# What kind of Computer to buy



## atseeyob (Oct 31, 2007)

I am a window person, and I am about to buy a new computer mainly for my photography use. Many people advising me to get Mac. What do you think I should get? If your suggestion is also Mac, what is the advantage of Mac when it comes to photography? My wife has a laptop (WindowXP) so I can use that for all other needs. Please let me know also about the learning curve. Thanks a lot.


----------



## NoNameFace (Oct 31, 2007)

For me, there's nothing much of a difference when it comes to photography because it still depends on the specs of your hardware whether it is a Windows PC or a MAC. But for the reason that you already have a Windows PC, you could go for MAC for change.  i hope i've help you on this.


----------



## patrickt (Oct 31, 2007)

If you want to get an Apple, get one. I don't think it's a big shock that they both do photo editing. You might even try searching since I'm pretty sure the Apple vs. Windows issue just might possibly have been discussed before.


----------



## smcaskil (Oct 31, 2007)

MACs have always been traditionally used more by graphics folks, since they have better graphics and displays than most PC computers standard.

The computer also comes with iPhoto, which is photo manipulation software.  I have not used it, so someone with experience with it can give you more advice on that.  There are also a good many photo and graphics programs made my Apple for their systems.

I too have been a Windows guys for the last 12 years and plan on getting a MAC in the next year or so, primarily because I am sick of fighting Windows updates and software glitches, but also because as I get more into photography, I think it will handle the memory requirements better than my laptop.

As far as learning curves, if you purchase your MAC at one of the Apple Stores, they can assist you with classes, help you transfer your data from your old Windows computer to the new one, and pretty much anything else you'd want to know.  You can schedule appointments with them, so you can do it on your time and know you will have someone there that knows what they are talking about, instead of having to take your chances like at a big box store.


----------



## sabbath999 (Oct 31, 2007)

I am a system administrator for a 70+ Windows computers & 4 Windows 2003 servers by day, but when I go home at night I want to see nothing but Mac.

To me, somebody who uses Windows at a high level for 8+ hours a day, there is absolutely, positively no comparison in quality between the Windows OS (be it the now somewhat stable XP... stable after 7 years of release that is) and the abomination that is Windows Vista... an absolutely AWFUL operating system, across the board.

Instead of going on and on about it, let me just give you this link, the guy echos my thoughts very well:

Cnet: Leopard OS Embarrasses Windows Vista


----------



## Fliphishermon (Oct 31, 2007)

I, too, am a long time geek. I started in the Novell environment with DOS workstations, was unable to avoid the M$ marketing behemouth, have been forced to move over to the Windows server side, and of course run whatever the latest M$ operating system is on the desktop ("Because we _need _to upgrade!" says the clueless CEO.)

Throughout my experience it has been a given that for those doing graphics, Macs are the platform of choice. I've been at several non-profits where all the pulications folks are running Macs while all the paper pushers are on pcs.

Why? Many and varied reasons. But just ask graphics professionals. Most go with Macs.


----------



## Urban Grimshaw (Nov 1, 2007)

Macs are traditionally used for graphics, unlike Windows they were designed for that purpose. They had their own market and Windows had theirs.

That's not true anymore. Most Mac v PC arguments are outdated by 15/20 years. Technology moves fast, multimedia capabilities are now expected in all home computers and they both perform as well as each other (obviously depending on specs).

Macs are still used heavilly in the graphic design industry, designers have become comfortable with them and they'll defend Apple with their lives, but I see it as nothing more than brand conditioning. 

So long as they're finely tuned, PCs are more stable than they ever were (admittedly I've not used Vista yet), and although that's the only real argument I'm open to, last time I turned a Mac on, it crashed.

To me, it's 6 or two 3s. Depends on your preference and what your comfortable with. Macs are generally easy to use, set up nicely and take very little tinkering. PCs are sometimes a bit of work, but if you're used to that then it can be to your advantage. The computing power and multimedia capabilities of both machines are almost identical.


----------



## morydd (Nov 1, 2007)

My point of view is that the quality difference in OS's isn't enough to make that my deciding point. I can get two good PC's for less than the price of a good Mac. I can put linux on the PC's and get 10 years of life out of them. I can get a decent PC from a friend who's "upgrading" and with Linux get 5 years out of the "old" system for free. The price difference between PC hardware and Mac hardware is, in my mind, better spent on other things like lenses and toys. Plus I like to tinker. If I need better graphics, on a PC, I can buy a new graphics card and throw it in. That said, if someone was going to give me a mac, I wouldn't turn it down. (But then I run 2 versions of Windows and 3 different linux distros at home.)


----------



## ZedU54 (Nov 1, 2007)

...I have nothing against Macs, but I've always used PCs; they've been more 'accessible'...that said, Macs were always better suited for graphics, etc., if you could afford them and find the software (Mac-compatible software has never been anywhere near as readily available as PC-compatible)...and let's not forget that Adobe (makers of the Photoshop family) was originally a Mac-oriented software company...
...and the more I hear about Vista, the happier I am that I stuck with XP...


----------



## elsaspet (Nov 1, 2007)

I know nada about computers.........so I went to a computer store, told them what I do for a living, and tolding them I needed something blinding fast.
Maybe not the best approach.
I got a great computer for my needs but I prolly paid too much.
I'm sure that's not very helpful.   Just reminising.


----------



## usayit (Nov 1, 2007)

Windows... 
um
Mac!!!!  Definitely Mac!!
ah.. on second thought
Windows!!! yeh.. windows...
hmm after sleeping on it... MAC

Ah. man.. just flip a coin and load up on memory on whatever you end up with.  Then make sure you attach a really good quality display and a display calibration tool.








btw... Mac all the WAY!!!!


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 1, 2007)

morydd said:


> (But then I run 2 versions of Windows and 3 different linux distros at home.)



You can run two different versions of windows and 3 different windows distros on a Mac SIMULTANIOUSLY at full speed, while running photoshop in OSX. 

Try that on a PC.


----------



## Sideburns (Nov 1, 2007)

I agree.  Flip a coin, really.
I'll recommend PC because it's cheaper though.  Apple is severely overpriced.
If you go go Mac, get OS X leopard.  It's coming out soon (or just came out...not sure)

I own both, and I must say I do all my photography work on my PC.

But I won't lie...I would never really recommend BUYING any PC.  Build it yourself, or don't get one at all.  If you don't think you can build it, read up for a day or two...it's really like putting together a puzzle (except it all only fits one way)


----------



## Sideburns (Nov 1, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> You can run two different versions of windows and 3 different windows distros on a Mac SIMULTANIOUSLY at full speed, while running photoshop in OSX.
> 
> Try that on a PC.



You're too quick for me to reply to you as well.

You can. lol.  I'm not sure what you mean by windows distros..I'm assuming you meant linux.

However, I will say you can do that and more.  Neither Mac nor Windows has any REAL advantages over each other...other than Windows XP has DirectX9 and Vista DirectX10...but that only matters in games really...


----------



## Buszaj (Nov 1, 2007)

Or, you can do Mac and Windows on a PC. It's tricky, but can be done. But, you can also run Windows on Mac, so Mac is a good choice for sure.


----------



## fightheheathens (Nov 1, 2007)

i paid 2,000 bucks for a PC that is pretty fast. (i can run photoshop, while ripping CD's to itunes and browsing the internet). for an Apple with similar memmory, processor, graphics card, screen etc, i would have been looking at a 4,500 buck computer...for someone 1 year out of college that choice was pretty easy.

too bad, too, i would have rather had the Apple


----------



## Buszaj (Nov 1, 2007)

fightheheathens said:


> i paid 2,000 bucks for a PC that is pretty fast. (i can run photoshop, while ripping CD's to itunes and browsing the internet). for an Apple with similar memmory, processor, graphics card, screen etc, i would have been looking at a 4,500 buck computer...for someone 1 year out of college that choice was pretty easy.



That is definitely very true. If you were to get an apple computer with the exact same hardware specs, you would be paying a lot more. But I guess some of the programs and the OS pay off.


