IBM versus Apple

petequinn · August 25, 2005

Hmmm...Scott maybe you are onto something with the comment about pros running W2K.

Microsoft has always been about 5 years behind with their GUI code anyway. But seriously,

when you walk into a Starbucks and see those glowing apples, deep down you know those

are the cool people, right? I mean really, pulling out the "server farm" comment. That's

easy. Apple XServers don't need support. They just work! Trust me, you sounded like an

IT geek.- That was for the "its no compliment" remark. Do we really need to insult people

who are just asking for advice?

Alright, seriously I apologize Scott. It's late. As for expensive, maybe so, but I figure I'll

save the difference in IT support phone calls and time wasted fixing things. Again, my

opinion is based on 20 years of working with both platfroms and how they have performed

for me. It comes down to what Nate

wants to do with it. For graphics, that is what image editing of digital photos is right, I

think Macs are far easier to use, more stable and since there aren't 10,000 different

companies assembling the cheapest components they can piece together to build a box,

inherently more standardized across the line. Windows has the lead in a lot of areas, but

not graphics.

Pete

erick_kyogoku · August 25, 2005

Speaking as a person who used to build IBM PCs and was a fan of Windows in the old days,

I can testify to the fact that switching to Mac is perhaps the smartest thing I've ever done.

I've persuaded many friends and family to do so, and all of them have been exceedingly

happy with their switch. Macs have the higher entry price. Of course they also have

higher quality components across the board, but in terms of total cost of ownership Macs

provide better value. My dad just junked his P4 Dell from 2002 and replaced it with a

processor upgraded PowerMac G4 that I bought in 1999 and runs better than the 2002 P4

Dell. He was sick of malware, security updates, and the experience of using a piece of

junk every day. Within a year Apple will swich to Intel chips, but if you need a computer

now, get a Mac. I just bought a G5 iMac two weeks ago and aside from being a work of

art, it's a dream to use. It will do anything a PC can do but in a refined and elegant way.

Compare this to driving a BMW versus a Ford Fiesta. They'll both take you from point A to

B but there is something more to the experience. Yeah, it's that nice on a Mac. By far the

most compelling reason to switch is the Mac OS. Solid, elegant, dependable, and easy. In

other words everything that a Windows machine is not. One has to own a Mac for a few

months to understand this... Good luck, you won't regret the switch! But wait until the

Paris Macworld Expo in late September. We expect there to be speed-bumped and

otherwise cheaper or improved versions of the Powerbook released at that show. Hope

that helps.

basscheffers · August 25, 2005

OS X has a full Unix under the hood, get it and you won't want to reach for Linux anymore. (I still run Linux on my home server, but hope to switch that to OS X once it either runs os x86 or I retire my Mac Mini for an upgrade)

Even though Windows never gave me too much trouble, I "switched" a couple of months ago and can thoroughly recomend it; Mac OS is just very nice. And "it just works" isn't just a marketing slogan.

mark_houlder2 · August 25, 2005

I love my T41 IBM Thinkpad - it's build quality is the best I've seen for a (recent) laptop (Apple included), the keyboard is the best I've ever used (including any desktop keyboards) and the LCD screen is second only to Sony Onyx and Apple's LCDs.

Having said all that, if you want a laptop for photo editing and you can afford a Mac, then get one. OSX has the best Desktop out there at the moment, is far more stable than windows is ever likely to be, and has all the software you could wish for in the imaging field. And don't bother running linux on a Mac - why spend the money for the best desktop available and then use a poor imitation? I dual-boot linux/winXP on my T41 but if i had OSX i'd probably never use either. Linux does run great on powerpc (Mac), but it's like buying a mercedes and then replacing the engine with a home-built one.

As far as the Gimp goes, I like it. But it's not photoshop - it's slower, and has no 16-bit support. I'm a software developer and use the Gimp a lot for web work, as I prefer linux to windows for a work environment. But if i'm editing photos, photoshop wins hands down. I prefer gimp's GUI (just more used to it), I like that it's free, and it does what it does well. But photoshop does it better and faster.

