The Old question ... Mac vs. PC what do I do?

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>I've been hearing this since the 80's so please settle down, the sky is not falling and you're just repeating your ignorance, Daniel.</em></p>

<p>Let's take a look at some of the ignorant things you said in your post.</p>

<p>First of all, this is not the 1980's. We live in an interconnected world where malware can spread rapidly, crippling systems or harvesting private information along the way. In the 1980's there might have been a few hundred viruses, and there was no real threat of spyware or of a 3rd party controlling your computer for their purposes because the Internet was not in wide use. Viruses were written by hackers mainly for show, and they spread very slowly if at all.</p>

<p>There are now hundreds of thousands of viruses with very targetted goals. How do you think DoS attacks are orchestrated against large targets? How do you think spam is broadcast, or illegal files distributed? Zombie PCs for the most part. Was any of that a threat in the 1980's? New malware now appears at a rate faster than AV developers can keep up with. Did that happen at any time in the 1980's? Today private information is routinely harvested by spyware and used by 3rd parties. The term wasn't even in existence in the 1980's. (It's first use was in 1995, and it was the late 1990's when the spyware world exploded and became a serious threat.)</p>

<p>The landscape is nothing like it was back in the 1980's. Whatever you heard in the 1980's has no bearing on today. And nobody should be listening to someone whose security knowledge comes from the 1980's.</p>

<p><em>The same design principles that allow anyone, you, me, to write legit software for PC (thumbs up) are the same ones that allow people take advantage to write malicious code.</em></p>

<p>This is absolutely false. The Windows "design principles" (i.e. security errors) which allow malware to self install, control a machine, and spread like wild fire are not required by any legitimate software.</p>

<p><em>The alternative, your alternative, is to have a closed OS like Unix and have everything approved (like it is with Mac) before being released.</em></p>

<p>UNIX a closed system? Mac software requires Apple approval? LOL! Garrison, you don't even begin to know what you're talking about.</p>

<p>You can get the source code to just about any flavor of UNIX, including the Darwin core of Mac OS X. UNIX is all about open source and open standards that people can easily access and contribute to. Can you get any of the source code to Windows? Nope. Can you contribute code and APIs to Windows? Nope. Which one is closed again?</p>

<p>As for Apple, you can ship your Mac applications at any time without Apple knowing or caring. Apple does not "require approval" of Mac apps in any way, shape, or form.</p>

<p>I can't believe I'm debating security with someone who thinks UNIX is closed and Apple approves Mac software...</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>Ubuntu rules. I run the 64-bit version of it and it's so fast.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Build the PC yourself. </em> <br /> <em>Yes, this is really the only way to buy a computer and get what you want without getting ripped off.</em></p>

<p>I disagree. My time is worth more than the premium spent on buying a built computer from a manufacturer with a good reputation and warranty. That's true for most people. Besides, notebooks are now more popular than desktops, and you can't build something like a Unibody MacBook.<br>

<br /> <em>Install Ubuntu - it gets updated all the time, is as virus-safe as it gets, and will still run Photoshop CS3 and other Windows apps just fine with Wine. Oh, and it's <strong>free</strong> . And, contrary to popular belief, it really is no less user friendly than Mac or Windows.</em></p>

<p>Wine is very hit or miss. There are commercial packages built on Wine that offer greater compatibility than Wine by itself, and even those are far short of what's needed. I've looked into Wine a couple times for clients and it never measured up. In both cases the clients went with virtual machines instead. We're not talking about obscure software that they needed to run either.</p>

<p>And this is one time I will have to go with popular belief: Linux is not as easy to use as Mac OS X, or even Windows. Linux can be a real pain when it comes to software installation, compatibility, and maintenance. Sometimes a task in Linux is as easy as navigating a GUI, and other times it requires command line and configuration file nonsense that only a dateless nerd could appreciate. Stuff that would make the eyes of a Windows expert glaze over. Linux is never going to succeed on the desktop until it becomes easier to use across the entire OS, all tasks, applications, and configuration options.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>opps, sorry Daniel, I ment Mac's version of Unix, not Unix in general. But you probably knew that.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Where's the OFF buttom for this thread?</p>