----------



## doobs (Nov 1, 2007)

You can build a better PC for much cheaper than a Mac. 

I prefer PC, anywho.


----------



## jepry (Nov 1, 2007)

I have used PC's all my life and just bought a 15" MacBook Pro.  I have had it for about 3 weeks and since then have never gone back to my PC.  I got tired of all the errors and "thinking" breaks, restarting, and maintenance just to keep it working normally, etc.  My Mac just works.  Now I laugh everytime I hear my wife (who still uses the PC) yell out "hey what does this error code window mean?"

Mac's are significantly more expensive but if you can afford it....GET IT!!!


----------



## prairiewindlady (Nov 1, 2007)

I am majoring in Communications and minoring in Photography in college right now - at school they use a lot of Macs, but although I have spent a lot of time on Macs and know how to use them, I find that my laptop delivers above and beyond them (I have a Gateway computer w/Windows XP).


----------



## DSLR noob (Nov 1, 2007)

well if you're not building your own PC and getting your hands on a copy of XP, get a Mac. get 2 GB of RAM at least and budget the $600 photoshop CS3 in your price and you'll have a killer editor. Buying a new Vista machine will drive you mad.


----------



## Sideburns (Nov 1, 2007)

jepry said:


> I have used PC's all my life and just bought a 15" MacBook Pro.  I have had it for about 3 weeks and since then have never gone back to my PC.  I got tired of all the errors and "thinking" breaks, restarting, and maintenance just to keep it working normally, etc.  My Mac just works.  Now I laugh everytime I hear my wife (who still uses the PC) yell out "hey what does this error code window mean?"
> 
> Mac's are significantly more expensive but if you can afford it....GET IT!!!



That is not hardware or software error.
That is user error.

I have never had a virus or any spyware.  I have never had a corruption, or serious error.
Any time I get a blue screen it was because I was tweaking around with something I shouldn't have even bothered to touch...lol.

If you take care of your computer, it will not have problems like that.

However, for the average consumer, somehow this is a difficult task...I'm not sure why.  Most computer smarts are just common sense.

There is no free stuff on the internet, that miracle program is not safe, and that free computer scanner, or memory fixer is a virus or spyware...

That's really most of what you need to know...lol.

I love my Mac, I love my PC...they're both great.  However, I find that my PC is far more functional when it gets down to working with photos.


----------



## Universal Polymath (Nov 1, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> I know nada about computers.........so I went to a computer store, told them what I do for a living, and tolding them I needed something blinding fast.
> Maybe not the best approach.
> I got a great computer for my needs but I prolly paid too much.
> I'm sure that's not very helpful.   Just reminising.



What _did _you end up with, just outa curiosity?


----------



## Iron Flatline (Nov 2, 2007)

I'm a Windows guy, but I just switched to Vista (bought a new PC for work stuff) and I must admit I hate it. My Photo Computer runs XP Pro, and I am NOT upgrading that one!

Once inside Photoshop or other apps they run the same - Photoshop is Photoshop. Regarding how they run, now that the OSs run on the same kernel and have a lot in common there are few clear advantages from one OS to the other. They look and feel very different though, and that matters a lot. 


Buy what you like - you're going to spend a LOT of time with it, make sure it's what you like. There IS something to be said though that a really nice Mac will buy you two good PCs. If you REALLY don't care very much, buy a PC from Dell and spend the money on photography gear instead.

May I suggest the following peripherals...:

Wacom - Intuos

Epson - R 2400


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 2, 2007)

I am a die-hard PC person.  To me Apple computers are computers with training wheels... lol.  As far as post processing, there is nothing you can do on a MAC that cannot be duplicated on a PC for the simple reason that the best program out there for PPing is CS3... and its 99% identical on a MAC or PC.  Speed?  They now use the same hardware... no difference there anymore.  

The biggest difference is sthat for a nice high end computer, it will cost you about $1000 more for an Apple computer for the same power level on a PC.  Monitor prices differences are even worse.

In the end none of that makes any difference... use what you are most comfortable with, you will accomplish exactly the same goals on either, given enough practice and learning time.

My advice is... since you already know the PC world... stick with it.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 2, 2007)

Sideburns said:


> That is not hardware or software error.
> That is user error.
> 
> I have never had a virus or any spyware. I have never had a corruption, or serious error.
> ...


 
Amen.  

I "do computers" for a living with over 25 years experience, I have perhaps 20-25 industry certifications, but 90% of computer maintenance is simple and mostly common sense:

- use and regularly update a good antivirus program daily
- use and regularly update a good antispam program daily
- defragment the hard drive every 2 weeks to a month
- run a good registry cleaner once a month
- stay away from the porn and other malicious websites

Using these tips, in 25 years I have yet to even see a virus on my system and it rolls as fast today as when I initially installed it over 2 years ago.


----------



## nossie (Nov 2, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> ...when I go home at night I want to see nothing but Mac.
> 
> To me, somebody who uses Windows at a high level for 8+ hours a day, there is absolutely, positively no comparison in quality between the Windows OS (be it the now somewhat stable XP... stable after 7 years of release that is) and the abomination that is Windows Vista... an absolutely AWFUL operating system, across the board.


_^^Right well I guess the developers at MS are just idiots and after years of feedback from 100,000s of customers they still don't know what to do. It's just typical that anytime something new comes along there's a truck load of moaners ready to ***** and ***** and ***** about it regardless of what it does. The little features that are built into Vista to serve amatuer pc users and protect them from the perils of the internet etc do often annoy advanced users (at first), therefore MS provides the facility to turn them off, and for that the nerds will winge about how crap it is. Yeah right!. _
_And as for the link you posted, it suggests that it's written by some little spot faced muppet that has simply surmised everything he knows. Look at the guys unsubstantciated qoutes "_my belief that Vista will soon bow to Leopard", "Microsoft Vista is nothing more than a public beta of an operating system", "The road ahead looks dangerous for Vista and Microsoft must realize that", utter stupidity talking. So much for the billions invested by MS, they should have just asked him what to do.


Well if it helps I just built a PC using hand picked parts based around the Intel QuadDuo CPU with 4 GB of fast ram running Vista64. So far nothing I do makes the CPU run at 100% for more than an instant. Rarely does it even peak at 50%. Vista64 is a superb OS, don't listen to moaners that can't get over a few little improvements/changes. You do need a powerful computer to run it and once it's setup you'll be very happy. I for one will only ever reluctantly go back to an older OS from here.

I can do all my photoshop CS3 work with RAW files and multiple layers completely smoothly while the antivirus is running in the background. I am using a 512mb video card which does a lot of the work too.
Money spent on the 30" monitor by Dell is justified but buying a Dell pc is suicidal.

If you can find an enthusiast to build a pc for you then that's what I recommend. I've used macs in a lithographic company that makes plates for printing and to be honest I wouldn't piss on one if it went on fire, I'd be satisfied that it was going in the bin. What idiot thought that only 1 button on a mouse is a good idea? 

And before all you Mac heads decide to have a go back at me, I've heard it all before and I'm not even here to listen. :chatty:

I'm sure in the end anything you buy will process the photos for you and a qoute from an accountancy book comes to mind "When businesses are selling the same products it's the customers perception that matters".

Oh and like Jerry I work hands on with PCs for far too long now.


----------



## usayit (Nov 2, 2007)

JerryPH said:


> I am a die-hard PC person.  To me Apple computers are computers with training wheels... lol.



Funny.. I've got significant experience in the large enterprise UNIX industry and we say the same about Windows/PCs.  

MAC OS X actually plays very well in a UNIX (and Linux) environment.. after all it is a BSD based core.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 2, 2007)

usayit said:


> Funny.. I've got significant experience in the large enterprise UNIX industry and we say the same about Windows/PCs.


 
Touché!! :mrgreen:

...and nossie, thats a little bit of that Irish fire showing a little, yes? 

:lmao:  :mrgreen:

Thats ok, I am sure that there are people that have had massively frustrating moments in both MAC and PC camps.

