch brand new, and a 23inch Apple cinema display to connect it to it.
    I dont use PS scratch disk (or barely) so yes i can add another drive, for like 80$.
    In the end i have a mega monster machine..how much would it cost on the PC side to get the same deal?
     
  204. I was teasing about the image.
    You can add a disk at build time for $80! Are you Steve Jobs' secret lover?
     
  205. heres some details ; P
    00SavP-112075584.jpg
     
  206. Nice eyes and long fingers ;o)
     
  207. I wish i was, i probably could have my Macs for free!..too bad i love women! LOL.
     
  208. >>>I wish i was, i probably could have my Macs for free!..
    Nah, he'd still charge you to worship at the Temple of Appledom.
     
  209. WOW, this is a large topic.
    With my experience just like many here I work with both systems, but I am more towards Mac. I have a Macbook Pro that I got about 2 years ago and till this day I yet to have a problem with it, for me it is the smooth workflow you get and the non-crash platform but I cannot say Mac's dont crash yet.
    I do have a fantastic PC desktop that is just collecting dust since I got my laptop.
    Hope you were able to find your prefered system.
    PATRICK --- GREAT PHOTOS :)
     
  210. Patrick, in all honesty, do you need some one to assist you with the retouching?
    I don't care if i'll be doing it on a Mac in this case.
    :))))))
     
  211. in ten years of being on a mac...
    0 crashes
    0 viruses
    not saying go one way or the other, just reporting the facts.
     
  212. in ten years of being on a mac...
    0 crashes
    0 viruses
    not saying go one way or the other, just reporting the facts.​
    Same here with Windows NT, 2000, XP and now Vista. No crashes, no viruses. Not sure what that's supposed to prove, but there it is.
     
  213. 0 viruses I believe. But 0 crashes in 10 years? Come on. My Vista 64 machine hasn't crashed since I bought it last year, but I'm sure it eventually will. My Windows XP crashes a couple of times a week at work, but the IT folks blame that on the network.
    The last time I used an Apple Mac Pro, it crashed in 5 seconds (as soon as I plugged in an external drive it didn't like, it went down, and it did so repeatedly). But the way it crashed was DANG CUTE! And that's a fact.
     
  214. Buy a Mac and run Windows "xp pro"on your Mac - all you need is the software Paralles desktop 4.0 ,
    supports fine the Boot camp partition in your Mac.
     
  215. I can't help to wade in on this. I have not bough a computer from a store since 1992 because I custom built my own computers; stuffs that Mac users never could understand, heard or fathom the idea. I am currently running at 4 GHz over-clocked Quad-core (means zoom-zoom to Mac users) with 8 GB memory and 1 GB ATI Radeon graphic card. The box has a 750MB anda 300MB hard disks with lightscribe writeble DVD drive and a Blue-Ray ROM drive. The computer is running on Vista Ultimate 64 that connects to my home network that serves two printers, one scanner and two computers which includes a laptop. when I edited a typical 12MB picture to reduce noise using CS3, the task is completed as soon as I click my mouse. All of this for under $1,000. Severall answers near the top implied that Mac users are largely computer illiterated or just don't care. I think that goes along the way my kid brother, a Mac user, buys and replace appliances in his house. He does not fix. He just buy a new replacements include his Mac's.
     
  216. Im not responsible for the photographers light..i should have look at this on​
    my PC. Here's your detail. :)
    00SbAy-112151584.jpg
     
  217. Howard,..did the pant look like shnit because you have a PC or just because you dont know how to work with Photoshop (i assume its the latest)? You dont always need to see details in the shadow, high end client sometime like what whe call *mood* ; )
    (Oh i dont take it too seriously, i ahve sense of humnour of course..life is too short to freak on those things)
    In this particular area, PC or Mac had nothing to do with th result, a good expsensive pro monitor like the NEC 2690wuxi calibrated and a lot of real life experience is all you need : p
    _______________
    Joe, why does the PC user always need to be arrogant about Mac user? How do you concluded that Mac user dont have any idea about how to build a PC? i know at least 100 person that dont give a *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* building theres..and they are PC user to the core; they just dont give a dam amnd dont want to put there enrgie there..even if it take only a day to do so.
    when I edited a typical 12MB picture to reduce noise using CS3, the task is completed as soon as I click my mouse​
    All this big mega powerfull computer for a mere 12 meg file?! LOL you must be kidding me! A Pentium 3 with 512meg of ram would have done it with photoshop 5...thats another real life reality; People, both side, buying wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much hardware for occasional Photoshop work.. i have a 4gig station, my *usual* images is 250meg without layer and im plenty comfortable using my computer. i dont wait (can really call 5sec saving as a big wait).
    A 1000$ station for a 12meg file is as stupid as a me buying a Mac for 2000$, the exeption that I WORK seriously with mine, meaning that my investment worth it. Would i be able to do the same thing on yours? sure, of course!..i just dont like the windows environemnt, nothing else. just the look of it.
    The biggest problem i see here is that many Mac user think that PC computer is a virus invefested environement unprotected, on the other hand, many PC user heres think that mac user are simply dumb and stupid because they dont buy a PC...both side, its a shame, and its ridiculous...and it yield to stupid answer.
    Mine is bigger than yours! My dad is stronger! I built my PC since 1992....who f**** care? I pay a mechanic to change my oil..i am stupid or just think that i can do other thing while hes doing it for me?
     
  218. Yep, details present , it's too bad MAC do not see them. LOL.
     
  219. Howard,..did the pant look like shnit because you have a PC or just because you dont know how to work with Photoshop (i assume its the latest)?​
    I don't know if we're dealing with a language barrier or a humor deficiency. Perhaps I should have made the details glow brightly and added some neon coloring so you could share the joke. Or maybe you really are finding the humor and I am missing it. In any event, I'll not post again because I don't want to risk offending you.
     
  220. And the beat goes on, yah the beat goes on.
     
  221. Patrick,
    Your reference to the Pentium 3 make me seriously doudt that your computer knowledge worthy of any discussion. You should stick to playing with digital photos and forget that I ever said any thing. And if this make you mad then you deserve it because when did I make any remark about Mac users being dump? Little did you know that the only diference between a Mac and a PC that you buy from the Apple store is the OS? They both use the Intel Pentium 65nm E series Core 2 dual or quad core. Intel is realeasing 45nm core later this year; check this out for yourselve. Pentium 3 was nearly a decade ago! Furthurmore, Apple gives buyers the option to purchase the over priced machine with BeOS or Vista 64 because the guts inside is al Intel Pentium. You paid several thousand dollars just for the Apple OS. And you are right, I use my machine to work for a living because I am a professioanl engineer and I can not find a single engineer application such as Pro-Engineering to run on a Mac. I was minor in photography and have been shooting for the past thirty years.
     
  222. Howard,..did the pant look like shnit because you have a PC or just because you dont know how to work with Photoshop (i assume its the latest)?
    I don't know if we're dealing with a language barrier or a humor deficiency. Perhaps I should have made the details glow brightly and added some neon coloring so you could share the joke. Or maybe you really are finding the humor and I am missing it. In any event, I'll not post again because I don't want to risk offending you.​


    The slacks do look a tad bit HDRish. (shrug)
     
  223. They both use the Intel Pentium 65nm E series Core 2 dual or quad core. Intel is realeasing 45nm core later this year; check this out for yourselve.
    You mean 32nm later this year. 45nm has been out for some time now. 65nm was before that and the first E and Q series were 65nm. The newer ones are 45nm. The i7 is 45nm too. But we're moving on to 32nm this year.
    I seriously doubt iMac's come with old 65nm E series. The six different core 2 duo's that newegg sells are all 45nm.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%2050001157%201050722265&name=Core%202%20Duo
     
  224. This discussion has truly evolved to the internet at its worst. Soylent green seems tame in comparison.
     
  225. Patrick Lavoie , Feb 27, 2009; 11:39 a.m.​
    Finally- something worthwhile on this thread. :)
     
  226. Patrick, I liked the posts with the pictures better (and i don't think i was the only one).
    Could we please see some more????
     
