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

[bill_dewberry]

<p>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 ?</p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>Or you could run Windows via Bootcamp and have an actual Windows computer without the emulation software.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=299288">Barry Fisher</a> 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?</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em>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?</em><br>

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.</p>

<p>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".</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=760139">Patrick Lavoie</a> 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</em></p>

<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.</p>

<p> </p>

<p ><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3917203">Nolax Montemar</a> , Feb 25, 2009; 09:08 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>my question is, is there anybody who is a windows user that have tried MAC , and concluded that window is better than MAC?</em></p>

 

<p>me. Mac's are icky. I jumped ship when they were down to 3% of market share and almost filed for chapter 11.</p>

<p><em>More photo software</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>(Robert Morehouse wrote: "There have been recent trojans released that attack Mac OS, but there is no virus that will effect Mac OS X.")</p>

<p>Robert, you omitted one word from your sentence..."yet". Give it time. You cannot say that with any certainty.</p>

<p>Also, you used the word "effect" instead of the word "affect". You should learn the difference.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

 

[philip_roberts1]

<p>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!</p>

[sutejok]

<p>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. </p>

<p>Mac is cute tho. </p>

[poppasea]

<p>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.</p>

[paul_alford]

<p>>>>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?</p>

<p>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.<br>

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!</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I wear Eccos too, and Rieker, but what's you point Brad? Ever heard the term comparing Apples and Pears?</p>

<p>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). </p>

[paul_alford]

<p>>>>Nolax said: But it's true, look it up.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[paul_alford]

<p>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).</p>

<p><strong>$8,748.00 WHATTTTTTTTTTTTT!</strong> <br>

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. <strong>$8,748.00 you're having a laugh Mr Jobs</strong></p>

[howard_owen]

<blockquote>

<p>Owned PC's for years. Every 90 days a trip to the computer shop to fix a glitch.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

[paul_alford]

<p>>>>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.</p>

<p>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)</p>

<p>Mr Jobs, how do you sleep at night...</p>

[bmoorhouse]

<p>Steve C,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>With or without "yet", my earlier answer is still write, "there are know known Mac OS virus that effects Mac OS." </p>

<p>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.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>"..they're just too stupid to see through the Apple hype.."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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)</p>

<p>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?</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>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.<br /> 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.</p>

[paul_alford]

<p>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.</p>

<p>It beggers belief.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>And finally, do you really think 7 out of 10 cars on American roads are 4x4's?</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>Hello gang, looks we got old fanny battle going again, original post was forgotten.<br>

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.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<br>

<strong><br /> </strong><br>

<strong>"..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..."</strong></p>

<p>Now whe are talking about liberty of speach and PC ellitist here or what?<br>

<strong><br /> </strong><br>

<strong>"..Buying a Mac over a PC will NOT further he photographic career.."</strong></p>

<p>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.<br>

<strong><br /> </strong><br>

<strong>"..why, if the Mac is so superior it has less than 10% market share.."</strong></p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>Charmain, im sure you got what you need to make a stupid or not choice ; )</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>I don't trust drives or dvd's; so i do both :)</p>

<p><em>It really is OSX.</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em>I cannot believe you or any other in the Mac camp would even suggest she spends the money on a Mac</em></p>

<p>I kinda agree with this. There's bigger priorities for a new photographer and a PC for cheaper makes sense.</p>

<p><em>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?</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[ron_scubadiver1]

<p>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.<br>

As far as desktop vs notebook goes, I will take a notebook any day, no matter what OS it runs.</p>

[marissa_cassidy]

<p>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.<br>

There's a reason any department that deals with design work at my University has Macs, across the board.</p>

[john_remington2]

<p>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.</p>

[david_barts2]

<blockquote>

<p>You will never persuade the smug Mac acolytes that they are paying through the nose for the myth of superiority,</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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".</p>