What ever works for you is the best personal option and I can respect either side's decision.


----------



## RacePhoto (Nov 2, 2007)

MS PC or Mac! I have PCs, stacks of them, I stuck with XP when I bought my video/photo system, because it runs the same software. Compatibility. You can still get XP until June 2008, don't get Vista... Yet! Give them another year in Beta to get the drivers supported and get the bugs out. 

I have Canon lenses, I stuck with Canon. Nikon makes great cameras too. If you had all Canon equipment, would you switch to Nikon, because they made a better TTL flash or Macro lens? Then why switch computer systems? If you are a Nikon shooter, would you switch to Canon because the new 1D Mark III has a GPS module?

Macs are great, fast, and every Mac user will tell you how they are the best in the world. (all 5% or the PC users in the world, who can't stop telling people how wonderful their Macs are for some reason.) Every wonder why there are only 5% of the PC users in the world running Macs, but every time you write a message, you'll get a flood of Mac defenders, writing that you want a Mac?

Go price Macs and I think you'll have your answer. If you can afford one, and don't mind buying all new software for everything you do, you'll be happy. Macs do run a version of Windows now, which is amusing, because if Macs did it all, why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac?

True, Macs are better, faster and designed for graphics. If that's all you are going to do on your computer, and you have money to spare, then buy one. If you want to run things that the other 95% of the world has available, you might want to stick with a Windows PC.

Is security a big issue? You don't run behind a firewall that's built into most routers? Buy a Mac!

Then I can throw in this wrench. Ubuntu or Linux are pretty good, offer all kinds of free software, and GIMP photo editing software, FREE! Want to learn a new OS?


----------



## N'Kolor (Nov 2, 2007)

Well lets see.  I use (and am currently on) a Mac at work.  I love Macs and there was a time all I had in my house was Macs (iMac G5 and MacBook Pro) but I sold my MacBook Pro to get a PC because I took up a job in traveling IT that didn't work out.  I do regret selling both my Macs but not really for reasons of photo editing but more reliability and virus reasons.

I currently only have one PC and in my opinion a Mac of equal specifications would run triple what I paid.  Mac's have become more affordable but their tower systems like the Mac Pro are way too expensive.

I currently have a Dell XPS with Core2Duo 2.66, 4GB RAM, 250GB 7200 RPM with a low end graphics card.  I plan to switch the graphics card in time but with photo editing, I really don't need to...only when I play certain graphic hog games.

I paid $900 for my system...something to consider.

I love Mac's, I have less problems with them but because I know them less when a problem arises, it is a big problem.  I run Vista and I miss XP and am considering going back to XP.  Vista is a hog of an operating system and if I could find good support and programs like PS for Linux I would convert.

Either way, the OS is only part of the computer...try to do a lot of PS on a Mac Mini and you will wishing for more.  My recommendation, get a GOOD computer that you can afford with good specs, no matter the operating system.


----------



## britonk (Nov 3, 2007)

I don't normally get to talk computers, which is my main subject, on this forum so I am going to take this opportunity.

I'm a programmer, I have a degree in computing and have been programming for 18 years. The battle between PCs and MACs has been raging for some years and whilst I am not a big MAC fan I would have to agree with sabbath that Windows Vista is truly awful.

Personally I would go with a PC as I believe them to be far more customizable and upgradeable. You then have the choice of OS for which I would recommend XP or some distribution of Linux (if you are reasonably technical) as efficiency wise it does wipe the floor with most of Microsofts software. You can also run the Gimp on Linux (in fact I think it comes with Ubuntu).

There I got it out of my system...


----------



## Fiendish Astronaut (Apr 28, 2008)

Just revisiting this thread after a search. I've been offered a second hand Powerbook from someonw who I know treats computers with knowledge and respect and it's a very good price. I need a good laptop to edit on the move and apart from the cost of getting a new version of CS3 and learning two sets of hot key shortcuts I'm thinking through the implications of having a Windows desktop (which I currently use) and a Mac laptop. Obviously not massively compatible!

Also I've read worrying things on Mac user forums about Leopard and CS3 not necessarily working well together. Obviously anyone with a problem is going to emerge onto Apple's user forums so does anyone know if it's really an issue?


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 28, 2008)

I bought my first mac two years ago after about 10 years of windows experience, and I'll never look back. My dad's been using mac's since the early 90's, and absolutely loves them and finally convinced me to make the switch.

IMO, if you don't have all that much experience, I'd get a Mac. It's compatible with all the software you could possibly want for editing, the interface is much more streamlined, and it has built in workflow assisting programs that can become very helpful.


----------



## Snyder (Apr 28, 2008)

Well I just bought a new Dell Inspiron PC with Windows XP Pro and I love it! It will not be connected to the internet to ensure its longevity.
Specs:
2.4 GHZ Quad Core Processor
4 Gigs of Ram at 800mhz
ATI Radeon 256mb video card
500 Gig HD
24" widescreen Hi Def monitor
This PC is so amazingly fast and powerful and I love it.


----------



## Mav (Apr 28, 2008)

Quad Core is nice. :mrgreen:  That would make batch processing in DxO go a ton quicker.  Currently you can only get Quad Core CPUs in Mac Pros, probably because of the potential for thermal overload in the iMacs and Mac Minis.  Ventilation is not the best in these things, which limits CPU power.  I have a 2.8 GHz dual core iMac right now and it's speedy enough.


----------



## Rogan (Apr 28, 2008)

mac's are built to be able to run everything manc fine, unlike pc's are built at all differant specs running windows and some program not working!

so id go for one of the new macbook pros if you want mobility


if you want a desktop PC, build it urself, sounds hard, but its really really easy (y)


----------



## Socrates (Apr 28, 2008)

fightheheathens said:


> i paid 2,000 bucks for a PC that is pretty fast. (i can run photoshop, while ripping CD's to itunes and browsing the internet). for an Apple with similar memmory, processor, graphics card, screen etc, i would have been looking at a 4,500 buck computer...for someone 1 year out of college that choice was pretty easy.
> 
> too bad, too, i would have rather had the Apple



That's not correct.  I do the same thing on a Mac that I purchased five years ago for $1100.  By the way, the only "upgrades" that I've performed is to add an external DVD burner and two external Firewire drives.  Incidentally, FW is drastically more efficient than USB-2 but it's rare on PCs.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 28, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Amen.
> 
> I "do computers" for a living with over 25 years experience, I have perhaps 20-25 industry certifications, but 90% of computer maintenance is simple and mostly common sense:
> 
> ...



I've used Macs exclusively for twenty-five years and I've NEVER had antivirus software, NEVER had antispam software, NEVER manually defragmented a hard disk and I don't even know what a "registry cleaner" is.  I do have directory repair software which I run once each year or so only because I paid for the software and I feel somewhat obligated to use it.  I've also never had a virus or any similar problem whatever in those twenty-five years and, yes, my existing machine runs as fast as it did when I installed it five years ago.


----------



## frXnz kafka (Apr 28, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I've used Macs exclusively for twenty-five years and I've NEVER had antivirus software, NEVER had antispam software, NEVER manually defragmented a hard disk and I don't even know what a "registry cleaner" is.  I do have directory repair software which I run once each year or so only because I paid for the software and I feel somewhat obligated to use it.  I've also never had a virus or any similar problem whatever in those twenty-five years and, yes, my existing machine runs as fast as it did when I installed it five years ago.


For what it's worth, I run two Windows machines. I have anti-virus software, but it's mostly just taking up space on my computer. I've never run anti-spam software, I never defrag my disks, and I've never used registry cleaner. The only time I've ever been hit with a virus is back in the day when I used to scour rather sketchy websites in pursuit of "free" software. Both of my computers are as clean as a whistle, and run just as good as they did the day I bought them. It has little to do with what OS you use, and a lot to do with knowing how to use a computer.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 28, 2008)

AV software has never touched My Dell Notebook which is my primary gaming/sit on the couch and browse the interwebz notebook...which has incidentally been running Vista Ultimate since about 2/07.