  227. You said it! From his last name, he's French. Let's keep those stereotypes alive ;-)
     
  228. If you refer to Windows Explorer for your content, Dont buy a Mac, it will drive you wild. If you use all the shortcuts and the way the computer "dishes" things at you...Buy the Mac.
    I find that the Mac does a pretty good job as an interface or extension to what is underall the GUI, Everything is kinda clean. BUT, if you want to have a structure of where your files are, and I mean all the files, then I think the XP Pro is the Way to go. The Apple doesn't allow you to get within its "wall, as the PC does..I hope that makes sense.
    The MAC frustrates me as a user that knows his way around a computer, so file structures are KEY when dealing with thousands of images and you need to work with Metadatas, and automating resizes to send to clients....The only good the G4 does now is captuer off 1 studio cam, and even that frustrates me...so I have an auto dump of all the captures straight to the PC.
    I am mostly with Manakesh, but you have to consider that you need 64bit to take advantage of more than 3-4GB of RAM. If you are using a system for work, I highly recommend staging your new system with the 64bit OS, then do a clean install of SW then transfer of files, so in case you have an issue, you can always use your old system to continue work. And no, I dont find price to be the bottom line, so a tool that costs more, but makes YOUR work more effecient is the tool to use.
    I would surely get a 10K drive for OS, plus one for the SW install, plus one for the Scratch. They run from 160GB to 300GB and not that pricey considering....then a few TB for the files. KEY is to either RAID this as a redundent backup, or have a auto backup software like Acronis, this insures files are safe. Another thing I would get is a 30" screen, or 2. Then get a spectro for the color calibration, a G15 keyboard is almost a must. It is backlit and can macro just about anything.
    I am an OG Mac user from the 2c days all the way to the 9600 days and even have a g4 and powerbook now. but they barely get any use as the 4 PCs do most of the churning for edits.
    Mac...its mostly a badge. unless you are not computer savy. If that is the case the MAC is surely the right choice. Heck I would still love a G5...it looks so cool and does lots of things in a cool way.
    Vista is horrible and a hog, wait for Win7 or stick with XP Pro 32/64 if need more ram.
    Someone here likely knows the prices for such setups....Sorry this is likely overkill if you are considering a built in system like the iMAC, but comparing prices...thats what you can get (minus the RAID of TB drives :) and the 30" screen...but that screen will be the best thing you did. I went from 24 to 28 to 30...and I did LED and my eyes thank me daily....You dont know an LCD flicker until you know a LED static.
    Take Lightroom for instance....It looks cool does certain things well, but do you need it? Bridge sorts and (ACDSEE 2.5 so far is crashing less than CS4Bridge) does lots of stuff for the property of the file auto processes and so forth...CS4 does the RAW and all the editing. Where does LR come in? I still purchased it, thinking somehow someone can make use in the workflow, but it is collecting dust uninstalled....as my G4 :)
     
  229. I bet Charmian wished she had never asked now , she cant be any wiser now! its 99% worse the Canon or Nikon ! the best thing is to have both she will know then !
     
  230. I know Apple now run OS X on Intel chips, so could you build a box using PC components (Asus Mobo, Intel Quad CPU, Corsair RAM, Nvidia 9600, SATA2 drives for example) and load OS X Leopard to have a functioning 'Mac' (without the gorgeous design of course)? This is a straight load, no emulator or middleware to keep it together.
    Or have Apple crippled the OS somehow?
    Best of both worlds if so. High performance hardware at realistic prices and probably the best OS going.
     
  231. Spreadsheets = PC / everything else = MAC. Its good to have both especially if you want to check how your images look on a PC but MAC rules.
     
  232. @ Phil
    I used and still use Explorer for years. There not a lot of difference in using the finder in the mac. You create and set up folder heirarchy's on a Mac for your images almost exactly like you would in Windows. What I don't do is import the images into a Library for programs like iPhoto, Lightroom or Aperture. The latter allow you to import your images from where you place them and maintain them in that place so they are available to any other editing program. Their library's or catalogues as some call them only contain the overlain adjustments. The images are always available. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
    At others sniping about mac users never building there own computers is based on what??? That's just silly. Not true, and not relevent.
     
  233. I know Apple now run OS X on Intel chips, so could you build a box using PC components (Asus Mobo, Intel Quad CPU, Corsair RAM, Nvidia 9600, SATA2 drives for example) and load OS X Leopard to have a functioning 'Mac' (without the gorgeous design of course)? This is a straight load, no emulator or middleware to keep it together.
    Or have Apple crippled the OS somehow?​
    It's certainly possible. The result is what computer geeks call a "hackintosh". I think there is some crippling, but it's not all that hard to work around if you know the right tricks. A bigger issue is getting the right subset of hardware the system supports. Since MacOS is designed to run only on the relatively few computers Apple markets, it supports far fewer combinations of hardware than Windows.
     
  234. I know Apple now run OS X on Intel chips, so could you build a box using PC components (Asus Mobo, Intel Quad CPU, Corsair RAM, Nvidia 9600, SATA2 drives for example) and load OS X Leopard to have a functioning 'Mac' (without the gorgeous design of course)?
    Most definitely. Google "OSx86". There's a few forums dedicated to the project as well. Tutorials and walk throughs are all available at Insanely Mac.
    http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/
    Grab a parts list, go to newegg and get busy!
     
  235. @ David & Garrison
    Thanks for that guys. I'll go check. I know Apple would lose revenue if they just released OS X to the public domain for PC install. I'd imagine Dell would have a line raring to go the minute release date came around - but if they truly wanted to take on M$ then this is the route they should take. I'd imagine a lot of people would buy into that scenario.
    I think I'll go and put some time into research.
    Cheers again.
     
  236. people buy Macs because they love Steve Jobs. and you do have to give him credit a mac is a pretty graphically and artistically cool looking computer.. I mean that one that looks like paper.. really great product.
    but, as great as mac's are.. they are overpriced. mostly because of this:
    - there is NOTHING a mac can do that a PC can't do
    - performance wise a PC can match a mac,, maybe even beat it some days.
    - after a year or two and both computers arent' worth the mug of coffee you set on it, you will still have that extra money you saved by going with a PC in your bank acct growing at .02% , IF your bank is still in business.
    some legitimate arguements for the mac. .. viruses on the internet. .. .. defense: don't be ignorant and try to download every file you find,, use Firefox, get scriptblocker and adblocker, and get a decent virus program,, and pay for it.. you will be fine. the reason there are more viruses on the PC is because they make up the lions share of the market. so if you were a virus writer,, what platform would you target to cause the most problem.. well the PC with internet explorer of course.
     
  237. Thanks for that guys. I'll go check. I know Apple would lose revenue if they just released OS X to the public domain for PC install. I'd imagine Dell would have a line raring to go the minute release date came around - but if they truly wanted to take on M$ then this is the route they should take. I'd imagine a lot of people would buy into that scenario.​
    Not necessarily: then they'd lose of the main advantages MacOSX has over Windows — it's a far simpler OS internally, since (unlike Windows) it doesn't have to support every conceivable combination of hardware currently being manufactured. That's the big reason OSX has a reputation for being much easier to install than Windows.
    people buy Macs because they love Steve Jobs. and you do have to give him credit a mac is a pretty graphically and artistically cool looking computer.. I mean that one that looks like paper.. really great product.
    but, as great as mac's are.. they are overpriced. mostly because of this:​
    Oh, please, not this [expletive deleted] again. I buy Macs because they are worth it to me. Period. Just because the benefits of the Mac aren't worth the extra cost to you doesn't mean the whole world shares this belief.
     
  238. Ha. This thread is hilarious. First, all computers are annoying. I have used Apple II's, Simons, Commodore 64s, TRS-80's, Compaq's, PDP's, MiniVAXs, DEC Rainbows, DEC Alphas, XT, AT, Apollo's, HP's, Sun's, Linux boxes, running DOS, CPM, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Windows, and bunch of others. Yeap, all computers are annoying. At work I have Mac's, Linux boxes, and Windows boxes. Amusingly, the fastest windows box is a Mac running windows, but I digress. The truth is the best computer for you is the one you are comfortable with. However, for me, and I get to pick, I have a Mac on my desk at work, and a Mac at home. I log into clusters (ok, now we call them grids) of Linux boxes remotely to run jobs. Occasionally, I use windows boxes just because they are there. For me the Macs just work a little better. They can be annoying too, but they work a little better. The lack of viruses on the Mac is nice too. I have found that the worst software out there is the virus checking software (you know who you are). It can be worse than the viruses. If you know much about computers, then you want to get a Mac because its really Unix underneath. If don't know much about computers, then the Mac is easier to use. Still, if you are comfortable with a windows box, then get a windows box. And now my rant is done. :)
    P.S. I can't believe that I added to this thread. I feel so dirty...
     
  239. 12 meg files; ie interesting.

    The computer here I am on today at home can rotate a 12 meg file 90 degrees in 0.2 seconds.
    It takes 0.5 seconds with a 35 meg file.

    One of our Phase One 35 megapixel 105 meg files rotates 90 degrees in 2.2 seconds.

    A 4x5 scan that is 290 megs tends to bog the machine; it only has 1 gig of ram; thus a 90 degree rotation takes 48 seconds.
    All this is with a old IBM machine bought off of ebay eons ago for 65 bucks; it just has a Pentium III 1 Ghz CPU; 1 gig of ram.
    Its cost of ownership is about 10 bucks per year.
    It is used with out 35 megapixel scan back with a 5 buck SCSI card. The motherboard is from about 2000; it has a 133 Mhz Bus; a 16 meg Number 9 Video card; win2000.

    The tests above were with 13 Firefox windows open; and 2 Opera plus I was uploading some scanned images to our FTP site at my print shop. For gaming the 16 meg card shows artifacts on planes with flight simulator; for ultimate tournment 2004 the men have less details; abit crummy.

    For scanning with the 35 Megapixel scan back; the machine is TOTAL overkill; the CPU is at 1 to 3 percent during a scan; the recommended cpu is a pentium 166Mhz. With a PPro box from 12 years ago and 512 megs ram; rotating a 105 meg file takes 9 seconds; 7 with dual CPU's; ie 200Mhz Ppros.

