Mac versus PC - again - probably

[nicholas_bellamy]

Mac versus PC :

 

I would like someone to point me to a resource (book or web) which highlights

in straight forward easy understand terms, the pros and cons of owning a Mac

instead of a PC.

 

Most of the web pages I have found, turn out to be biassed towards the

system which the author owns, e.g. PC mag etc. are ?pro PC? and vice versa

for MacUser etc.

 

I understand that most pro desktop publishers / photo manipulators use Macs,

but they seem to be (in general) more expensive / less compatible and

nobody has ever explained to me a fundamental reason why Mac are

preferred in this industry over a cheaper, more compatible solution.

 

One reason I have been told - MAC?s are quicker because a) G5 64 bit versus

PC 32 bit issues, and b) internal architecture of a Mac is biassed to handle

image data more efficiently. However, I understand that with PC processors

now getting closer to 4 GHz and super fast RAM being available, the speed

difference is negligible for the amateur photo manipulator.

 

One other point I heard recently that I am not sure about - I was told that PC?s

process image data in RGB format, whereas Mac?s use CMYK. Furthermore I

was told that if you convert RGB to CMYK on a PC you lose image quality. I

know that CMYK format is required for offset litho printing and this would

explain why Mac is more popular where the end machine is a o?set litho print

press, but I would have thought photoshop converting RGB to CMYK on a PC

would cause no issues.

 

I would really like a good reason to buy a 17? G5 iMac simply because I like

them and they look cool (we use them at work), and I like the idea of shoving

1 lead up it?s ar5e and off I go - plus I love the idea behind iLife for editting my

home videos (which I have to say is amazingly easy) however I don?t want to

end up regretting not buying a PC in 2 years time.

 

If it makes any difference, my clients say they require CMYK format images

and I would create my digi library by scanning my 35mm slide and negative

stock on either a Minolta 5400 or dual scan IV.

 

As you can probably tell, I have left joining the digitised age a little too long

and I am therefore lacking in digi darkroom knowledge.

[scott_eaton]

Point 1: You'll have a hard time finding un-biased reviews comparing each platform.

 

Point 2: As a dedicted PC enthusiast, I've found most of the comparisons to be irrelevant anyways and not based on actual demographics.

 

Point 3: Most of the imaging labs I work with use either a mix of PC's and Mac's, or straight PC's. The few shops I work with that are entirely Mac based tend to be a bit stubborn if you aren't using 'their' system, but not impossible to work with.

 

Point 4: Benchmarks are the *least* of your concerns unless you are doing very high end and intensive video editing that requires multple editing streams, etc. For general desktop imaging, all the systems regardless of being AMD 64, Intel 3ghz+, or IBM G5 based are too fast to bother comparing. Get RAM, as much as the system will take. Save the benchmark comparisons for geeks that need a life. Oh yeah, get lots of RAM, then read this sentence again :-)

 

Point 5: Mac's have been historically orientated for desktop publishing and imaging tasks while Windows is a 'jack of all trades' platform. Hence, I won't argue with any Apple enthusiast that a G5 + OSX is more straightforward in terms of that specific workflow than a generic Windows XP based PC. You essentially have to balance ergonomics vs your familiarity with Windows when forming a conclusion because they can each do do the task.

 

Point 6: The biggest difference between the platforms in my opinion is the one nobody talks about. Basically, all Apple desktops are Tier 1 machines and built to high standards. On the PC side, you have a choice between well built Tier 1 machines like Dell Precisions, or custom AMD 64 machines, but also a sea of garbage, crap, and basically trash that has really been responsible for giving the PC it's bad name. The Apple G5 you buy at CompUSA will be of the same quality as one bought on the internet. You can't say the same for PC's, so this means you have to do your homework when selecting a particular PC vs just buying what's on sale at the local electronics mall for $799 and free printer.

 

Point 7: All my imaging work is done a PC with Windows 2000, and I also produce fine art LighJet prints. I've never had any workflow issues or problems, and the distinction between the two platforms is now blurred to the point of being an issue of personal preference with the above considerations.

[bob_shop]

Point 8: Windows sucks ass

 

:p

[roger_smith4]

This is blatantly wrong:

"One other point I heard recently that I am not sure about - I was told that PC?s process image data in RGB format, whereas Mac?s use CMYK. Furthermore I was told that if you convert RGB to CMYK on a PC you lose image quality."