[thomas_newhouse]

<p><em> you can't build something like a Unibody MacBook.</em> <br /> <br /> I certainly agree with that. I believe that the lower-end Macbooks are absolutely worth the cost for such a beatiful machine. They truly are a work of art. And tough too!<br>

<br /> <em>Linux can be a real pain when it comes to software installation, compatibility, and maintenance. </em><br>

<br /> Not with modern mainstream distros. With Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, etc. you will have a package manager that takes care of all the software installation. In fact, I think there's no easier way to install software. You go to "Add/remove programs," search for the ones you'd like, select them, and press "install."<br /> Ubuntu also automates installing updates, just like Windows or Mac. I almost never <em>need</em> to use command line - I only do when it makes things more simple for me. I use command prompts in Windows and Mac OS similarly often.<br /> Wine, for a photographer, will work fine with Photoshop CS3. Not sure about Lightroom. And, as you mentioned, running a virtual Windows machine inside Linux is simple as well if needed.<br /> I understand Linux is not for everybody, but it is great for a many. And it can save a whole lot of money too compared to purchasing equivalent software (I'm happy with GIMP over Photoshop the majority of the time).</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Not with modern mainstream distros. With Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, etc. you will have a package manager that takes care of all the software installation. In fact, I think there's no easier way to install software. You go to "Add/remove programs," search for the ones you'd like, select them, and press "install."</em></p>

<p>Ever have that go wrong? :-) I have. The fact that you need a "package manager" hints at an underlying design philosophy that did not put ease of use first and foremost. Same thing with Windows Add/Remove control panel and over reliance on installers. Apple got this stuff right back in 1984. Ideally an application should be a self contained icon that you drag/drop to install or remove. Likewise with OS additions. (Unfortunately Apple lost this as far as the OS is concerned when moving to X.)<br>

<br /> <em>Wine, for a photographer, will work fine with Photoshop CS3. Not sure about Lightroom. And, as you mentioned, running a virtual Windows machine inside Linux is simple as well if needed.</em></p>

<p>Granted.</p>

<p><em>I understand Linux is not for everybody, but it is great for a many. And it can save a whole lot of money too compared to purchasing equivalent software (I'm happy with GIMP over Photoshop the majority of the time).</em></p>

<p>I can agree with that.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"What if I get a Mac, then it breaks down ?"</p>

<p>You could buy a Dell instead and spend your time talking to techs in India. And they'll mail you parts if anything needs to be replaced. Been there, done that. Never again!</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>So Jacques, it looks like it's working well now. That's great, you probably saved yourself some cash. I thinkk it will probably last for more than 6 mos. <br>

Every other opinion here about mac/pc has been stated many times this year. I just was pointing out that according to the terms of service, we are suppose to search threads for similar topics before starting a new one. Just saves bandwidth.<br>

So other than that, I would say that when you really do need a new computer, the answer is obvious. Mac ;>P</p>

 

[leighmcmullen]

<p>Before I start, I need full disclosure, I write for the Cult of Mac blog (http://cultofmac.com), so I have a pretty clear bias on the topic....<br>

------------------<br>

Short answer to your question: "Should I switch from a PC to a Mac?": <em><strong>NO!</strong> </em><br>

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

Seriously, <strong>just don't</strong> . Vast proliferation of iPhones into the hands of toothless Appalachian Hillbillies has so intruded into the "Macintosh Cool Kids Club" (or as we at the Cult refer to it, "The Cult"), I just don't think I could stand the notion of another PC user hitting up the forums asking how to right click on a mouse with just one button. </p>