    For major editing; stitching together; or major filters or bathcing the big 105 meg files are justs moved to a more modern box; one that holds at least 2 gigs; ie more ram headroom. The FTP box at work is just another ebay junker; a Prescott 2.8Ghz box with win2000; 2 gigs of ram that I cobbled together a few years back for roughly 150 bucks.

    Using older boxes or home brew computers; or building your own stuff for chump change is not for everyone; nor is everyone going to build their own birdhouse; fence; doghouse; ham radio antennas; or repair ones own plumbing.

    Their is nothing wrong with buying a complete Mac or PC from another too.

    It is not in many folks DNA to build one's own stuff; replace a button on a shirt either.
    For amateurs chasing then lastest computer and wasting money doesnt really matter; their is no actual business; no actual clients; no actual return on investment to consider. It is also like that with government and school stuff; thus the Pentium III 1 ghz unit was just several from a state auction on ebay we bought. One has a 65 buck computer doing 10 to 20K woth of scans after it is declared obsolete.
     
  240. You mean 32nm later this year. 45nm has been out for some time now. 65nm was before that and the first E and Q series were 65nm. The newer ones are 45nm. The i7 is 45nm too. But we're moving on to 32nm this year.
    I seriously doubt iMac's come with old 65nm E series. The six different core 2 duo's that newegg sells are all 45nm.
    You are absolutely correct! the 32nm is the latest and is coming out this year.
     
  241. Having folks doing stupid stuff and getting disguntled with PC's makes a great buying spree for a hard core PC user.
    One gets decent PC's for free or real cheap; ie a trivial price.
    Often all is wrong is the exPC user just filed up the HDA; its bloaded; full; no room to work thus it crashes; giant temp files are left; there is even less room when rebooted.
    Thus a friend gave me their old tired obsolete PC that had XP Pro ; a SATA 160 gig hda with CS2 and illustrator; feeling abit guilty about the deal I gave them all the image files that I could find.
    One places the HDA as a slave and just does housekeeping; the unit would not even boot up with just about 30 megs free on a 160 Gig unit.
    One searches on the slave and deletes a couple years worth of temp files an now one has many gigabytes free. Then you delete all the movies ones friend has already and now you attempt to defrag. In a way it is like my uncles friend in New Hampshire that passed away and had every Wall Street Journal saved since many decades; they had to rent a building demo dumpster and use wheelbarrows to haul away many tons of the crud.
    On the friends old PC then I located their images and burned CD's in waves and deleted the stuff on the HDA. After cleaning out the impacted PC it is a lean machine; no program or OS was reinstalled. The Friend and client is happy too with their iMac 24" unit and buying CS3; plus happy with preaching how Macs are better than PC's. I am happy because I got another free PC; one thats got XPPro; 3 gigs ram; 3.3Ghz. I am also happy to help a friend and client recover images lost on a computer that would not boot anymore; since it was full.
    It is also an educational excise in understanding why some folks love macs due to a full computer.
    Now if I could only get a few free sports cars because they have their parking brakes on; or are out of gas; or have lead weights in their trunks!
    This DOES happen in camera repair too. An as is "broken" Kodak Retina is "fixed" by adding film; a box full of broken P&S film and digital cameras had most just "dead" due to no batteries; foam gone on film tell tale window; or no memory cards. One "fixes" broken self powered meters with an eraser to remove corrision on the cell.
     
  242. These Mac vs. PC posts have been going on for as long as I have been a member of photo.net (over 10 years) and they are still completely unhelpful. We have 6 macs amongst the 5 members of my immediate family. I use PCs at work, and a very slick Aspire One 2.2 pound netbook running XP for when I travel. I am the former CIO of a very large cardiology practice with 400 or so employees spread througout SE Michigan.
    There is no question that a well configured PC or Mac can handle photo work very well. You should try out both systems for more than a few minutes and see which one you are most comfortable with, and then buy that system. I am asked this question all of the time (Mac vs PC). What I tell people is that at home they are not going to have the tech support team that they are used to at work. So if their PC starts to crash or behave bizarrely, it is going to be a big pain in the butt for them unless: 1. They are pretty knowledgable about Windows and the problems that typically occur using Windows, or 2: They have a kid, or brother, or cousin who is a computer geek who can bail them out. My experience as a person who has been responsible for hundreds of Windows machines and all of our families Macs through the years is that Windows machines develop more frustrating problems more frequently than Macs do. Neither is perfect, however. If you have a Windows PC and are compulsive about performing all of the required updates as well as using effective anti-virus software you can stay out of trouble most of the time. But, some knowledge of how Windows works "under the hood" goes a long way. Macs seem to function more reliably on a day to day basis with less active intervention on the part of the user. I also think that adding peripherals is less frustrating and more seamless. Since most home users are mainly interested in email, internet, photos, movies, and Microsoft Office-I think they are usually happier with a Mac (in any case, they call me less with problems).
    For photography work, however, I don't like iMacs. Unfortunately, Jobs and company have gone to all glossy screens on their laptops and iMacs. I think those screens are pretty awful for sensitive photo work because of excessive reflections. Because of this I use a matte screen Apple Cinema display for PS work at home. The trouble is that Apple has gutted the middle part of their desktop line. If you don't want the integrated iMac (all of which now have the shiny screens) your only choices are the Mac mini, or the very expensive (and powerful) Mac towers. I chose the Mini, because it runs PS just fine for my needs and drives the Cinema Display fine for PS work. I also can buy 5-6 Mac Minis for the price of the tower. I think that Apple is mistaken in their market strategy of assuming that all "consumers" will want the iMac and all "pros" will want and will pay for the expensive towers. There are lots of us who want the choice of a separate monitor and would like to have a more expandable computer. I hope that they will realize this soon, and once again sell moderately priced towers. In any case, if you do color sensitive photo work or if reflections really bother you, be sure you actually work on an iMac before you buy it.
     
  243. Thanks for that guys. I'll go check. I know Apple would lose revenue if they just released OS X to the public domain for PC install. I'd imagine Dell would have a line raring to go the minute release date came around - but if they truly wanted to take on M$ then this is the route they should take. I'd imagine a lot of people would buy into that scenario.​
    You can't just put OSX into any old Intel PC that will run windows. There are some hardware incompatibilities.
    http://www.macworld.com/article/133028/2008/04/building_mac_clone.html
     
  244. Yes, let's get this thread to the 300 posts milestone! :)
    I just hope the OP still checks back once in a while to read the latest 10 posts or so. She probably didn't fully anticipate that computer-related Culture Wars run even deeper than the eternal Canon/Nikon skirmishes (I use neither - yay Sony!)
    Having used both Macs and PCs for respectively 10 and 25 years now, I've resigned myself to the conclusion that neither will ever really live up to my hopes and expectations, so it's mostly a question of finding the lesser evil. I've had better experience overall with Macs in terms of system stability and component reliability, but they do also occasionally hang up mildly or suffer serious hardware failure. And I usually go for low-budget systems on the PC side, which no doubt contributes to a higher frequency of problems.
    I do happen to think that (for me) Macs are on the whole better-designed in terms of having a more consistent interface, and I happen to like some particular software that doesn't exist for PC (am typing this right now while browsing in Camino). I don't seriously miss any software that only works on PC, but I do scan negatives from an old SCSI film scanner to an equally old PC pentium III.
    Macs are definitely a bit overpriced brand new at regular retail, but if you keep your eyes peeled then you're likely to find good deals that narrow the price gap with similar-spec PCs. Educational pricing is 10-20% below regular retail, and if you don't qualify for that then you can keep your finger on the pulse and plan to be first in line at the door for Apple's clearance deals, whenever the new models are about to arrive (usually happens twice a year).
    Most of us who use computers a fair amount of time will find ourselves owning several of them pretty quickly. So if your own experience hasn't caused you to really make up your mind already in terms of which machine to spend $2000+ on, then one possible thing to do is to get a low-spec user of the unfamiliar kind for something like $300-400, and really find out for yourself whether you like or hate the other side's GUI and apps. It won't substitute for a 4GB RAM quad machine with multiple 1Tb drives, but it will serve you in ways that the big desktops cannot, eg mini macs are great for home entertainment, while tiny PC latops like asus eee or acer aspire one are great for travel and for photo backup on the fly.
    And remember, the longer you hesitate before you buy, the better the specs-for-your-bucks will be by the time you do finally decide!
     
  245. I can't be bothered to convince you. I'm too busy enjoying my MacBook Pro.
     
  246. @Howard/ heres a quick retouching tips that could help you; when you bring details out of the shadow and the pant glow in the dark..use a hue saturation over it to lower this effect, it will look more natural : )
    In that particular case, shadow didtn need to be because it was more a mood shot, ambiance..and sometimes, its OK to have shadow with no details; its was a artistic decision..not a mistake ; )
    @Joe/ I dont know much about the techical part of computer building, and i dont really care, as when i buy something i just want it to work..so i can dedicated myself on what i know best..playing the retoucher on nice body ; ) But after reading Kelly post, it seem that i was not that far about a Pentium III for a 12meg image..im not that bad after all technically LOL
    I just hope the OP still checks back once in a while to read the latest 10 posts or so.​
    good point. heres something to help make the OP make a good decision if only the last 10 post are read.
     