 

Converting to CMYK is always tricky and requires some expertise to do well. No monitor displays CMYK and scanners scan in RGB. Get the book, Real World Photoshop which gives details about how to do the conversion well on either Mac or PC. It doesn't matter whether you use Mac Photoshop or PC- the software is the same so the results will be the same. Either architecture is fine for high-end graphics editing, with PCs being cheaper for the same level of performance. Mac hardware is well-integrated and I've heard good things about their LCD displays. If you want a Mac, buy it. If all the software you want is available for it, you'll never miss having a PC. If you want to play games, use programs that aren't available on a Mac, don't have much money, or don't like the Mac interface, get a PC. Honestly, you can't lose.

[nicholas_bellamy]

Scott the saviour strikes again. Thanks buddy ;-)

 

Think I'm going for a Mac as it happens, specifically that new 17" G5 iMac

(which my wife has "approved" for using in the living room cos' it looks cool)

which I could expand to 2GB ram..... which when you compare with a tier 1 PC

(say Dell) is about the same GBP's anyway.

 

So that line I was given about Mac being CMYK and PC being RGB is not

correct then ?

[william_john_smith]

You might want to consider the computers that are used at Microsoft in their Graphic Arts

Division - Macintoh G5-2.5 DPs. 90% of the boxes in the GAD are Mac. Little Billy knows

best - isn't that what most of you say?<BR> The lastest equipment suveys suggest that

Mac are now cheaper if one buys equal for equal. Rember Macs come with most all extra

installed, While PCs give you a bare bones box. Make the boxes the same and Macs are

cheaper. One thing Macs don't have that PCs do are weekly crashes from viruses, malware

and other sunday evil doings from 14 year old boys. <BR>As far as software, there isn't a

graphic arts program worth its weigh, that can't be run on Macs. 40% of Photoshop sales

are to Mac, you know, the computer that only has a 3 or 4 computer makart share.

[grepmat]

If you like the G5 imac, why do you need any other reason to get one, or need anyone elses opinions? They are really great machines! Also, their simplicity and usability goes well beyond the single cable. Think of all the viruses and worms and trojans and spyware that you won't have to worry about, or the frequent reinstallations that so many windows users seem to accept as normal. Wouldn't you rather focus on your digital darkroom skills? For photoshop, I might suggest the 20" model, as the extra screen space will be nice. Get at least 1G of memory, too. By the way, I agree with Point 8. Cheers.

[eric_perlberg]

Nicholas

 

My principal machine is a Mac with OS X but I also work regularly on Windows XP. I prefer Macs for personal reasons but if suddenly Macs were wiped from the planet and I could only use a decent quality XP computer my life would change very little. I do design and photography work and all of the major programmes I need are available for both and work well on both and beyond that its a question of personal style and personal workflow.

 

Both are either very quick (at any price point) or frustratingly slow depending on external factors like file size and task. If you're rendering Toy Story neither is anything approaching fast. If you're working on 1gb size photography files both are slower than you would like. But on amateur level work from a digital SLR, neither is slow and on any given task one will be faster than the other and more importantly ultimate quickness is only one of a myriad of parameters to worry about that affect your minute by minute use of the computer.

 

At the moment nobody is really working with a 64 bit operating system and Mac may make it first to that point some time next year but how that really plays out is unknowable at the moment. Not a reason to make your purchase in my opinion.

 

Whoever told you that Macs process graphics in CMYK and PCs in RGB simply didn't know what they are talking about. They may have said Macs graphics engine is based on pdf and Windows kind of defaults its color system to sRGB but that's not a direct comparison and won't affect how you do your design or photography work. From your point of view, for Photoshop or Elements work, word processing, etc both have the same capabilities and are almost identical clones of each other. Occassionally you'll find a piece of software that has an advantage or two in one direction or the other but again, its not a dealbreaker (the dealbreakers aree coming soon... read on).

 

To the extent that Pro designers and desktop publishers work on Macs is mostly an historical and style issue and really irrelevant to your current needs. It's a bit of Nikon vs Canon or Fords vs Chevy.

 

It's also not so true that Macs are more expensive though in general Macs are well spec'd for internal parts and cheaper PCs with really crap internals can be bought for a song. You get pretty much what you pay for and a Mac and similarly spec'd PC cost within a few pesatas of each other.