When I was using CS2 on the Dell, it never crashed. I've had CS3 crash on my MBP a few times.

I prefer the layout of the adobe programs on OS X though, so I use it as my primary photo editing machine. It's the first gen c2d MBP and I bought it 3 months after I bought my Dell. The Dell cost me $1400 for a 17" notebook that stomps the living daylights out of the MBP anytime anything involving the words 3d and graphics are presented. 

Apple is getting a bit better in the GPU department, I just don't like how they flip flop between ATI and NVidia...plus having limited upgrade paths in a machine is a real downer. I'd like a MP at one point, but I wouldn't want having to buy a completely new machine 3 years down the road instead of putting in a new MOBO and CPU when the technology in it's getting old.


----------



## Fiendish Astronaut (Apr 28, 2008)

Cheers for the replies all. Still not sure about this, but it'll be a good deal so I should do it I suppose.


----------



## mrodgers (Apr 28, 2008)

frXnz kafka said:


> For what it's worth, I run two Windows machines. I have anti-virus software, but it's mostly just taking up space on my computer. I've never run anti-spam software, I never defrag my disks, and I've never used registry cleaner. The only time I've ever been hit with a virus is back in the day when I used to scour rather sketchy websites in pursuit of "free" software. Both of my computers are as clean as a whistle, and run just as good as they did the day I bought them. It has little to do with what OS you use, and a lot to do with knowing how to use a computer.


The man speaks the truth here (or woman?  You can never tell on the internet unless it's specified).  I have a Compaq off-the-shelf system that I paid $500 for in the beginning of 2005.  I don't run a firewall, anti-virus, or anti-spam.  I have 178 gig C: drive (main drive with XP installed) that only has 8 gig of space left.  Yes, that needs cleaned off and I'm working on it.  But, last week is the first time I had defragged the drive.  The XP install is the same install since I opened up the box when I brought it home from the store.

I sim race and between the races when I'm waiting for the next one to start, I can have either Paintshop Pro or Photoshop opened up (for car painting in the racing sim), be browsing the internet, and listen to winamp just fine.  When the next race starts, I jump back to the sim while leaving my work in the graphics program open and leaving the browser open and run the racing sim just fine as if nothing else is running.  My computer is very outdated running an Athalon 64 3500, 1 gig ram, and an old generation ATI 1650 graphics card.

My 178 gig drive is mostly taken up with 40 gig of racing simulator, 20 gig of flight simulator, and probably 40-60 gig of racing, sim racing, flight sim, and RC flight videos.  The rest would be music and various downloads of trials such as GTR, GTL, rFactor, and others which are quite large for the demo trials and I should just delete since they are lousy as racing simulators.

I do really need to clean off this drive.  I just can't force myself to delete 1 hour 600 gig videos of the sim racing since they take so long to download again.


----------



## remyxsi (Apr 28, 2008)

I had been a Windows user since Windows 95.  I know own 3 apple laptop Cpu and 1 windows based desktop that by the way is a P4.  I really like the switch to Mac.  It seems that they have stepped it up a lot in the recent years.  I would say go Mac. Im not a techie or nerd just an average day guy that wants his computer to do everything.  

  My Windows desktop hardly gets used, but I still have it.  I can work with either system  but I prefer MAC OS.  For me it has it's flaws but works a lot better than Windows ( Vista )


----------



## CanadianMe (Apr 28, 2008)

Macs, they just work, used PC's for years and not a Mac fanboy but Macs are just more reliable and they again just work. Linux, Windows just don't hold up and it is most proficient and gives the least amount of headaches of all 3 OS's and in two years I have yet to have my Mac crash, need any work, had issues or anything else. Its not just the hardware but Mac OS is the most stable, competent OS on the market bar none. You will choose what you will but from a user of all 3 of them you will not go wrong with a Mac period. In time that may change but at this moment Mac should be your choice. I had my wife move to a Mac, I own two, my daughter has one and my sons are the only hold outs but they are gamers and would switch if Mac played the games but not another PC will come into my home unless there is a major change in Windows and or Linux.


----------



## usayit (Apr 28, 2008)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136649-page,3-c,notebooks/article.html

:thumbup:


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 29, 2008)

CanadianMe said:


> Macs, they just work, used PC's for years and not a Mac fanboy but Macs are just more reliable and they again just work. Linux, Windows just don't hold up and it is most proficient and gives the least amount of headaches of all 3 OS's and in two years I have yet to have my Mac crash, need any work, had issues or anything else. Its not just the hardware but Mac OS is the most stable, competent OS on the market bar none. You will choose what you will but from a user of all 3 of them you will not go wrong with a Mac period. In time that may change but at this moment Mac should be your choice. I had my wife move to a Mac, I own two, my daughter has one and my sons are the only hold outs but they are gamers and would switch if Mac played the games but not another PC will come into my home unless there is a major change in Windows and or Linux.


 
I hate that statement. It's one of the most brilliant marketing moves on Apple's part though. "It just works". If that was the case, there wouldn't be Apple forums full of people having problems with their machines.

Hell, I had to go through two MBP's to get one that was almost satisfactory. The first one I got had lines running through the screen and the second one had crooked keys on the board right out of the box. I had the Apple store replace the keyboard, and they still aren't all straight. Plus I pressed the power button on it once and it dropped down into the case. That was on MBP #2. Oh...and the lid has a little curvature when closed...Apple says this is normal.

And you're saying OS X is more stable that Linux? Keep dreaming. They're both based off the UNIX platform and if you actually know how to setup a Linux machine, they're just as stable. The same goes for a Windows installation. In fact, my Vista install has been more reliable than my OS X install. Does that make Vista an inherently more stable system?

I work with all three systems and I haven't touched Jobs's Kool Aid. None of the three major OS's are perfect and some work better than others at certain things (Let's see OS X run a CAD program...). Saying one's superior to the rest, without having extensive knowledge and experience of all of them, is wrong in my book.


----------



## Dao (Apr 30, 2008)

For PC or Mac type of questions.  I think the very first thing is asking yourself what software you are going to use.  If one of the software on your must have list only runs on one platform, not the other, then here you go.  Just go with that platform.  We use computer to perform tasks.  We buy computer and OS is not because we want to use the OS. We want to use the software that runs on the OS. And everybody has different needs for software.  A Gamer may need to choose one platform, not the other one.

Long time ago, a bar owner (Windows Fans) need to buy a Mac (even he got few PCs) just because he need to use a Music program (for his business) and it is only available for Mac.

As far as graphics related software, it used to be software usually available on Apple platform only.   But not anymore.  you can find good graphical software on both platforms now.


If cost is really one of the key factor, Apple may not be the top choice.  But some people may want to pay more just to enjoy the user experience if they like the Mac GUI. (I do not own a MAC, but I do like their interface. You know, I like the Linux 3D Desktop interface even more).


The bottom lines is, like choosing between Canon or Nikon, both are good.  Choose the one that fit your budget and can perform the task you need.


----------



## frXnz kafka (Apr 30, 2008)

Dao said:


> For PC or Mac type of questions.  I think the very first thing is asking yourself what software you are going to use.  If one of the software on your must have list only runs on one platform, not the other, then here you go.  Just go with that platform.  We use computer to perform tasks.  We buy computer and OS is not because we want to use the OS. We want to use the software that runs on the OS. And everybody has different needs for software.  A Gamer may need to choose one platform, not the other one.


This is good advice. A lot of software will work on Mac and PC, but a lot won't. I do a lot of both photo editing and music production. All of my photo software will work on both platforms, but a lot of my music software won't run on a Mac.


----------



## maytay20 (Apr 30, 2008)

Personally I don't know anything about macs, but I do not have the time to learn a new operating system right now no matter how easy anyone says it might be.  
N ow I just bought a computer and my advice for you either you have one custom built or have someone build it for you.  This also is a big help with not have a EOS version of windows.  They are just a total pain in the butt to me.  My next one will be custom built saying that the one I have now Is only 3 months old and I have already replaced almost every part in it due to needing more power.