  247. buy a mac
     
  248. buy a big mac
     
  249. buy a big pc
     
  250. whatever you could afford, like, are comfortable with, have friend around to help, still have money to get equipment, get some book and tutorial on the subject.
    theres is nothing one or the other wont be able to do Photoshop related vs the other...
    on the mac platform, the Imac i the best bet for a amateur / pro alike if you work with a 12meg file..euh i mean if you work with REAL file size image normally around 50meg..ANY computer will work that : )
    on the pc platform, any pc is the best bet for a amateur / pro alike if you work with a 12meg file..euh i mean if you work with REAL file size image normally around 50meg..ANY computer will work that : ) a HP, a Dell, a Acer..anything.
    You dont have to built your own PC, you can buy *ready to go*, as Kelly mention, not all people are comfortable doing it or care doing it (like me).. dont feel stupid if you dont want to do it.
     
  251. For holding down tarps an old Tombstone Mac looks cooler; but it tends to blow off/over in high winds. A desktop PC never seams to blow off of the tarps. Having both is the best idea; one show you are creative; the other that you are technical. The memory chips were removed from the PC and placed in an ultrasonic cleaner; thus the PC's cover is off. Long ago folks debated whether to buy a IBM PC or a clone; thats when an IBM 286 might be 3 to 5 grand and a clone PC 2 grand. The PC in the image is a IBM PL300 with a Pentium III; the Mac is a SE30. Specs seems to not matter as much when they are used to hold tarps.
    [​IMG]
    Both Mac's and PC's tend not to work well after going under salt water. Note the Bessler 23c did not get flooded.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  252. LOL for the joke..but dam, i pray for the family that had to suffer that!...loosing there mac..what a sad thing.
     
  253. Sometimes at the summer home I place a piece of scrap 2x4 under the old Mac SE30 so it is at an angle/unstable ; so it purposely "crashes" on windy days; to "prove" that Macs can crash more than PC's! :)
     
  254. Long ago folks debated whether to buy a IBM PC or a clone; thats when an IBM 286 might be 3 to 5 grand and a clone PC 2 grand.​
    We had a 286 clone {back in the day}, yep it cost about $1600, only ran DOS, had a miniscule amount of RAM, and had a tiny HD. We kept it running for 6 years using it for word processing, tax programs, Aldus Persuasion, posting to bulletin boards (remember those), and playing games. Ah, the good old days.
     
  255. Macs are rated #1 in customer satisfaction.
    Intel Macs can run both Windoze and Mac OS-X, PCs can't run OS-X (legally).
    OS-X is color sync aware so your color looks the same across all programs.
    OS-X is Unix based and more secure.
    The Mac OS is what Microsoft copies (lamely) since 1984, so why not go with the original?
    Macs are elegant in both design and operation. Some of us appreciate that.
    Most people who have owned or at least used both choose Macs and never look back.
    You can set your Mac up to do everything and not have conflicts.
    OS-X is the BEST operating system and just keeps on getting better and faster.
    You don't have to buy a new machine every time the operating system is updated.
    You can walk into any Apple Store and get competent help for any problem you might have.
    Speaking of Apple Stores that is another thing Microsoft is trying to copy and will fail miserably at.
    Do you want a Zune or an iPod?
    I have been a Mac user for about 20 years and have NEVER used a virus program and never needed one.
    Do you want to be a computer nerd or a Photographer?
    You pay your money you get your pick. Good luck.
     
  256. >>> PCs can't run OS-X (legally).
    Says who? Mr Jobs? What a load of tosh. I've spent the day researching the idea of popping OS X on a PC. Here's the deal.
    I can LEGALLY buy a copy of Mac OS, and I can install it on a PC, given it contains compatible hardware. Job done. I didn't realise how easy this was until a couple of posters pointed me in the right direction. So, unless there is a clause in the licence agreement that says I can only install my shiny new copy of Mac OS X Leopard on Mac hardware, it's LEGAL.
    As for the computer nerd or photographer comment. I think I'd rather buy that gorgeous EF 85mm f1.2L Series lens than shell out all that extra cost on a Mac, especially as the PC get's me to the same point as the Mac user, probably faster, and with that lens, with a better end result, if you get my drift here.
     
  257. Anyone can LEGALLY buy a copy of OS-X. It is only illegal to run it on non Apple hardware. Running it on a hacked PC to get around the "Trusted Platform Module" violates the software license.
    Like I said before you Pay your money you get your pick.
    For MY MONEY nothing beats a loaded Mac Pro running OS-X.
    The bottom line is sure I could build up a frankenstein PC (like the nerds want to do) that would match my Mac Pro Tower in a speed test rendering Photoshop files. Why should I bother? Who needs the aggravation? Build up a Dell or whatever to the specs of a Mac Pro, then add all the software you get (like iPhoto, ect....) and you don't save much money and you still have a Dell running Windoze. Like they say "You can dress up a Pig and teach it to dance but at the end of the day you are still dancing with a pig" Some of us are willing to pay a premium for the whole Mac user experience which comes with the hardware and software. Less BS and more uptime to work no worries about viruses and all the arcane Windoze crap you need to do to keep them running halfway decent.
     
  258. Paul, you will love the 85mm 1.2..it was my first lens when i got the 5D 2 years ago..what a lens : )
    What a cruel and discusting idea to dance with a pig!..dam Steve, what kind of man are you!?
     
  259. Steven Biegler [​IMG], Mar 01, 2009; 03:58 p.m.
    Anyone can LEGALLY buy a copy of OS-X. It is only illegal to run it on non Apple hardware. Running it on a hacked PC to get around the "Trusted Platform Module" violates the software license.
    Like I said before you Pay your money you get your pick.
    For MY MONEY nothing beats a loaded Mac Pro running OS-X.

    It depends on what you want to run on your computer. The entry level video and photo editing programs that come supplied with the Mac are a joke. I know, I own a loaded Mac Pro and they're useless for me. So I have to deal with Final Cut Pro at far more money than SONY Vegas 9.0 or Pinnacle. Try burning a BluRay disc with your MAC. It can be done with work around software such as Roxio Toast (in itself unreliable) but you can't burn a BluRay directly from any of the entry level MAC video editing software. That's one thing you can do on a PC you can't do on a MAC.
     
  260. As opposed to the entry level programs that come bundled on a PC? iMovie is designed for the average person who wants to edit their home movies. Nobody expects you to edit the Blair Witch Project on iMovie. That being said you can output to quicktime Pro and burn it with Toast onto your Blu-Ray disc without a problem. I just did it the other day as a matter of fact. Final Cut Pro is Pro grade software and is priced accordingly. The whole iLife and iWorks packages from Apple are excellent all around programs for non-pro use. Aperture and Final Cut Studio are excellent Pro Grade packages.
    Since you have a Mac Pro you can run any Windoze programs you want anyway so you have the best of both worlds.
     
  261. Anyone can LEGALLY buy a copy of OS-X. It is only illegal to run it on non Apple hardware.​
    Which to me is yet another example of why "illegal" and "immoral" are two different concepts.
     
  262. >>>Running it on a hacked PC to get around the "Trusted Platform Module" violates the software license. Like I said before you Pay your money you get your pick.
    Hang on a sec Steve. The minute Apple started using Open Source code in their OS they basically nullified any licensing they might try to wave past users. Surely they would have to own the intellectual property to ALL the code in the OS to make a case. I'm sure that if they ever tried to pull this stunt the Open Source community would turn pretty quickly.
    As for paying your money, hell you're right, as a Mac user, you do. Don't get me wrong here, I have no beef with the OS or infact the hardware. I think it is good equipment. My beef is with the pricing of that kit and the elitist attitude it seems to have engendered. I posted above how much pretty much the same spec machine I am running that came in at just over $3k (inc Eizo monitor).
    The same Mac Pro was well over $8k. That's just ridiculous beyond belief. Fine, if money is no object, but to a photography trying to advance their career, as the thread starter is (though they are conspicuous by their absence - did they start a thread knowing full well how it would unravel and are now sitting back and watching with glee - lol), that extra $5k is surely better spent elsewhere.
     
  263. Paul, im curious to see what can you put in a mac that make it cost 8k? I dont argue since the beginning that a mac is more expensive than a PC..but i work everyday with one and it cost me around 3500$CAN, and i can get the job done as fast (or close too if whe talk about annosecond) as you... pound..could it be that you pay more in the UK for the same Mac heres in North America?
     
  264. Patrick, the following is the Mac spec. I've popped in my spec next to the important bits.
    One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel - Core 2 Quad 3GHz $350
    8GB (4x2GB) - Patriot Viper 8GB in 2GB matched pairs $250
    Mac Pro RAID Card - I use an Areca Card $275
    1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s - Samsung for me $100 each
    1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
    1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
    1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
    NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB - GeForce 9800GT $150
    One 16x SuperDrive
    Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel) - Eizo 22" ColorEdge $1450
    I have included the Apple Display as I use an Eizo monitor (not 30"). It does come in less, but I accounted for that in my overall cost summary. Add extras like power unit, heat sinks and mobo and it comes in just over $3100.
    UK prices are higher. We pay in pounds what you pay in dollars. I'm living in mainland Europe at the moment and with the weak pound against the Euro I'm picking up plenty of bargains from the UK.
     