 

Yes CMYK is for offset printing and both will do that just fine. Not an issue. Your Film Scanner should work equally well with both machines.

 

So what are the issues? From my point of view there are 2.

 

First, if you have a history with one OS or the other, you will have either a lot of valuable experience or enormous built up frustration. If you know and like PCs there are no reasons to switch to a Mac (save below) and vice versa. On the other hand if you're fed up with either, you might find the other a welcome relief.

 

If you have no real experience then I'd say one really really important question is, who is it that you're going to be calling on the phone for help? If you have a dear friend who is a PC guru, that is a major factor in helping you when you run into problems. And vice versa of course. These days computers are pretty complex and while Apple may put a bit more effort into making the "out of box" experience easier for total newbies, in fact, once you run into problems, you're in deep and unpleasant waters and that can happen on either system

 

The second issue and not to be laughed at is your emotional reaction to these operating systems. Some people just think its laughable that anyone can care about the style of a computer box, the decoration and "pretttiness" of an operating system and these people usually deride Macs and find them over the top.

 

On the other hand (and I belong to this group) some people like their toys to be items with finesse and style. I've even downloaded software that makes my Win XP machine look more like a mac because Microsoft's idea of good design grates on me. I do like Apple's approach to design.

 

(what don't I like about PC design? for example those annoying little pop up windows that show up to tell me there is a new download of chat software or the one that pops up 5 times an hour to tell me my wireless card has resynced with my wireless router and won't go away until I click on it to dismiss it. But these are tiny issues and in a world of war, starvation and political intrique they are really about whether your fly uses a zipper or buttons).

 

Unfortunately there won't be objective books on why either computer system is better though you can browse through books which explain in depth how each works.

 

So to summarise:

1) No real practical advantages to one or the other for common photo or day to day business/productivity apps

2) Getting into computers more deeply will require help and if you have a good source of help that you can lean on when you need it that is an important factor

3) Emotional reactions are legitimate reasons for swaying your decision either way all other things being equal.

[nicholas_bellamy]

G5 2.5 DP is the daddy, however I am not that rich. I did consider the 1.8 DP

G5, although our home styling department (my wife) advised that a tower unit

based computer will not be permitted in our living room.

 

I would love a 20" G5 - but again cost, 17" is about 900 quid + VAT, whereas

20" is about 1150 + VAT.... hang on that's not a great deal extra.... perhaps the

finance department (again - my wife) might consider a budget extension.

 

Think I'll start with the 256 MB of basic RAM then expand when I (hopefully)

get better, and (hopefully) RAM has come down in price after Christmas. A

1GB RAM card is currently about 200 notes in the UK.

[nicholas_bellamy]

Thank you all for your help and advice, I really appreciate everyone's opinion.

That's a great point about future support and help, particularly as our entire IT

team at work consists of 2 Mac boffins.

 

Games - That's what my PS2 is for.

 

Windows Hang ups that require re-installation - All of the PC boffins at work

"swear that they've never had a problem with XP". Although some of them

smile when they say it... and then say that reinstallation "is'nt too difficult"... to

which I reply "how do you know if you've never had problems ?".... ;-)

 

Viruses, worms, Trojans etc. - Thanks again another great point which I had

considered although I was under the impression that Symantec Norton or

whatever solved that PC problem.

 

Now where's my credit card.

[charlie_vigue]

I've never had a problem with XP, and I've installed (not re-installed) it on a lot of my personal machines. But I like Linux too, so YMMV. One thing to consider is that if you're going to use the computer to edit images AND run the business there might be a point there in favor of the PC.

 

But basically (IMO) the responses above are in two categories and are easy to sort out. The serious responses I think are all factually correct, and the Mac zealots are just being Mac zealots. They can't help it, it's that all fruit diet.

[eric_perlberg]

Nicholas,

<p>

If you have decided on an iMac let me encourage you to put more RAM in then 256mb. It's

hard to say how much RAM is enough but you its easy to say that 256 will make your new

iMac crippled. Your iMac is capable of holding 2gb of RAM and Photoshop is currently

limited to using 2gb of RAM but then there's issues like the operating system needing

RAM to do its thing, etc.

<p>

Apple charges top price for RAM and its dead easy to add RAM to an iMac. I just checked

<a href="http://www.crucial.com/uk/store/listparts.asp?