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 30, 2008)

I haven't had any problems with my Macbook after two years. It has the normal limitations of a 1.8GHz processor and only a gig of ram, but it's not unbearable. I am moving up to a dual processor tower with a lot more RAM and a way bigger monitor, but not because my Macbook doesn't work. This OS is far more stable than any edition of Windows I have used. I do get the pinwheel of death if I'm running too many apps, and one will freeze, but I've never had the whole OS freeze. 

Again, I'll never go back to Windows.

Also, the learning curve on a Mac takes about 45 minutes to learn coming from a PC, where a person going from Mac to PC would probably take a week. Mac OS is intended to be simple and user friendly by design.


----------



## frXnz kafka (Apr 30, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> Also, the learning curve on a Mac takes about 45 minutes to learn coming from a PC, where a person going from Mac to PC would probably take a week. Mac OS is intended to be simple and user friendly by design.


This is a ridiculous statement.


----------



## TAGMAN (Apr 30, 2008)

Hey atsee, Just buy the Mac!!  Leopard blows away vista or xp!

The Mac is more intuitive, rock solid against viruses and spyware ( you won't have to worry about buying a virus protection program), the mac will very rarely crash (mine never did in 4 yrs.), plus it boots up in a 3rd of the time of the pc.

Stop in to an Apple store and see for yourself how serious this company is about service. They are the best!! Spend a few bucks more, and get what you pay for.     Tommy


----------



## Mystwalker (Apr 30, 2008)

TAGMAN said:


> Hey atsee, Just buy the Mac!! Leopard blows away vista or xp!
> 
> The Mac is more intuitive, rock solid against viruses and spyware ( you won't have to worry about buying a virus protection program), the mac will very rarely crash (mine never did in 4 yrs.), plus it boots up in a 3rd of the time of the pc.
> 
> Stop in to an Apple store and see for yourself how serious this company is about service. They are the best!! Spend a few bucks more, and get what you pay for. Tommy


 
If all you want to do is graphic processing/manipulation ... go Mac.

If you want to do other things ... go PC.

Price diff between Mac-PC is more then a few bucks.  This really doesn't make any sense now that Apple use the same CPU as "Microsoft based PCs"

Very true about virus and such.  But then if you do not surf "questionable websites", you should not have any problems.

Personally, a PC gives me too much flexibility to ever go back to using a Mac.


----------



## Joves (Apr 30, 2008)

I build my own machines that way I get what I want. But I do run XP. I agree with Sabbath on Vista, I consider it to be the new Me. To me MAcs are no more intuitive than Windows, it depends on what you are used to. I like to play games too and, how many games does mac play now in its native system?


----------



## DWS (Apr 30, 2008)

the term _Windoze_ says it all......I got my Mac Pro 15 months ago and have never looked back.....while I paid through the nose for the Mac, it was worth every penny...the Apple "i" applications work together and allow you to build powerful media, from photo to dvd to movie end products, all from within a standard Mac software bundle....

_once you go Mac you will never go back _


----------



## Socrates (Apr 30, 2008)

frXnz kafka said:


> This is a ridiculous statement.



That's a truly ridiculous response.


----------



## usayit (Apr 30, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Price diff between Mac-PC is more then a few bucks.  This really doesn't make any sense now that Apple use the same CPU as "Microsoft based PCs"



hehehe... there's more to a computer than just a CPU.

By your statement, a $10k server class AMD Solaris box is no different than a PC. still a machine with PC based CPU (AMD).


----------



## randerson07 (Apr 30, 2008)

Ive been on a mac, since I was a kid in the 80s, started on a macintosh+. WOOOHOOOO Math Blaster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

I had never used an actual PC with an regularity until 2003 when I got my 1st real job(all my other PC work was a project here type a paper there sort of thing).

Now that Ive been using PCs alot at work(im on one now) I understand them and have no problems using them, no viruses, no spyware, no real issues(minus our suckass network here and trying to connect to a printer or scanner is a beeotch but thats another story).

But at home im on a mac mini, it was cheap, its robust, I had a monitor given to me and I already had the keyboard and mouse from my eMac. I currently dual boot it with XP Pro for an RC flight sim program to learn to fly RC helis. I havent booted up in XP in a month or so.

My next computer which is a ways down the road at this point, will be a Mac tower of some sort. 

I have nothing against PCs and I do have a Laptop in my house that runs XP Pro as well.  If I ever had to choose just one it would be a Mac because its what I know best.


----------



## jvgig (Apr 30, 2008)

If you feel comfortable building your own computer and have the time to streamline your windows operating system of choice, then I see almost no good reason to go with a mac.  For the same cost you could bump a single processor up to a dual processor, quadruple your memory, and get a raid array with several terabytes of storage.  The imac is just a laptop in a permanent desk stand, and the mac pro, for a half reasonable system starts you at $4500.  To match a $4500 custom built pc you would need to spend about $10,000.

I have not had any problem with viruses and have never experienced any system instability.  As long as you just run the processes that are necessary, even vista does not bog down your computer too much.

There is equivalent software for each system, but the pc offers a much wider variety.  

So what more could you want? better hardware, more software, and stability.  Unless you want a mac specific program like Final Cut Pro, why go mac?


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 30, 2008)

frXnz kafka said:


> This is a ridiculous statement.



On many levels, but it wasn't meant to be taken literally. I'm just saying that Mac's are more user friendly. It obviously doesn't take a week to learn the basics of an OS (unless your my mother, than we are talking months), but Windows Vista on my girlfriends computer is a joke compared to Mac OS X. I'm still using Tiger and it's prettier, far simpler and doesn't freeze nearly as often as my girlfriends newer (by about 18 months), faster and better equipped PC desktop.  

Did I mention I'm on a 2+ year old Macbook? It's just more stable and won't need to be reformatted in 3 months like my girlfriends computer. That's enough for me to commit to Mac, sorry.


----------



## BPALMER (Apr 30, 2008)

in the last 60 days i purchased a replacement desktop(gateway) w/ 2.2 ghz quad core and 500 gig hdd w/ 3 gig ram and vista,
           also got a new dell laptop(xps m1530) with 2.0 dual core 4 gig ram and 320 gig. and i spent less than some of the mac desktops i priced out and i am very pleased with both choices. both systems are wicked fast and work extremly well for work and play.


----------



## mrodgers (Apr 30, 2008)

frXnz kafka said:


> This is a ridiculous statement.


Yup, it sure took me a week to learn START>PROGRAMS>PROGRAM THAT I WANT TO RUN....



> Very true about virus and such.  But then if you do not surf "questionable websites", you should not have any problems.


Yup, I'm running on over 3 years now, never reinstalled XP, never had a virus program, spyware scanner, or a firewall running, and my computer runs better than it did in 2005 when I bought it.

What "questionable sites" would you have to avoid to avoid virus and such?  I've gone to plenty of links that friends have sent me in email for a look, been to P2P sites, all over the net.  Still, have never gotten a virus or needed to scan for anything in the 3 years I've been with this PC and had broadband.


----------



## frXnz kafka (Apr 30, 2008)

Socrates said:


> That's a truly ridiculous response.


How so?



Antithesis said:


> On many levels, but it wasn't meant to be taken literally. I'm just saying that Mac's are more user friendly. It obviously doesn't take a week to learn the basics of an OS (unless your my mother, than we are talking months), but Windows Vista on my girlfriends computer is a joke compared to Mac OS X. I'm still using Tiger and it's prettier, far simpler and doesn't freeze nearly as often as my girlfriends newer (by about 18 months), faster and better equipped PC desktop.
> 
> Did I mention I'm on a 2+ year old Macbook? It's just more stable and won't need to be reformatted in 3 months like my girlfriends computer. That's enough for me to commit to Mac, sorry.