  265. Hi,
    Wow, what a thread! Only to be expected on this topic.
    My experience: I was processing hundreds of photos (basic sharpening, levels) in Elements 3 on a Dell laptop, admittedly not well-suited to the task. So I thought, well, this is my chance to TRY a Mac. Let's give it a shot.
    I have a 24-inch iMac, 320 GB hard drive, 2.4 GHz processor that I got from the Apple refurb shop. Saved me about $300 that I spent on 4 GB of third-party RAM and Apple Care.
    This made processing photos MUCH easier (no brainer, going from a three-year-old laptop). It took a while to get used to the way the thing worked. The big screen is great for processing photos and the glossy screen does not bother me.
    There were other things I came to like about the Mac, specifically the way apps tend to be more integrated. I love iWeb. There are some things I don't like about Finder (the Windows Explorer equivalent), specifically the fact that it does not show the date and time a photo was created, only the time-stamp of when it was created on the hard drive. There is third-party software that gets around this but was a bit of a bug for me in the beginning. Now I generally use Adobe Bridge (came with Elements 6) and I hope to migrate to Aperture for asset management soon. You kind of have to let go of file management if possible and let your app and the Mac handle things. My current workflow is still very much folder-based so letting go will happen, but not right away.
    Am I happy with the iMac and Apple? Yes. Will I replace my laptop this year with a Mac? Maybe. The point of all this is to say that you won't really go WRONG one way or the other, and you might see this as an opportunity to see what the Mac hubbub is all about.
     
  266. Reply to Barry...
    I use the finder, but the Mac version of CaptureOne is so limiting vs the PC version, I have to domp it to the PC. Also, I am really enjoying ACDSEE 2.5. I know this company made some great promises in the past but always had issues, but this 2.5 Pro is rather stable compatible and FAST! I never got into Aperture, or Lightroom, as Raw edits are just peachy out of CS3/4 as long as you know how to use it.
    I upgrade the main post editors every2 years at least...as the files we work with get bigger and bigger 300 to 1.5GB. But I think we have come to a platue in the pixel size war, and hope that we don't have to upgrade so often. Maybe after this last upgrade, it will be 3 to 5 years before it needs another boost.
    As far as the Explorer vs Finder...Explorer is much nicer to deal with, and that is simply something that I am likely used to as I find it being the inner stucture of the files, where on Finder, it is still some GUI that is dishing stuff at you vs, showing you what is available to you...Thats the best I can explain it.
    I agree with most techs here, that recommend the MAC over the PC...it will likey be user proof longer than the PC. My relatives recently got a iMAC, and they love it. They do family photo stuff and such, and think it is the coolest thing next to their Nambe desk ornaments, and such, but they dont use it for work, they dont have a business to upkeep. Best comment as far as wise on spending was Paul Alford...The glass you look through is where you should shell change....For someone who is comfortable with both platforms.
    I too felt dirty posting on this thread, but I think there are reasons or specifics that the guy 300 posts earlier might relate to closer with his /her situation....The Mac Mini is another great sollution, which I also have had for mainstream stuff.
    I would not trade my PC for the best MAC out there...and thats just because I am happy with the way all the little tweaks are setup on my PC. It would take days to duplicate on a new platform, and I dont think I would be able to manuver on the MAC as fast as I could with the PC. The workflow alone on the PC to me is faster.
     
  267. Paul,
    Are aware that the Mac will use the same SATA drives as yours? You also don't have to buy your memory from APPLE. Most of us buy our drives and memory from OWC. I think your comparison is way off.
     
  268. Since you have a Mac Pro you can run any Windoze programs you want anyway so you have the best of both worlds.
    Actually, you can't. Neither VM Fusion or Parallels recognize a firewire source when you're running Windows on a MAC, and that eliminates the possibility of using an HDV source and SONY Vegas on a MAC. Vegas is a more flexible piece of software than any of the entry level MAC video editing programs and it doesn't break the bank, and you can burn a BluRay without having to use Toast, which has a reputation for being unreliable. Having used both, I find Vegas more intuitive and equally flexible for my needs, with a faster learning curve than Final Cut Pro.
    I might be able to run Windows on my MAC using Bootcamp but then I'd not be able to run Windows and OSX simultaneously, so why bother!
     
  269. Wow, that's a long thread. And filled with the usual sniping back and forth. I'm just going to address the issue of building your own PC:
    Do you want to be a PC Tech? Do you want to spend your nights swearing at your computer because it randomly shuts off? Do you love tearing a computer down component by component, cleaning the contacts as you go, and putting it back together, praying a connector doesn't break, a screw doesn't strip, and that nothing shorts out as you put back together for the umpteenth time? Thrill to the thought of spending hours or days trying to track down exactly which part is malfunctioning (assuming it's not somewhere in the software after all) so you can figure out which manufacturer to call to get it replaced (hmm, wonder if the RAM or the video card is bad...)? Doesn't sound like your cup of tea? Then don't build your own PC. You're not going to save much, if any, money and given the price of PCs today, odds are you aren't going to be upgrading it (cheaper to buy a new PC in 2 years and donate the old one to charity for a tax write-off), and you're stuck being your own tech support. Purchase a computer (Mac/PC/Whatever) from as reputable a manufacturer as you can find and be done with it if you want to actually get some photography done.
    As far as a PC or a Mac - flip a coin. The tradeoffs between each tend to even out in the long run. The Mac has a better user interface in general, the pc is cheaper and has more software (you can try all 7,327 version of minesweeper). But if what you want is just a tool to help you produce photographs, they're both going to work just fine.
    No matter which you choose, budget for an external hard drive at least as large as the internal one (if not larger) and use it for a backup. If you're hoping to make money off your photography buy two or three. One to stay connected to the computer, and two to rotate between - you'll copy your "can't bear to lose" images to these, one stays in the house somewhere (not next to the computer, tucked away somewhere reasonably hidden) and the other lives off-site in a safety deposit box, friend's house, workplace (if they'll allow it), whatever in case the worst happens. I can tell you from experience, the only thing worse than having your computer hiccup and spending weeks recovering your data is having your computer hiccup and *not* being able to recover it at all.
     
  270. @ Phil, are you talking about Capture 1-4 version? Because if so, there is a big change from the last version. You have to now buy the Pro version to get the capabilities that were stock before, I believe (I just started with the current version).
    Personally I think Cap 1 is the best raw converter out there, I get consistently much more accurate color from C1 then anything else. I still like using LR for managing and adjusting images after converted, but now I take a whole extra step and convert in C1, export and import the tiffs into LR. Isn't that wacky? If i can finish them in LR, great, if not I edit in CS3, at the moment. Wacky no?
    But really, i have no stake about what system you prefer, but I still don't understand what you are saying about finder v. Explorer. I used windows and still do and when I started mac, it took about an hour to get comfortable with finder though at first I had to get used to the conventions, but became 2nd nature quite fast. I've only known OSX, but the finder is basically basically the same exact thing with different names. You have a list of your drives, you click on the drive, and you have a folder hierarchy just like windows, I don't know what you are talking about "dishing stuff at you".. Do you mean that on the main drive it has categories for "Applications" "movies" that type of thing? It's really not that different from Windows with its My Computer and My documents My pictures, My music etc. And just like windows, you can move your apps into any folder you wish and rename them. You can install them on different drives if you want. It's true, because OSX is unix based the "program files" are different and named differently. But then there's no registry to worry about either. Or do you mean the dock?
    I mean if it's a problem for you, then I have to take it at face value that it bugs you. That's cool. But I just wondering if you are making it more of a problem than it really is. Most of us who switched or in religious terms...converted..:) didn't seem to have a problem with it.
     
  271. Steve, I am aware Mac will use the same drives as I do, but why do they charge me $450 a unit when I can get them for $100? I agree you don't have to buy drives and memory from Apple but I disagree that most Mac users buy and install their own. working in this industry has brought me into contact with many, many Mac users and I think I could say that the vast majority of those that I have more than just a passing relationship, either wouldn't know where to start or just wouldn't consider that as an option.
    I actually asked the question of a Mac using colleague a couple of days ago as this thread started to unwind and he said to me "After investing what I have in my Mac I'd be mad to invalidate my warranty by opening the thing up and tinkering inside". I think that comment sums it up. I know I wouldn't if I ever purchased one and I'm quite happy putting together PC's.
     
  272. I have to say this has turned into a totally pointless thread and I am sure the original question remains unanswered to the questioners satisfaction. Seems to me that we are all spending far to much time on computers and not out taking pictures (after all this is photo.net , not computeruser.net).
    SWITCH OFF THE COMPUTER AND GET OUT THERE WITH YOUR CAMERAS!
     