<p>Really, <em>Stay with the PC</em> . It will be fine. You can run Lightroom on it, and Microsoft PROMISES, Windows 7 will be better, safter, and more stable, and you can take the money you'd save and buy yourself a Zune or something.</p>

 

[ts_low]

<p>I was at a pro photo forum in NY a few years back to do with a gallery opening. I was there for a reason totally unrelated to photography. I had the opportunity to stick my head in listen to folks and see some presentations. Lucky me.<br>

As part of their gear, every pro photographer now universally has a laptop. I saw no PC's. Every single laptop was a Mac running PS or Aperture. They had their pro photo gear and Macs all around. We are talking maybe 60 photographers for fashion and journalism (Magnum folks), and not a single Windows machine in sight.<br>

They say if you want to shoot like a pro, use pro equipment. OK, we get it. Well, if you follow the equipment trend, pro photographers use Macs. Every single ad agency I've been in uses Macs. I've worked in film and advertising for 20 years and the Mac installed base has waxed and waned, but now it is on a major upswing, largely because it has cachet, but also on its technical merits. It's a pro package and you know what you get.<br>

It's not PC versus Mac. It's pro versus something else.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p><em>As part of their gear, every pro photographer now universally has a laptop. I saw no PC's. Every single laptop was a Mac running PS or Aperture. They had their pro photo gear and Macs all around. We are talking maybe 60 photographers for fashion and journalism (Magnum folks), and not a single Windows machine in sight.</em></p>

<p>Not a single one, eh? Don't know about the rest of you still tuned in, but I don't buy it.</p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>"The ironing is delicious!" - Bart Simpson</p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>I don't know whether to laugh or cry; the way people form emotional attachments to temporary machines is unhelpful to everyone, especially themselves. </p>

<p>"The important thing to remember is that peace comes from within your own heart and mind, not from some outside source, and when you refuse to be disturbed by things about you, life will flood your being with dynamic energy." <br />--Anonymous</p>

<p>"If only I could throw away the urge to trace my patterns in your heart, I could really see you." --David Brandon (Zen in the Art of Helping)</p>

<p>"Your worst enemy cannot harm you as much as your own unguarded thoughts. Develop the mind of equilibrium. You will always be getting praise and blame, but do not let either affect the poise of the mind: follow the calmness, <strong><em>the absence of pride</em></strong>." --Sutta Nipata</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>"Hi, I'm a Mac." -- Mac</p>

<p>"And I'm a PC." -- PC</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>(Sorry Brad, I couldn't resist ;-)</p>

[godfrey]

<p><strong><em>Mac vs PC ... what to do? </em></strong></p>

<p>Shoot film. Process in a wet darkroom, print in a wet darkroom. Stay happy. ;-)</p>

[jane_rickard]

<p>We have a two platform household, my husband a true geek and writer loves his PC and Windows, I have a Mac. Every day I go off t work and use PCs and Windows programing and am well versed in both platforms. The biggest problem I have moving between platforms is that Mac "simplifies" things for a user. Answers can be right there and if you are thinking in Windows you will be looking at trees and missing the entire forest. For example, why is there no number loc key on the Mac keyboard? It is on all the time, so it is not necessary.<br>

When I got a chance to go back to a Mac for photography I ran to it! There are great things going for Windows, the poster who said the issue was much like the eternal Canon vs Nikon argument has it right. It is what machine is right for YOU. The only thing I would suggest is to look at both the iBook and iMac as in time you will probably want a portable unit to go along with your desktop. Pretty is as pretty does and make sure that is a fit to if you decide to swing the Mac way.<br>

Macs seem to inspire a cult like following all over the world, honestly, there has to be a reason for it. Find an Apple Store, friendly Mac owner or a machine somewhere and play with the beast and find out why. There is a reason for such loyalty, you just need to find out if you are an Apple or an orange.</p>

[lee_bown]

<p>After years of performance and stability issues with Windows computers i bought a MacBook Pro 2.66ghz/4GB RAM last weekend.<br>