Honestly, you're comparing apples to oranges. If you were comparing YOUR mac to YOUR PC then you might have a valid argument, but that's not what you're doing. Almost any difference in performance comes down to user error. I'm fairly certain your girlfriend's computer would be running just fine if she knew how to use it. Your Macbook is 2 years old? Great. The Dell I'm using right now is 3 years old, and runs like day one. I've never formatted my harddrive. My computer has never crashed. I've never had a virus.

Honestly, I'm not saying this as a pro-Windows guy. I'm saying this as someone who is annoyed by the amount of sheer misinformation on BOTH sides of the argument. The OSes (I'm talking OSX and XP. Vista sucks) are different. Neither one is better than the other. The biggest difference, besides GUI, is compatibility. Most software supports both platforms, but if you're running any software that supports only one you should probably go with that system.


----------



## Sirashley (Apr 30, 2008)

Once you go Mac you never go back... I used Windows from 95 all the way up to last year when Vista was released. When Vista came out, I played around with it and decided to buy a Mac to try something new. Mac runs so much smoother, never freezes and I mean never. I almost forgot that Control+Alt+Delete command...LOL... No Virus scan, No spyware, nothing running on my Mac to slow it down. Also, you can buy a Mac with less hardware that will outperform a Windows P.C. with more hardware because of the efficiency, especially without having to use RAM to run excess programs like Virus Scan and Spyware. Bottom Line, Apple is so far ahead of Microsoft its sad. Unfortunately, there are alot of people who are afraid to learn a new operating system(which is very simple). I have used both operating systems extensively, BUY A MAC. You won't be sorry...


----------



## usayit (Apr 30, 2008)

well lookie here... its a tennis match.


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 30, 2008)

frXnz kafka said:


> Almost any difference in performance comes down to user error. I'm fairly certain your girlfriend's computer would be running just fine if she knew how to use it.



Odd... she's been using it well over a week. Closer to 6 months actually.


----------



## Dao (May 1, 2008)

For Virus or Spyware problem.  I believe one of the big reason why Windows PCs had most of the problem is because Windows PC still own the Desktop PC market.

I am sure ... if at one point, Mac machine own half of the PC market, most of the Mac machines will have an Anti-virus or Anti-spyware program installed.

I like Mac, especially OSX is based on BSD now (I am a Linux user as well).  At one point, I was thinking about getting a Mac Notebook.  But at the end, I end up with a Sony notebook.  Software compatibility was not the issue at that time since I had few PCs at home to run Windows apps. It was the cost.  For the same amount of money, I got a more powerful machine if I go with the Windows route.  I am sure if cost was not an issue, I would have got a Mac notebook already.


----------



## usayit (May 1, 2008)

You guys do realize that your personal experience doesn't make it the market/industry norm... right?  (this goes for both windows and mac camps).  

Unless you guys have some sort of extensive test lab and run a study.

I can't make this generalization: "My Mac||PC never has given me a problem in X number of years... therefore it is far better."

I CAN make this generalization: "Mac has a very well established Unix (BSD) core which makes it a better player for a person who is comfortable in a Unix environment".

But thats just me....

didn't this thread die a while back??  Oh well. continue on.. I enjoy watching this topic thrown around like a hot potato.


----------



## asfixiate (May 1, 2008)

Disclaimer! The below is based on what I see in the industry as well as personal opinion. 

In college there were the IT, MIS, majors and the Art Majors. The graphic arts students as well as classes all were equipped with MACs. The IT, MIS departments all were equipped with PCs. If you look at Adobe's website and watch the lightroom demo they're using a Mac.

That being said do you get where I'm going when it comes to Mac vs PC? Its not about what is really better but Macs are generally used more in the graphic/art industry.

Macs and PCs are great. My main concern in a lot of aspects is price to achieve the best results. If for 1,000 I can get great results why would I spend 2,000 to get the same?

In the past you could get this week's top of the line laptop with all the specs to make it the best substantially cheaper than MAC's top of the line.

I would say if you have a lot of cash you can get a PC that will do the same as what a MAC can do and probably cheaper. That being said a MAC will do the same as the PC. 

But I do believe a base level Mac would achieve better results than Base level PC. Based on past research i've done.

One thing you never really have to worry about with PCs though is "will it work with a PC?". Often certain softwares out there doesn't have a MAc equivalent. The main heavy hitters generally do but keep that in mind.

Its possible prices have reversed making Mac's cheaper nowadays but this is when I was doing a lot more research on computers.

don't forget...when it comes to making your decision you should research what the software requires as far as hardware and what you require as far as software. If I had a choice I'd build my own PC for far less than any package out there. Can you build your own MAC?


----------



## usayit (May 1, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> Macs and PCs are great. My main concern in a lot of aspects is price to achieve the best results. If for 1,000 I can get great results why would I spend 2,000 to get the same?



Ok then please explain this magazine's test results:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135062-page,1-c,notebooks/article.html

In 2007, a MAC laptop outran all of the other machines in their tests running WINDOWS VISTA.  Oh but what about cost?  If you look through their list, the MAC is NOT the most expensive in the lineup (and by a good margin).

I will now assert the ol' cliche: You get what you pay for.




You guys remind me of the car nuts who focus just on the amount of horsepower above all else and ignore suspension, transmission, engine, weight balance, curb weight...  You are all just looking at $$$ versus CPU and memory but are missing the point.  There is more to a computer than a box with a CPU and memory.

Yes you can build a PC for far cheaper but now you are comparing apples to oranges.  A custom built machine versus an off-the-shelf.  This is not the norm.  

I see people with cheap cars putting out gobs of power on custom built turbos.  It still doesn't make it a porsche, ferrari, etc.


btw.. with some effort you too can build a custom machine running Mac OS X albeit it takes some work and not exactly legal either (at least I don't think so).  But comparing that to an off-the-shelf Mac isn't a fair comparison either.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 1, 2008)

usayit said:


> You guys do realize that your personal experience doesn't make it the market/industry norm... right? (this goes for both windows and mac camps).
> 
> Unless you guys have some sort of extensive test lab and run a study.
> 
> ...


 
Really....there's so many generalizations and misconceptions being thrown around it's almost like the democratic party nomee race.

"Macs are only good for graphics designs"

"Macs just work"

"Macs cost a lot more"

"XP & Vista are incredibly unstable"

"XP & Vista need constant AV software and updates to work right"

"XP & Vista crash all the time"

"OS X is the most stable and user friendly OS"

"OS X never crashes"

Some of these are so stupid. If people would think of not saying something completely idiotic because of brand loyalty and take a moment to research that people are using XP & Vista without AV protection and not getting viruses because they're being smart about it or that you can do as much on a Mac as you can do on a PC, then we wouldn't have any threads like this.

This is worse than Canon Vs. Nikon. 

People should take this little bit of advice and for the rest of the thread, think about what crap is about to leak from your mouths before you just add another stereotypical comment about either platform to the mix.


----------



## asfixiate (May 1, 2008)

How does me saying why spend 2,000 if you can get the same results make you say t his...

You guys remind me of the car nuts who focus just on the amount of horsepower above all else and ignore suspension, transmission, engine, weight balance, curb weight... You are all just looking at $$$ versus CPU and memory but are missing the point. There is more to a computer than a box with a CPU and memory

Of course if you take what I said for exactly what I said it looks like I'm being slim with $$$ but I'm not. for 2,000 dollars I could build a PC and it would knock a lot of packages offered by companies out of the water. I'd have control over motherboard speed, brand of RAM, CPU, Heatsink, Harddrive Brand, video card, sound card, etc. When you buy the packages you only have some control over that.

Having control over all that will give you better results than any computers out there for cheaper.

maybe its because I understand computers but unstability of software happens and if people would learn how to use a computer than they wouldn't have issues.

To add.  Fair enough comparison maybe not but this is a What computer to buy thread and that's my suggestion.  Same reason why people buy SLRs and not P&Ss are the same reason I build my own PCs.  The only reason I use laptops nowadays is because my work gives me one every year and I've not really done a lot of gaming within the last few years.


----------



## Mav (May 1, 2008)

I like Apple better for ONE reason.  