  273. Barry, You first paragraph makes perfect sense to me. But I do use the DB that came with my back and have update 3.78, or something up there. I have been advised with Phase owners not to do the 4.0 upgrade yet, as there are issues. I am perfectly happy with thiss version, and I dont use Phase for my other formats/slr gear. What I was referring to for the Mac, it captures and places the file in a folder structure that doesnt make sense to me. You go to the folder setting within C1, and it gives you all these options to save and it to me looks like a mess. On the PC, it is the same as the Win Explorer. I don't have much an issue with the Finder on its own, I do get ticked when it loses a Net connection and wants to "Fix" and alias name. The C1 I think has the edits and the raw files, if not more with each image, and in Win you can see them all, yet in Finder, you dont know what moved and what didn't, this usually works fine, but I have had issues of files moving correctly from the mac to PC. I also must say, I am comfortable with the Win XP interface, and rely on it for FTP, Email, BookKeeping...these are all realities of business. I rather have people on a system that I can replace when they are not around, and this is the PC platform. Often I do the finalizing. With multiple systems, I find the PC realiable in a network environment, and I have had bad experiences with MAC to PC lans. But I think the original Q was likely more on a single user base...so perhaps it doesnt apply as much.
    Philip is right. Shoot more, sit at desk less :)
     
  274. Unfortunatly if i go outside and shoot more i will do less money ..since im a photo retoucher i need to sit at my desk ; )
     
  275. Oh, and just to continue me and Brad long time friendship and discusion ; ) I prefer Ligthroom vs C1pro. Being a big time user of C1pro since its first release i was amazed by its quality, then come Ligthroom, and man did i get better image out of it (with some knowledge to acquire) more flexibitliy, recovery and fill ligth helping a lot and for sure a better sharpening process, i can honestly said that since the C1pro 4.6 release this software bring back some user im sure..but as a web site siad once about this new upgarde " too little too late".
    The only strange thing is if i bring a P45 file in Ligthroom 2.2 im always half to a full stop underexposed at first vs the same file open in C1pro? not that i really care, but just find it bizarre.
     
  276. Is the OP even reading this thread anymore? If the decision has been made, please inform us so we can regain a valuable spot on the home page for 'active threads'...
     
  277. I think PN could remove this thread form the most active thread anytimes..i dont think whe will get something more fascinating out of it.
     
  278. I think it is important for people to see this thread and realize what feckless time wasting fools we all are.. How else will they know which computer to buy???
     
  279. I skipped to the bottom without reading a single answer.
    If you were my next door neighbor I would recommend you get a digital darkroom system similar to, but better than what I operate in my home office (a PC). As an I.T. Pro you'll get good support from me and maybe I can learn some photography from you.
     
  280. The PC represents the best value -- hands down -- over Mac / Apple. *Across the board* If you want an overpriced fashion accessory that has compatibility issues with just about everything (not made by Apple) then get a Mac.. If you want a solid, reliable, affordable machine that works with everything, and are not concerned about 'pose factor' get a PC. I would recommend HP, Lenovo or Dell.. Consider adding the following to your PC:

    2GB to 4GB of RAM
    Wacom Digitising Tablet
    Dual Headed Video + Second LCD Monitor (eg, setup dual displays)

    These things make life so much easier in PS & LR; they are 'must have' items for any serious photographer.

    Take the money you saved and invest in decent lighting equipment (Profoto / Bowens etc) -- and focus on your pictures and vision.

    -Mike
     
  281. My experience: I have a clamshell iBook form 1999. It still runs. It finally reached it's end for upgradeable softeware halfway through 2008. My PC only friend has gone through 4 laptops in that time - to stay up to date. After she saw my mac still going she bought a Mac laptop. She loved it so she also bought a desktop. She's become a big Mac fan. I use both and like both although I won't touch Vista. XP was the first version of Windows I liked. Twice in the past I've given in on price and bought a PC. I hated them. I could never get the configurations I needed to work properly. This was before XP and the OS was just disastrous. I'll only buy a Mac for my own use.
     
  282. Smart argument, "pose factor" equals mac, fashion accessory..get real, is that the best you have to offer? Talk about posing. Anyways, get current, mac and pc all using the same hardware, I think all that mac makes is them shiny containers oh and the software, does that count?
     
  283. Personally I think Cap 1 is the best raw converter out there​
    No no no... For Canon- or at least the 5D, it's DPP. Better color
     
  284. Personally I think Cap 1 is the best raw converter out there​
    No no no... For Canon- or at least the 5D, it's DPP. Better color
     
  285. I think we should turn this into a Capture One vs. DPP thread; the other argument didn't really resolve anything.
    Or it could be put out of its misery....
     
  286. My PC only friend has gone through 4 laptops in that time - to stay up to date. After she saw my mac still going she bought a Mac laptop. She loved it so she also bought a desktop. She's become a big Mac fan.​
    For the longest time I bought Ford automobiles. Darn cars would fall apart with 40K miles on them, or before the loan was paid off or both. I started buying foreign cars, and they seem to run forever. I thought I was getting a good deal on Fords because
    1. Lots of bells and whistles were included
    2. Still cheaper than Honda, Toyota..etc.
    I have foreign cars in my garage right now that I have driven years past any Ford I've ever owned.
    This is what those Mac converts have been saying all over this thread. That personal experience just cannot be discounted.
     
  287. At least the converstion is shifting to other topics...Patrick, you like LR over C1 Pro for Phase files? I think I will install it and see if it is worth it.
    I actually like the way C1 sharpens, although I do think the exp and contrast are a bit limiting unless you use the curves.
    Ok, I am gonna give LR2 a shot tomorrow.
    So far have thought it to be a program that does little of anything very good. It doesnt work as a browser, manager, nor as an editor, and I'm not sure what it can do that CS4 Raw cannot? But perhaps Patrick or others can help point it out.
    I would also be interested in knowing if the PC version responds different than the Mac version?
     
  288. Thomas....Interestingest analogy, but I can help put in perspective. Now a days, many people lease cars, and with computers, many shops upgarde every 2 years or so, and both foreign and domestic do a fine job for 2 or so years. Would you drive a Ford to the unveiling of your billboard in downtown?
    With computers its a bit worse, no matter what you drive, there has been a technological improvement that makes work more effecient with the newer tool, so both platforms tend to sway you to upgrade, if it makes sense.
    I do believe we have reached somewhat of a ceiling on the megapixel war, at least to some degree, so perhaps these last upgrades you make will be for more than the 2-3 years.
    Now as far as the Mac vs Pc...for some reason I am more comfortable sitting inside the seat of my foreign car, rather on top of the seat of my domestic car. It handles much better, gets better gm, and it sure is faster, safer and more fun to drive. But they both take me from point A to point B.
     
  289. :) I didn't know Mac vs PC is even hotter than Canon vs Nikon
     
  290. Here is my humbly modest and truly original contribution:
    You have to consider 2 issues: the hardware and the operating system.
    The operating system is Windows on a PC, while it can be either Windows, MacOSx, or both, on a Mac.
    Hardwarewise, a Mac is just a very high quality PC, and worth every cent, becaue cheap PC hardware can lead to unreliability. Now the operating systems: that is the bog issue. Windows vs MacOSx (remember that both systems can run on a Mac anyway).
    I'll summarize it in 2 points:
    - Windows' interface is more flexible than Mac OS X's.
    - Mac OS X is more reliable.
    To elaborate a bit:
    - the interface: On Windows, there are more keyboard shortcuts, more different ways of doing the same things depending of what kind of mouse/keyboard suits you better. MacOSx lacks some keys on its keybaord, that PCs have (Home/End/Delete, that kind of key), and it really lacks window size maximizing to fit full screen in one click, that Windows can do. If you choose a Mac, be sure to buy 2 or 3-button mouse at least, because MacOSx uses it but for some reason they still sell you a Mac with a 1-button mouse.
    - the reliability: Windows is not reliable. It will bug without apparent reason, never wice the same bug, far mre often than MacOSx. It will crash and freeze and lag more often. I'm sure some people will tell you that they've never had ay problem with Windows. They are blessed with luck, and probably running it on expensive, high-quality hardware, that is, just as expensive as a Mac. System anthropy (the tendency for an OS to become slower and less efficient with time, which eventually forces you to reinstall it) occurs faster on Windows, although I've seen some Macs in pretty bad shape too for that matter.
    Of course both PCs and Macs can run alternate operating systems such as Linux, but for your purpose, i'd say stay away from that.
    Hope this helps.
     
  291. Phil, before you get Lr, heres the why i like it and some infos for you;
    1_C1pro is faster to produce 100% preview, so when on a shoot, i can check the focus quickly vs Lr. The photographer can shoot thetered with it plug and play (not possible in Lr by itself, you have to define a hot folder and import the image to it) And the images out of the camera look like what you shoot with some minor adjustment. So why would i prefer Lr then?
    2_Lr is well presented and i like the slickness of it..and since im working with it most of the time, i like to have something i enjoy in front of me. I also like the fact that you can maintain a digital librairie, you can create web site (use that alot for my oversea client or when its faster to send that vs going to a office and make the choice with the client) you can also create template for your printout with different paper type and size, so again you save time. The sharpening in Lr is way more and i said far far better than the one in C1Pro that when i develop 2 file i can see withc one have been developed in Lr vs C1pro (ok most of the time) i find C1 to be too agressive, the fine details look crunchy..lost of finesse..in that area i always find Lr to be superior. The bad thing about it is you cant shoot thetered, the preview take around 3-5 sec to be seen at 100%, and the file from a P45 are always 1/2 to 1 stop under..dont know why? but i create a preset that make the file 3/4 more overexposed to fix it and all is fine. I also like it becaue he is well integrated with the rest of the Adobe family..software i sue everyday, everyweek for the past 15years.
    3_What could Lr would do more vs ACR.. in the develop menu? same thing not even a bit more of something. So why go into Lr instead? Because you get the whole package (bridge + acr) in one software that is way faster and better looking. Of course if you want to save 300$ stay with ACR..but when you really put yourself in Lr you will soone discover that you migth not even need Photoshop for most of the job you do. I dont have the chosie professionaly to use Ps + Lr, i do a lot of liquify, fix thing ..you know the amazing fashion world : ) But for all my perosnal images, i mainly use Lr only.
    Hope this quick review will help you see other perspective, but you also know that theres a sligth learning curve, and obviously you wont fall in love with Lr in the next 15min..so dont be too fast to judge since you dont know it.
    And to finsih this off topic subject (that i find more interesting anyway vs this long usaul stupid thread) theres is no raw developper really better than the other; its all depend of what YOU can do with it, and in the end, when you put side by side image from different developper that have been use to there best from experience user, you realize that all the image look alike mostly. The DPP / NX2 is better than Lr come from non experience user that like to be grab by the hand having a software that mainly do all for them automaticaly, and for that i can understand the need..but saying that Lr suck because of that show that whe are talking with people who miss the whole story.
     