Mfr%2BProductline=Apple%2BiMac&mfr=Apple&cat=&model=iMac+%28G5

-1.8GHz%2C+17-inch%29&submit=Go"> Crucial Memory</a> and a 512 meg chip for

the

iMac

(giving you 768mb) is only 59 pounds incl VAT and a 1GB chip (giving you a total of 1.256

gb)

costs 165 pounds incl VAT. I would recommend a minimum of 1gb using 2 matched 512

chips at a cost of 118pounds incl VAT.

 

The reason I say that RAM is important is that if you're working with any image in

Photoshop or Elements and its bigger than that of a 1 megapixel camera, Photoshop/

Elements will not have enough RAM to work with and as a result use the Hard Drive for

extra memory. This really slows down any computer which also requires some RAM for its

operating system. 256mb is really not sufficient.

 

But as I said, don't buy Apple RAM if money is more important than convenience. Crucial is

just one of many companies from whom you can purchase the correct

RAM so you can't make a mistake and <a href="http://www.info.apple.com/usen/cip/pdf/

imacg5/B033-2496.pdf">this pdf file </a> shows you how simple it is.

 

<p> if you can purchase RAM in matched sets, that will also positively affect the speed of

an iMac. I can give you references for this if you want but otherwise, trust me on this.

 

<p>

Please, other people, encourage Nicholas not to go with 256mb of ram lest he think his

computer purchase was a mistake!

[scott_eaton]

Some more comments here.

 

Point 9 - The coherent and objective responses in this thread (those that wouldn't flunk a 6th grade grammar check) seem to be being made by PC users. Draw your own conclusions.

 

Who cares what Micrsoft is running in their marketing divisions. The majority of the Internet's E-mail exchange is run by Unix/Linux platforms, while I prefer my own AS400s for superior stability and security.

 

The most irrelevant response is basing experience on how PCs / Windows behaves in your work environment vs home. I've got an extensive background with corporate IT support, and most of that stuff is cheap, generic disposable PC's held at the mercy of a poorly trained IT staff that's one foot out the door from being out sourced. A big contrast from a high end Dell or custom AMD 64 home machine that's a much more logical comparison to a G5 in terms of quality.

 

Also consider my own Windows 2000 box at home has been migrated from 3 seperate platforms (installed originally on a Celeron 300) onto it's current AMD platform, and continues to run flawlessly even though I rarely use a Firewall and it sits open on the internet with no Norton or Symantec products installed. Yet we hear from people here who have to constantly re-install XP. Trust me, if you have to constantly re-install any Windows platform, you'll be safer on a Sony Playstation and not a Mac.

 

Security on a Windows PC basically consists of using Firefox vs Internet Explorer, and downloading updates for your operating system not much more frequently as you would OSX. The rest is superfluous propoganda meant to sell you software you don't need. In short, if you are willing to exercise the same cognitive effort at purchasing and maintaining a PC as you would considering the good design aspects of a G5, the comparison is really quite subjective. I'd hardly fault somebody for getting G5 though because it's a beautiful machine - The anti PC/Windows responses though are just the same tired affair more due to laziness and ignorance on the part of the user than anything else.

[jim_a]

I love a good Mac vs. PC debate. I use Windows 2000 at work alongside my Mac. I also run some FreeBSD boxes as servers and desktop machines. I like that my Mac can talk to both platforms in their native language. I'm sure I could get along with a PC if I had to but that wouldn't be much fun. Last week I was lucky enough to snag a first generation G5 dual 1.8Ghz machine off the Apple site. My G4/400, which I bought 4 years ago, has performed flawlessly. I can't remember a single day I've lost due to some software glitch or virus that took down my Mac. Macs just work day in, day out. W2K pro seems to be much more stable than the Win95 and 98 boxes I've used. To me Macs just seem more elegant in their UI. I feel like I do less "futzing" to get things done on my Mac than a PC.

 

Do you know more Mac or PC geeks? Who are you going to call at 10 pm on a Sunday night? Or learn to Google.

 

Good luck!

[chip l.]

I have used both OS X and Win XP. I am not in to games, nor do I see a need for any of the

PC only software. As long as Adobe CS and MS Office are available, I can rest easy.