When I click eject on an attached USB device like a camera or USB thumb drive it f**king ejects it and doesn't dick you around like Windows does.  Yeah Windows works all the time, 34% of the time, if you're lucky. :lmao:

Last week I was late leaving work and hit eject on my thumb drive which had some stuff I was bringing home to work on.  OF COURSE, it screws around and gave the "cannot eject at this time, please close applications" nonsense.  I closed every application, including what would have been accessing files on it.  Nope.  Then I went into task manager to look for rogue exe's that might still be running and "hanging on" to the files.  Nope.  Closed email.  Nope.  LOGGED OUT and back in.  NOPE!!  _Goddamn MFer!  LET GO of my goddamn thumb drive you stupid eff'in POS!! _:angry1::madmad::banghead:

We need to leave our PCs running overnight so they can push near DAILY security and other updates out so I finally just rebooted and yanked it while it was in the shut down state.

Since I switched to Mac back in late 2006, this near DAILY nonsense that I've had to deal with plugging in and ejecting USB devices on Windows has not happened to me ONCE on Mac.  With all that Windows is capable of, you'd think they could at least get basic stuff like this right, but they can't.  On Mac, it really does "just work".  I hit eject, and it's gone and safe to remove, all the time, 100% of the time.  This experience at work on my PC where I rarely use thumb drives brought back such fond memories of exactly why I hated Windows so bad, and all of the other little dumb stuff just like this that drove me to switch. :greenpbl:


There's still some stuff I have that I'd like to run that ONLY works on Windows.  No problem.  You can take your copy of Windows and use the built-in Boot Camp software to dual boot right from your Mac.  I don't want to dual boot, so I got a copy of Parallels ($79) and run Windows from within Mac OS X now.  The other night I was doing some stuff in Windows while the Mac was batching through some photos in DxO while I was also surfing the web through Mac.  Lets see a Windows box do that.


----------



## asfixiate (May 1, 2008)

Well it takes me a total of 10 seconds maybe to eject a drive. I use Terra byte Lacie drives and they eject in less than a minute. I also use Rocstor external drives and they work fine. I keep a clean ghost image of my pc as well as back up my information so if I see wierd issues I can easily just reinstall fresh and i'm back to full capacity.

Sounds like windows was trying to build an index of the drive and it didn't want you to take it out.

I see a lot of the word unstable mentioned when doing these comparisons. What are you doing when you give this label?


----------



## DWS (May 1, 2008)

Mav said:


> On Mac, it really does "just work".


----------



## Village Idiot (May 1, 2008)

DWS said:


>


 
Like when a bunch of people with smaller studios were basically screwed when they upgraded to Leopard because their softward and hardware that they use for recording wasn't supported...and afaik, they just got the updates pushed maybe a month ago.

This is mainstream stuff too. 

Anyone ever hear of Pro Tools?

That's one reason I'm still running Tiger. I almost upgraded, but I couldn't afford to have some one come in for a recording session just to turn them away because my MBP wouldn't "just work".

There's points to defend and attack every post in here.


----------



## usayit (May 1, 2008)

There is a way in windows to disable the delayed writes (in buffer) to external USB devices.  Pretty much makes every write operation commit to the USB device immediately.  This will allow you to remove USB devices without having to first eject.

The disadvantage is that you will loose performance.

Unfortunately, I'm having a brain cramp this morning and can't seem to remember the procedure to turn it off.


----------



## Mav (May 1, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Like when a bunch of people with smaller studios were basically screwed when they upgraded to Leopard because their softward and hardware that they use for recording wasn't supported...and afaik, they just got the updates pushed maybe a month ago.
> 
> This is mainstream stuff too.
> 
> ...


That's why for any business or mission critical systems you always _WAIT_ before deploying major updates because there are _always_ going to be quirks and bugs to address.  Same thing with brand spanking new cars which always have more issues than the same exact car does 1-2 years later when they finally get the kinks worked out.  Even brand spanking new cellular phone models have more issues than the same thing 6 months later.  Some people just gotta have 'teh latest' all the time, and it bites them in the butt almost as much.


----------



## DWS (May 1, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Like when a bunch of people with smaller studios were basically screwed when they upgraded to Leopard because their softward and hardware that they use for recording wasn't supported...and afaik, they just got the updates pushed maybe a month ago.
> 
> This is mainstream stuff too.
> 
> ...


I don't argue your points, hence, why I wait a few months on all releases to see what gremlins come out of the woodwork......granted Apple does not always have its total act together on new releases, but day in and day out continuous operation, I'll take the Mac without its constant barrage of security & software/virus & spyware definitions updates that end up to be major resource hogs..........


----------



## Village Idiot (May 1, 2008)

DWS said:


> I don't argue your points, hence, why I wait a few months on all releases to see what gremlins come out of the woodwork......granted Apple does not always have its total act together on new releases, but day in and day out continuous operation, I'll take the Mac without its constant barrage of security & software/virus & spyware definitions updates that end up to be major resource hogs..........


 
Another stereotype bordering on a fanboy comment. I've ran Vista Ultimate on my Dell notebook since February 2007 with no AV. I've also not had any required updates that have gotten in the way and certainly have seen one in the past 8 months. 

I've had more system updates that I've had to do on my Apple machine than on my Vista notebook.

I guess no one took the time to read the post that said think before you start talking about sterotypes and generalizations.


----------



## DWS (May 1, 2008)

good for you.....have a wonderful day


----------



## Sandspur (May 1, 2008)

Good Grief!!!  I can't believe this thread has gone on this long!

Message to OP: Buy the Mac ... and be done with it.  You know that's what you really wanted to do all along ...


----------



## Applefanboy (May 1, 2008)

my advice would be to get an iMac.  If you look at the windows alternatives to am iMac, its really not any more expensive than a pc.  

I would advise not to get a under 1000doller computer, they typicaly are more trouble than theyre worth...

Get a mac!!!!!


----------



## usayit (May 1, 2008)




----------



## usayit (May 1, 2008)

OP started this thread 6 months ago.

Hopefully he/she already purchased a machine by now....


----------



## Arch (May 1, 2008)

usayit said:


> OP started this thread 6 months ago.
> 
> Hopefully he/she already purchased a machine by now....



exactly... this thread isn't even helping anyone anymore =/


----------



## Mystwalker (May 1, 2008)

usayit said:


> hehehe... there's more to a computer than just a CPU.
> 
> By your statement, a $10k server class AMD Solaris box is no different than a PC. still a machine with PC based CPU (AMD).


 
Not fair to compare different class of computers and that is what you do when you compare a "server" with something we use at home.

Also "server" class hardware is different from the stuff we use at home - most noticeable problem (to me) being severely weak graphic card limiting WoW experience!!  

A Mac today is no different then the IBMs of 25 years ago that were going for over $5000.  It is a "brand" that only Apple can manufacturer.  Apple has some nice tricks in regard to way they handle code instructions which make Macs faster for graphic applications - at least they were 15 years ago when I last touched one   Do not know if Macs can maintain this advantage without RISC chips - they use the same Intel ones used in "PCs".

I'm not anti-Mac, I just do not think anyone need to spend that kind of money unless they only want to do graphics.  Especially, if they eventually want to do other things.

Get a $500-$1000 PC.  That should be a savings of about $500 for a Mac with same capabilities.  Save that $500 for better glass :thumbup:


----------



## Village Idiot (May 1, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Not fair to compare different class of computers and that is what you do when you compare a "server" with something we use at home.
> 
> Also "server" class hardware is different from the stuff we use at home - most noticeable problem (to me) being severely weak graphic card limiting WoW experience!!
> 
> ...


 
Another stereotype. I know of Mac gamers. Also, I record bands and other artist with my MBP.


----------



## Mav (May 1, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Get a $500-$1000 PC.  That should be a savings of about $500 for a Mac with same capabilities.  Save that $500 for better glass :thumbup:


All of that advantage goes away once you figure in all of the extras in Mac OS X that Windows doesn't include at any price, and the stuff that you don't need in Mac that you do in Windows, such as...