Of course, you may have other considerations which would favour a PC - but from what you've said, I'd go with the Mac every time.

tedharris · August 25, 2005

I tend to agree with the general thrust of most of the responses that OSX and a Mac is the

way to go. In my studio we have 4 mac's and one PC. One thing that no one has

addressed so far is the effigacy of a laptop as your primary machine to run Photoshop ....

it does present a memory problem.

One of the biggest advantages of the new Photoshop CS2 is that it breaks through the 2

GB memory barrier. It is capable of addressing as much as 3.5 GB of RAM. Unfortunately,

AFAIK none of the notebooks on the market (neither Mac nor PC) are equipped to handle

more than 2 GB (maye more on some high end 64bit windows machnies). You need a G5

Powermac with at least 5 GB of RAM to take full advantage of the power of Photoshop CS2.

If this is not a concern then go with the Powerbook. BTW, I use a 12" Powerbook all the

time for rough image editing when I am on the road.

jbq · August 25, 2005

In addition to what Kelly said, I'll add that laptop often have slower transfer rates to main memory, since fast communication between chips actually a fairly major power user. For applications like image processing which moves a lot of data around that can be a drag.

kelly_flanigan1 · August 25, 2005

Several of the RIP's we run for printing just use NT3.51. Apple never had any support for our RIP. Theses NT boxes have never required any upgrades at all since bought when new. Apple groupies dont want to hear that a PC with NT has gone almost a decade with not popping the hood; with nopgrades; and only requiring reboots when the office was moved. Several other B&W print stations I run just use DOS; the same program since 1992 has been used faster boxes with no updates. In printing there is no need to waste money on a flash box that doesnt work any quicker. What matters is robustness; having multiple computers; having stuff last. Some printers with public storefronts have Mac and PC's for customers; and all the stuff behind the counter is PC based. If you deal with printing CAD files; many require one to fiddle with lineweights; layers; missing proxy objects; missing Xref's; fiddling with colors; model space; paper space; etc. Alot of these engineering programs are not on the Mac; more so if not that common. Some printing customers require one to have a copy of the survey or Cad program; to fiddle with the settings; when they vist; or a rush job looks wrong. If you deal with programs besides photo stuff for printing; see if the/your Mac has a convertor; or the program is Mac supported.

basscheffers · August 25, 2005

Kelly, most NT boxes never required any work, unless they ran too many or too dodgy applications. It's mostly 2000 and XP that required constant patching - usualy followed by a reboot - though more so in a "daily use generic workstation" situation than what you use your boxes for. I would say that for all it's shortcommings, an NT4 SP4 box is probably one of the most stable operating systems around, given the application behaves.

Don't get me started on 95/98/Me, obviously they deserve everything bad said about their stability and performance.

Macs have service packs and security patches or bugfixes too, but luckily those are just a download, followed by a few seconds to minutes (in the case of service pack) of copying and then a (rarely required) reboot. I a for one am glad I never have to spend another hour or more waiting for Windows to install a service pack and all the updates that followed it. :)

NT (especialy 3.51) is now so old that it is virtualy impossible to install it on newer hardware, so when those boxes die... I hope you have spares that you can get NT working on or an upgrade strategy!

ellis_vener_photography · August 25, 2005

Ellis is wrong - Apple *does not* have a better industry record in terms of repair when

it comes to their portables vs IBM Thinkpads.Ellis is right becasue I never made a

claim about "industry records" so yo uare holding my comments to a different standard

than the one Iused in replying to the earlier comment. I cited a single, specific instance of

someone I know who switched from Thinkpads to a G4 Powerbook because of the

problems she was having with the Thinkpads and her subsequent experience with the

Powerbook. She travels frequently and internationally and works her computers as hard or

harder than anyone else I know.Also isn't it the case that IBM recently sold their

computer manufacturing division?

ellis_vener_photography · August 25, 2005