 

I am now a fan of the Mac (not MAC, that causes some Mac people to cringe <g>). OS X is

a more stable OS. Less of a problem with viruses and spyware so far. If you look at the real

costs, the Mac is not that much more than a Windows system in the end. Also there have

been a number of studies that have shown a "lower total cost of ownership" (TCO) verses

the PC. For the most part, over the last few years at least (the post-G3 era), the Mac OS X

does not seem to be the "power" hog that the Windows updates seem to be.

 

The recommendation of getting the most RAM you can afford is a good one. There is a

program for Mac users called Do I Need More Memory that will tell you just how far you

need to grade your memory for your usage. There is little reason to pay the Apple price for

memory. You can do that on your own.

 

One thing that some times gets overlooked, is how the Windows verses the Mac programs

behave. I used to use PS under Win XP to do ad layouts. The results under Acrobat were

"OK". When I rendered the same PS file in the Mac environment, there were subtleties that I

saw in the files (PDF's).

 

The advantage as I see it is in the Mac being a closed "environment". Meaning that Apple

and their OS are built for the specs of the hardware (video cards and such). In the PC world

the issue is that MS has to support a multitude of vendors and their specs.

 

Hope this helps....

[ethan hansen]

-> One thing that some times gets overlooked, is how the Windows verses the Mac programs behave. I used to use PS under Win XP to do ad layouts. The results under Acrobat were "OK". When I rendered the same PS file in the Mac environment, there were subtleties that I saw in the files (PDF's).

 

That depends on the program. If we are talking Photoshop, InDesign, and Acrobat there is no significant difference between the platforms. Yes, Photoshop on a Mac will highlight your cursor as it moves across an image. PDF output will be identical. If you are talking about Quark or Freehand then, yes, Mac and Pc do differ.

[Barry Thomas]

Some of the Mac vs PC war came from the superiority claimed by Macheads way back when DTP was mainly done on Macs, so litho printers used them. The key was PostScript (ps) - the original Apple laser printer worked in ps and that drove the DTP revolution (during which any fule could produce the document from hell in, ooo, no time at all).

 

Once PCs started getting ps drivers and all the same software was available on both platforms, PCheads could hold their, erm, heads high again as everything on the Mac could be done on a PC, but I wish I had a quid for every printer that told me they couldn't accept ps files from a PC... a ps file is a ps file you bonehead... some stone age printers still try to use that line, nowadays I just laugh. A bit OT, but I wrote a book about ps waaaay back (1988) and used to write ps software for fun. And you though photography nerds were sad?...

 

I gather the biggest thing about PC vs Mac nowadays is the ability to edit video, but that's a bit modern for me, so I may be wrong.

[grepmat]

Scott, I will bite: First off, please don't insult us. I did not fail 6th grade, and neither, I would wager, did anyone else here. Second, it is well documented via repeatable physical experiments that if you put a brand-new, latest and greatest, freshly installed windows box on the net - and then do nothing but stand back and watch - it will be severely compromised within an average of a half-hour. I myself have seen this happen over and over, with users ultimately becoming so frustrated and overwhelmed at all the spyware, etc. that inevitably worms its way into their machines, that they can get no useful work done at all, and a fresh install comes to look like the only solution. At work, I regularly receive emailed lists of machines that have been so severely compromised that they wind up in use as zombie servers (eg., for porn or warez), usually dozens at a time, and often over and over. We've even set up a daily bandwidth cap per machine solely to catch those boxes. This is not the users fault; most of them are highly sophisticated and know how to practice safe computing. Rather, it is the swiss-cheeze of an operating system that is to blame. Cheers.

[philip_baltar]

Whether you should get a Mac or a PC depends on what you intend on doing with it. As much as I'd hate to say it, if you're doing art (images or video) you'll probably be best off with the Mac. If you want to do real computing, you'll want the PC.

 

Mac software tends to be more oriented toward people that don't want to fuss with a computer. I'll work out of the box and will do great for art. Con: it cost A LOT more. Another issue is that it's got a lot of proprietary hardware so it's harder to upgrade.

 

PC software tends to be more oriented toward everything else. Just go to a computer store and look at the size of the PC software section to the Mac section. In general, PCs are also cheaper. Everyone makes hardware for them and they're fairly modular. It's my understanding that modularity was an important goal in the original design concept. Cons: one word: Micro$oft. The years of constant rebooting and security holes made me lose my faith in them. You'll probalby have to mess around in the bowels of the operating system often.