  292. So, I'm reading about the new Mac's today, and no i7 for the iMac. Still going with the old core-duo's and a 4 gig ram limit. Oh brother.
    At least the new Mac Pro's got Nahelm. Still though, $2500 for a 2.66GHz Xeon 3500, 3GB ram, 640GB hard drive, and a cheap GeForce GT 120.
    Mac mini got a nice refresh. Yippee! Now it's only three years behind. With a $200 increase of course.
     
  293. >>> Still going with the old core-duo's and a 4 gig ram limit. Oh brother.
    No, the limit is 8 GB. Base is 4 GB. The base 24" is now less money, too.
    >>> With a $200 increase of course.
    No, same price on the Mini. More features/built-ins for the same money.
     
  294. The 24 inch iMac outfitted like the op wants is only $2100, the same as the PC she mentioned. Where did the figure of $3200 come from?
    Was there are large price drop?
     
  295. Hi Patrick,
    I just installed it. I had purchased LR1 before and didnt take the time like you said to let it sink in, as I am usually busy with work like yourself. So even now when I upgraded to CS4, I still purchased the LR2 upgrade. So I just installed it, and I do see the nice web feature to use with a client website to show the work, that is a nice feature.
    I do have the Phase tethered to the G4 for now, and it works fine, but you read my gripe about the way the files in C1_3.7 get named and "organized". I gave that some time, in case I am missing something, yet it still sucks for me.
    I shoot on one system, have editing/prepress done on 3 systems, 1 system RIPs to print, and another does office work. The editors are on PC, and I edit also, and much prefer the C1 Win version over the MAC, and what a large difference. I wonder if the dev and the actual way it works can give different results just by OS platform? I doubt it...or perhaps The nice LED displays I use make it look all that better :) Either way, I do see some nice things in Lightroom2, and perhaps just as a website viewing tool for clients makes it worth having it installed :).....And yes, I think the sharpening tool with mask and detail give more controll.
    I gave up on the "whole package" theory with Adobe when Bridge crashed on an hourly basis. It really cant handle multiple drives, or large file sizes, very well. I thought CS4 version would help. It crashed less, but not stable enough yet. I bought ACDSEE Pro2.5, and besdies handling PDF files with proper color, it does a very nice job, very fast. You can clear your meta's, add in disclaimers, and resize, or do so many cripts in processing. I like you have used PS for over 15 years now, since Aldus days, But I have cut over from the MAC to the PC for the past 5 years. And I will be upgrading the main editor with an i7 Windows system/64bit. Ok back to LR2....
    It is slick, although they need to option out the classic graphic below the right panels, below Camera Calibration. Whats up with that? I like minimalist/modern designs...oh, you CAN change it...Atom or cube it is :).
    Ok, I will see how this fits my flow....hard to justify it for Sharpening alone, is CS4 can do that part, as like you, all my files go to CS4 for further editing...I tend to sharpen in CS4 before it goes to InDesign or something like that.
     
  296. Glad you treid it : )
    Have you seen the new C1Pro 4.6? im a bit shock by the total new visual, but i think i could like it in need ... I honestly rarely use the sharpen feature in Lr myself, as i like to do it in 3 step in Photoshop.. I start with photoshop 2..when i had 16meg of ram and 160MEG of hard drive. 4 meg of video ram, a 15inch monitor and a black only Apple printer..i sound like im 60years old..but im just 35! Incredible how computer evolve in such a short period.
     
  297. No, the limit is 8 GB. Base is 4 GB.
    Cool.
    No, same price on the Mini. More features/built-ins for the same money.



    Incorrect. The old one is listed at the usual price, $600, right beside the new one for $200 more.

    http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_mini?mco=MTE3MDI
     
  298. No Garrison. The base model is $600. Which now includes more ports, FW800, bigger HD, much better/faster GPU,dual display support, superdrive, faster memory bus...
     
  299. The $600 iMac still has the same small hdd, same cpu, same ram, as last month, yes?
     
  300. we are in the same boat..hahah..Im right there with you
    15" SVGA monitor was a huge upgrade!
    I remember the first day I got an Epson Color printer, I was in shock and amazed at what I could do off my desktop. I printed for days and inspected and printed. I was in love.
    For LR2, I think I need an intro video or something to get familiar, I like the zoom presets, they are the most used. and the toning presets are nice to get you started in one direction or another. I dont think CS4Raw has presets built in, just the ones you create and save. perhaps it is possible to export the LR ones to Raw :) . In the end i want the least tools clutter to get the work done. So far I think its a keeper for at LEAST the web gallery creator.
    Slow for me the past few days,,,I have work but they are pending approvals. I noticed magazine page counts shrinking!
     
  301. >>> The $600 iMac still has the same small hdd, same cpu, same ram, as last month, yes?
    Nope. The base unit has been refreshed as well. Larger HD, 5 USB ports, FW800 port, dual display, superdrive is standard now, better GPU, faster mem bus, etc. For the same $600 the older base unit cost.
    The base Mini, like all base macs, can be configured with more memory, larger HD, etc for extra $$$. The $800 version gets you a larger HD and an extra gb of RAM - not worth it IMO. If I were looking for one, I'd get the base unit and do my own upgrade.
     
  302. Phil, heres 2 place to help;
    1_www.lynda.com, a 8hre tutorial seriously well done. 25$ a motnh for unlimited tutorial on ALL the subject they have; from word to CGI..impresive (this is where i have learn it 2 years ago when Lr 1 just arrive)
    2_click on my name and request my email, you will receive a automatic response to get my FREE photoshop action and lightroom preset.
     
  303. yI have heard of Lynda, and seen a couple clips from....I have joined NAPP for the discounts they offer and they have some tutorials ...perhaps for LR2? I will check them out.
    BTW, these led screens are very , very nice, and accurate :)
    (reading other posts)
     
  304. Thanks, Brad. Well, I want one of these Mac mini's. Kinda hoping it had more under the hood though.
     
  305. Kinda hoping it had more under the hood​
    G, just put it over your PC and you will be serve! Nice design, small..powerfull ! LOL
     
  306. I think it would be great if Apple would morph the mini it into a modular setup...
    say you have one...you link another and suddenly you have the added ram and the space and the processing power.....Steve Jobs....dont leave now...you have a new project! You just stack one on top the other.
     
  307. I was kinda hoping they would've put a quadcore option, though it actually may not necessary. The main thing is 8 gb should be good for the next few years.
     
  308. i just pray they dont release a better macbook pro 15inch tomorow morning..just get mine 3weeks ago!
     
  309. I think it would be great if Apple would morph the mini it into a modular setup...
    say you have one...you link another and suddenly you have the added ram and the space and the processing power.....Steve Jobs....dont leave now...you have a new project! You just stack one on top the other.

    I think it would be neat if they would morph my Mini Cooper in to a modular setup. You could attach them end to end and they would become a station wagon or stretch limo. And it's about as technically likely.
     
  310. LOL..LOLOLLOL design a motherboard that has some new scsi like or Firewire what have you connection that snaps in....and a software that manages tweaks the shared settings...You memory, cpu and then this is balanced out for the OS Z 20.8 to read, and BAM! now your cookin like Emril
     
  311. Since my last post (yesterday) when I recommended you lot to get out and take more photos, I have shot over 150 frames, retouched about 15, printed 5 and am on to the next project. Yes, the work was done on a MacBook Pro running Bibble 4.10.1, with the odd bit of work on a Dell PC running Photoshop.
    Want to know my heretical solution for a happy life in the digital darkroom? Good composition, good focus, correct aperture and shutter speed, decent white balance - presto! Result = Not so many hours in front of an LCD screen!
    Please folks, dry this thread up now so we can see a few more threads on the homepage that are fresh.
     