It might be early days, but i wish i had bought Mac sooner. It's fast, easy to configure and runs all my editing software smoothly. </p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>"Future PC just froze." - Justin Long</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I have 2 macs and 2 PC's, I like them both but for different things. I would definitely recommend a Mac for photo and video processing provided you don't have a huge investment in Windows based software. I use my Mac exclusively for photography. It seems to do a nice job and the 24" LCD monitor is not only useful being that large, it has great color and depth. I also have a laptop but I don't do a lot of post on it.</p>

[brad_smith8]

<blockquote>

<p>Bad choice, imo. XP-64 isn't updated by MS anymore.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm. It still updates for me via Windows update. All XP versions will be officially supported by MS (including updates) until 2014.</p>

<p>I agree about Win7. It is just so fast, easy and intuitive. Put a 64 bit i7 system together with lots of RAM (I build my own for my precise needs without wasting money). You'll wait for nothing anymore (except video encoding/decoding which takes far less time). It's nice that when it will be released in Oct. we can take advantage of the $50 upgrade directly from the pre-release version without having to re-install our old XP/Vista discs.<br />-----------------------------------<br />The hardware's the same folks. Jerks write viruses and malware for Windows so it will spread faster via the larger user base. But with up-to-date protection it's not a problem.</p>

<p>And as soon as Adobe releases a 64 bit version for the Mac, then it's all down to OS preference - if we're only talking about photography. That's the <strong><em>only</em></strong> real difference for photographers.</p>

<p>So why are we arguing personal preference? I like tea better than coffee. That argument would have just as much meaning here (none).</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>Both systems are highly useable. If I had not just been "streamlined" (another politcally correct term for layoffs) I would be buying a 24" iMac just for photography, but I would continue to use PCs.</p>

<p>Give this a try:</p>

<p>Go to the Apple website and configure an iMac That is easy and you know just waht you are getting.</p>

<p>Now, go to the Dell website and try to configure a Dell with similar specifications. Difficult...isn't it?</p>

<p>I am not saying that configuring a Dell with a multitude of options is a bad thing. Not at all. Some will like the simplicity of the iMac. Starting price will be higher, but it basically has everything you need. The Dell will have many options. Prices may start low but you need to know what you are doing to get one configured correctly and with a graphics card to meet your needs.</p>

<p>One thing to watch out for with Dell: if you configure a new computer you may have discounts added. If you go back in and reconfigure the same computer, you may get a higher price as the discount no longer applies. If this happens...remove the dam cookie Dell has added and try again. This is one nasty little trick that Dell tries to pull on its customers.</p>

<p> </p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>The hardware's the same folks. Jerks write viruses and malware for Windows so it will spread faster via the larger user base. But with up-to-date protection it's not a problem.</em></p>

<p>I realize I'm repeating myself here, but I can't believe the common misconceptions out there about Windows security. Jerks write malware for Windows because they can. Windows has more security holes and exploitation points than the other OSes by several orders of magnitude. I would guess that about 98% of the malware for Windows simply could not be ported to Mac OS X, Unix, or Linux even if the malware authors were desperate to do so because the holes they exploited don't exist on those OSes.</p>

<p>Up to date AV software helps, but is no guarantee. I've cleaned plenty of systems with up to date AV that none the less had been compromised.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>You pay a premium for MAC accessory items (monitors, memory, hard drives, etc.) As an example, the same OEM manufacturer that provides monitors to Apple also supplies Dell and others. The Dell Ultrasharp 24" is essentially the same guts as the MAC 24" Cinema display except the Dell has superior I/O capability, a three year advanced exchange warranty and sells typically for about $450.00 discounted. The Apple version now has LED backlighting which essentially brings nothing to the party. If housing the guts in a stylish aluminum case and paying for $800 or so for a monitor with a one year warranty and the Apple logo is important, then that is what you should get.</p>