 

As for RGB vs CMYK...I actually didn't know that Mac used CMYK. But just FYI. Printers are the only devices that use CMYK. Acutally, they use CMY, what's K? Monitors, scanners, cameras, and such all use RGB. I'd assume that the conversion is farily hard and leads to some degredation in quality. Right now, I can't even figure out the math to do that conversion.

 

32-bit vs 64-bit...In the same manner as the switch from 16-bit to 32-bit, everyone will be in the same place in a generation or two - of processors that is. As for the software to take advantage of 64-bit technology... Linux was the first - ALL HAIL THE PENGUIN!

[grepmat]

Philip: (1) I do real computing (hard-core simulations, etc.) on my mac. If you want, you can run Apache etc., or easily build a supercomputer cluster out of them. (2) I chose a mac because I have better things to do than mess with my computer, and not coincidentally because I have good taste and a sense of style. (3) Macs and PC's cost the same if you spec them the same. (4) Macs use USB2, Firewire, AGP, PCI, SATA, Bluetooth, high-speed wireless, etc. - within reason, the towers are as modular and expandable as anything. And, by the way, Apple invented and/or pioneered several of those technologies. (5) As you say: no rebooting, no viruses, no worms, and nearly no spyware. (5) Macs do not have color modality limitations. You can use whatever you want and switch between them as you please. (6) Macs have had a 64 bit microprocessor for years. The operating system is not fully 64 bit yet, but it will be years before PC's. (7) I use Linux too. As I assume you know, Mac OS-X is a 'nix, just with the nicest user interface around. (8) I guess this proves I like a good Mac vs. PC thread, too. It's just that I believe that Apple has won. Cheers.

[ericx]

Rabbits vs Bunnies.

 

There are plenty of reasons to get a Mac and plenty to get a PC. The bottom line

should be (but isn't always):

what allows you to get the work you need done the quickest without intruding into

your creativity?

The answer is the system you should probably go for.

[nicholas_bellamy]

Thank you all very much for your help in this issue.

 

It?s amazing that with the www I have the power to learn everything known to

man..... except where to find an unbiassed opion on Mac (not MAC..... ;) ) vs.

PC. For that opinion you need photo.net

 

Thanks also for the tip off on an inexpensive UK RAM source. I had?nt looked

hard enough. Funnily enough, if you want an iMac with wireless KB and

moose, the cheapest place is indeed the Apple store. Presumably because

they give you a refund in the total price to remove the wired KB and moose

from the box, whereas (it seems) resellers have to bundle it as an extra.... BUT

RAM, airport cards, wireless bases etc. are cheaper in reseller warehouses.

 

Glad someone else mentioned that spec for spec mac price and tier 1 pc price

are almost identical....

 

Thanks again.... Nick

[john_macpherson]

......looking to obtain a new G5 myself and found cheapest price (so far) here:

 

http://www.unbeatable.co.uk/

 

and for memory so far best deal seems to be here:

 

http://www.offtek.co.uk

 

Certainly the prices were very competitive for the configurations I am after.

 

Might be worth a look Nicholas.

 

PS I have no connection with either.

www.john-macpherson-photography.com

[david_f._stein]

Take a look at the basic OS 9 or OS X screen shot versus the basic Windows screen shot and that's all you need to know. OS X is one of the most powerful, robust and elegant operating systems ever created. While things are evening out, Apple has always already had everything in the box - sound, color management (ColorSync), movies (QuickTime), the computer speaks, Firewire, ethernet, now, firewall, Apache server system, pdf printing integration, etc. etc. etc. I have connected dozens of peripherals to Macs with first-time success. I just added DSL to a 8-year-old Mac. Guess what, ethernet was already on board! The real difference that doesn't get mentioned is that the Mac has always had superior cursor movement and proprioception. I believe it still does. I cringe when I see folks in everyday business settings struggle with the mouse. The Mac was designed to a different gestalt-multitaking; pattern recognition; non-verbal intelligence way before we discussed those concepts. Other than that-you can do most anything you want on either platform and if you know how to custom build your rig (processors, motherboards, power supplies, cases, etc.), the PC platform is likely more affordable and offers more options for Power Users. ENJOY.

[ken_hughes4]

"except where to find an unbiassed opion on Mac (not MAC..... ;) ) vs. PC. For that opinion you need photo.net "

 

oh no, there are no biased opinions here on photo.net....