  312. I couldn't agree more with Philip Roberts (except I use Bibble on Linux ;-))
     
  313. Charmain,
    I'm a professional Tradesman and when i have to buy or am in need of a tool, I don't think about price. I think about the best tool for the job/reliability/ease of use. These are the three major factors I consider. That said, I can say that I own both computer platforms and they both serve their purpose. Reading your letter tells me what your needs will be. That is the number one factor. Cost should be the next and then the ease of use should be a close third.
    I have mac's that still run(and that's on the web, using photoshop etc.) that date back to 1999. My current mac that i use daily is the last of the dual processor power pc's, 2005 vintage with 4gb of ram. I also have a pc that runs just fine, networked to the mac and still on win98.
    My experience with both platforms sealed the deal for me. I have had zero problems with my macs dating back to the way early 80's with my first Apple IIe.
    You pay extra for your mind being at ease, but it's worth every penny. I don't worry about bad hardware, crappy operating system(unless you know how to get into the pc's OS with confidence) or virus's. These are very important when writing that check. I should say that my pc still runs(1999 model) and has had no major hardware issues other than a cd/dvd going bad and needing replacement. But I always fall back to that elegant Mac OS and never worrying about that "Blue Screen" thing I do while running the old toaster, I mean pc. Also I don't need to call my old pc buddy at $75 an hour to "clean" up my computer so I can go back to work. You will never be able to wipe the hard drive clean and re-install the OS as easy as you can on the mac vs the pc. I'm not saying the mac never has issues, but a simple restart usually clears up all issues I have with the mac.
    Don't make money the issue when you are in the market for a tool which will improve your end result. Yes the mac's cost you more up front, but factor in the cost of "fred" coming over every so often to clean up, get your pc working again, getting it back online etc and that extra cost dissapears. You don't need the fastest computer either. With a good graphics card and max ram, photoshop will cruise along just fine.
    Think long term and you will make the right decision. You don't need to buy the latest, fastest box in town to work your photo's. Would you buy a substandard lens to save some money? You usually get what you pay for(unless it's our government).
    If what you are looking for is no worry, work my photo's and print them up/send them out, get the mac. You won't be disappointed.
    With all that said, You still have to be able to capture that instance in time to make all the money you spend on the tool you choose to express yourself worthwhile or you my brother are in the wrong business.
    Best Wishes
    cp
     
  314. I'm a pc user and I can tell that a win XP won't run well with less than 512ram, and Vista won't run at all.
    The other day came a mini mac to my work.... oh my God! 512mb ram and it was a charm! Leopard run so smooth! The time response was awesome. I've seen Vista 64 run on a Dell with 8 (yes! eight) Xeon processors and 4GB ram with a Quadro FX video and it didn't get close to the mini mac! Of course, with 512 ram you can't run whatever you want, but you get the point.
    Not to mention that Leopard never halts.
    Regards!
     
  315. >>>I've seen Vista 64 run on a Dell with 8 (yes! eight) Xeon processors and 4GB ram with a Quadro FX video and it didn't get close to the mini mac!
    Umm, excuse me, what planet do you inhabit?
     
  316. Phillip, i have follow your advice! i have shoot 150 or so images also (all the toys of my little girl to create a Blurb book about souvenir) i have retouched all of those 150 shot for personal purpose, i have retouched/ color balance 200 scans for a client who prepare is art portfolio, 8 editorial shot for the ELLE India and im giving a 3 workshop this week! See, i was also productive since last Friday ; )
     
  317. Here some of our old "Photoshop dream machines" are capped at 512megs; since the motherboard is from 1996. They still work fine with win2000 today; and sport two 333Mhz server CPU's' Pentium II's that when new cost 600 bucks each. Today they are used more for scanning; and retouchint work on smaller images say less than 50 megs. Since they jsut have win2000 the latest Photoshop version is CS2. The old birds rotate a 105meg 35 megapixel Phase One scan 90 degree in 7 seconds with dual CPUs; or about 9 with just on CPU. 512 megs was once alot of ram; many thousands of dollars on these boxes for 512. In the Pentium era 16 megs was 600 bucks for me; the same as full bore Photoshop 2.5 or 3; once it peaked at about 1000 bucks for 16 megs in the Pentium era.
     
  318. Back when I was involved with broadcast television video and graphics we used a system called The Quantel Paintbox. It is still the industry standard among professionals in the field of TV production. Fully optioned they were ~$750K - $1Million each! So we decided to try some other alternatives to augment those systems for smaller jobs.

    We needed systems that were powerful and stable -- that we could rely on not to crash halfway through a long rendering job etc. We extensively tested many different systems including Apple / Mac, Compaq (NT4 SP6a).. The Mac's crashed two to three times as much as any of the Compaq/NT solutions. They just could not take heavy duty 3D graphics rendering like a Compaq Workstation loaded with NT4 and dual processors could.
    There were a few staff members that tried to convince management of the merits of the Apple Mac -- but the proof was plain for everyone to see -- the Windows NT machines were several times more reliable than anything Apple had on the market. Needless to say the Compaq / NT4 solution was used and the all of the Mac's were packed up and sent back to Apple; Compaq got the order. Anyone who says that PC's are unreliable is speaking out of total ignorance.. -Mike
     
  319. It would be interesting to know how the Macs were configured.
     
  320. The letters mac are in the posters first name; but they are reversed; but vista is in the posters last name. Thus getting both a mac an pc is recomended.
     
  321. why not get a dell vista 64 bit machine
    got one with the new corei7 920 4gig ram 650gb hard drive 24 inch monitor with coupon for 1100$us
    without coupons it would be about 1300 $us and will run anything u throw at it
    macs are truly overpriced and not really worth it
    also with the 64 bit vista u can add as much memory as u want
    running lightroom and elements on my machine is a dream superfast no hanging
     
  322. rff

    rff

    First of all, so I don't have a bunch of flame throwers aimed at me (LOL), I don't have any experience with Macs. I do, however, have friends that use Macs and love them. From what I have seen of Macs, they are awesome computers/systems. That said, I have experience with Dell PCs and monitors, including my current Vista driven system with a 26 inch HD monitor. I have had NO problems with that system. I would not hesitate to recommend that you save the $1,100 and use it toward buying a great lens or camera. You will be glad you did!
    Whatever you decide to do, I wish you the best of luck with your decision!
    __________________________________________________________
    BetterPhoto Gallery:
    http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.asp?memberID=125176
    Flickr Gallery:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/26921845@N02/
     
  323. I dare not count your responses or enter the debate. I just offer my vote for Mac - always Mac.
     
  324. I have a MacBook Pro. It's a wonderful machine. It's almost as fast as many new computers you can buy at the store today (though at much cheaper prices than I paid for my Mac), even though I bought my computer more than three years ago. It's a 2.33 Ghz machine with a 160 GB hard drive and a 17" screen. I'm amazed at how long this system seems to be a powerful system. Yes, I know the new computers have faster RAM and longer battery life. I know the new 17" MacBook Pro is lighter, thinner, and has a brighter better screen, and I know my computer is old, but I don't think upgrading to a new computer would be worthwhile. The new ones just aren't that much faster. I've been thinking I'd like a smaller computer, which would be more portable, because I'm planning a trip to bike through southeast Asia with a backpack. I might just not take a computer though, because frankly, I can probably just buy a bunch of 4 GB memory cards for much less money. What do I need a computer for anyway? My camera does half the stuff I need to do to my images, and I can post some of my photos by using a card reader with computers at internet cafés.
    With all that said, I frankly can't believe there is no quad-core MacBook Pro. Maybe Apple knows something the rest of us don't, but I know an advanced computer programmer who travels the world with a quad-core Dell notebook computer, and he's had that computer for about a year now. He swears by it, and he could own any computer he wants. Yes, the systems he programs for are running Windows XP, so maybe that's why, but in my opinion, running Windows XP Professional on a quad-core system with Adobe Lightroom would be your best bet, especially considering the fact that you could get such a system for hundreds less than you'd have to pay for a Mac. Remember, I switched to Mac three years ago from an old Dell system of my own (and at that time Mac was the best I could buy), but now I look at what this guy is using, and I wish I had a computer like his, and I'm not impressed with the latest Mac notebooks, nor the incompatibility issues I've had with Aperture and Nikon RAW files (.NEF files).
    Frankly, I'd get a Windows 7 system, Lightroom, and deal with the Windows issues. Of course, maybe I'm just forgetting about all the problems I used to have running Windows. I do still have an old desktop system running Windows XP at 2 Ghz with 1 GB of RAM (which I rarely use), and that system is bullet-proof. Seriously, if the system is good, it will be reliable. I built that system myself, and I LOVE it. It's just too old and slow, and therefore it just can't compete with my dual-core MacBook Pro. Maybe I'll build a new quad-core system and switch back to Windows with Windows 7 Ultimate. Then, when a good quad-core i7 notebook comes out from Dell or HP, I'll buy it for $1,000. Then again, maybe I'll just get a small MacBook Pro, when they finally get a Windows-compatible quad-core processor, and install Parallels or some other Windows compatibility environment, and then I'll have the best of both worlds. Hey, maybe I can just do that with this system and do my heavy processing on my home computer! (when I build a new one)
     
  325. With all that said, I frankly can't believe there is no quad-core MacBook Pro. Maybe Apple knows something the rest of us don't...
    Not sure who "the rest of us" are, but I know MacBook Pro's come with i5 and i7 cpu's. Both of which are quad core.
     

Share This Page