- Adobe PDF writer built-in to Mac, which I consider essential.   Not essential, but it's extremely useful and the full professional version of Acrobat for windows to let you do the same thing isn't cheap.

- Built-in color calibration utilities.  Saves another hundred or two or three right there, and this is essential for photography.

- No antivirus needed, and these things have yearly $80 subscriptions.  that adds up over time.  Even if you can get it for free through your ISP, it still drags down your system performance and hogs up resources.

- No anti-spam/spy/whatever-ware filtration software needed.

- If you get an iMac, the screen is outstanding for photography and has very good and neutral color.  PC screens can be all over the map, and some are so bad that they can't even be calibrated properly for photography.

That's the big stuff, but there's more, and it all adds up.  Oh yeah, the free iWork package, and numerous other packages within Mac OS X that have no equivalent in Windows that you'd have to buy additional software for as well.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 1, 2008)

Mav said:


> All of that advantage goes away once you figure in all of the extras in Mac OS X that Windows doesn't include at any price, and the stuff that you don't need in Mac that you do in Windows, such as...
> 
> - Adobe PDF writer built-in to Mac, which I consider essential. Not essential, but it's extremely useful and the full professional version of Acrobat for windows to let you do the same thing isn't cheap.
> 
> ...


 
-Color calibration that's still not as accurate as using a device like the Huey.

-AV software is not needed on a PC if you know what you're doing and if you are running it and it's setup right, it's not a resource hog.

-Same with adware.

-There was an article that said calibrating MB, MBP, and iMac screens were extremely difficult. Plus if you want to upgrade from a 22" monitor to a 24" monitor, it's $500 if you're using a computer that can use an external monitor, it's $1500 if you're using an iMac. Also, you're limited to 24" on an iMac. I can run any 30" monitor with any of my other computers in the house.

I don't know if they've changed something, but OS X comes bundled with iLife. iWork is still extra.


----------



## frXnz kafka (May 1, 2008)

Mav said:


> All of that advantage goes away once you figure in all of the extras in Mac OS X that Windows doesn't include at any price, and the stuff that you don't need in Mac that you do in Windows, such as...
> 
> - Adobe PDF writer built-in to Mac, which I consider essential.   Not essential, but it's extremely useful and the full professional version of Acrobat for windows to let you do the same thing isn't cheap.
> 
> ...


I really want to let this thread go, but you Mac fanboys keep spreading these horrible lies. Adobe PDF writer? Fine. But honestly, how many people need that? And for what it's worth, MS Word will save your document as a PDF. Built-in color calibration? PCs have that too, it's just not called Color Calibration. Besides, software calibration isn't the way to go for photography. I'm not even going to touch the virus/spam software, because I already have in this thread. I'm sure the iMac screens are fine, but I HATE HATE HATE glossy screens. The only thing they're good for is watching movies in dark rooms. And also, "PC screens" are also used on Macs, so again completely invalid argument.


----------



## Mav (May 1, 2008)

frXnz kafka said:


> I really want to let this thread go, but you Mac fanboys keep spreading these horrible lies.


 
OMFG I'm a "Mac fanboy" now?  Whatever! 

I ran Windows for years.  I _still_ run windows and there are _still_ things I like better in Windows.  I just prefer Mac for my own personal use at home because of less BS, like plugging and unplugging USB devices causing trouble and crashes all the time.  Why the fawk can't MS get that right?



frXnz kafka said:


> Adobe PDF writer? Fine. But honestly, how many people need that?


I consider it essential and have used it for years.  The fact that Apple gives it to you as part of the OS saves me money period.



frXnz kafka said:


> And for what it's worth, MS Word will save your document as a PDF.


Does Word come bundled with Windows?  No.  Talk about irrelevant arguments...



frXnz kafka said:


> Built-in color calibration? PCs have that too, it's just not called Color Calibration.


You're right, it's not called that because it's _NOT_ "calibration".  They have some odd color management system but it won't calibrate your screen like Mac will.



frXnz kafka said:


> Besides, software calibration isn't the way to go for photography.


Really?  Seems to work perfectly fine on both my Mac _and_ my old PC screen which I run at the same time.  Windows gave me no built-in tools whatsoever to calibrate the screen with.  Woulda had to go out and buy a colorvision spyder or something.



frXnz kafka said:


> I'm not even going to touch the virus/spam software, because I already have in this thread.


Don't need it on Mac, at least not yet.  And I think if you're running a Windows PC and are not running AV software you're nuts, especially if you're hooked up on a network.  I've had network borne viruses hose up my wife's laptop and she didn't even have to click on anything to get infected.  



frXnz kafka said:


> I'm sure the iMac screens are fine, but I HATE HATE HATE glossy screens.  The only thing they're good for is watching movies in dark rooms.


Nonsense.  They're great for photography and give you nice rich colors and deep blacks unlike non glossy screens.  Yeah they have more glare, but that's easy to deal with.



frXnz kafka said:


> And also, "PC screens" are also used on Macs, so again completely invalid argument.


DUH, I use one on my iMac too from my old PC, and unlike Windows, Mac actually has the built-in tools to calibrate it so that photos look the way they're supposed to on that one too. 

Lastly, since I switched to Mac:

- the amount of swearing at the computer has gone down to virtually zero which is drastic, because I used to swear at my PCs a lot.  My wife will back me up on that 

- have never had even a single system crash vs lots of BSODs on Windows.  Heck, I don't even know what a system crash looks like on Mac!

- when an application hangs in Mac it _never_ takes the whole system down with it.  The Windows 9x kernel was horrible with that.  NT/2k/XP were better, but the whole system would still go down from time to time.

- when an application hangs in Mac, hitting Quit or Force Quit in the equivalent of the task manager most certainly will get rid of it.  NT was pretty good about this, but things go a lot worse from 2k onwards.

- already noted, but I get consistent USB attach/detach operation in Mac vs non-stop attach or detach issues in Windows all the freakin time.  Plugging and unplugging a digital camera, external HD, or USB memory key multiple times per day quickly drove me to the edge.  I still remember the Comdex video of Bill Gates demonstrating Windows 9x's great new USB support and then the thing BSODed on him right at the convention! :lmao:  They still don't have it right.

- due to the fact that Apple builds all the hardware and software, they have much tighter control over what goes into their systems and know exactly what all of their configurations are, and thus can have far better quality control, which gives you a ton less crashing and better system reliability all by itself.  The openness of the PC platform has its benefits (custom system building, insanely fast processing and graphics in very cheap packages), but all of the variability makes things more crash prone and less reliable.

- I have yet to have an issue with an Apple going to sleep or coming out of sleep mode, vs issues all the time on Windows.  In fact power management in the BIOS is one of the very first things I would always disable because it _always_ caused problems, and never seemed to work correctly on my laptops

- In Apple you never have 3 different applications all trying to control the same thing and all conflicting with each other all at the same time like you can have on Windows.  I _dare_ not touch anything in the network configuration on my wife's laptop, because there's the Cisco tools that need to run, the built-in IBM tools that need to control something else, and then the built-in Windows stuff controlling another part.  The last time some idiot tried to "improve" something on her laptop, it took me _three days_ worth of spare time to get it working again.  Pure nonesense.  Admittedly, half of this is poor OEM setup, but then again they needed to add in the extra stuff because the built-in windows tools weren't good enough in the first place.

- a lot more but I'm just too lazy and don't care enough to bother typing anymore.  Mac just plain works for me better, requires less upkeep, I get more work done, with less aggravation, and I like it better.


But yup!  It's all lies I tell ya!  LIES!!! :lmao::hail:


I still use both Mac and Windows DAILY.  Windows at work, and Mac _and_ Windows at home.  Fanboy for sure.


I'm done.


----------



## cdanddvdpublisher (May 1, 2008)

A lot of Mac/PC debates come down to one thing: personal preference. Of course, that being said, some of what should determine which you buy comes down to what you do.

I have a Mac desktop and a Macbook, but when I started editing more websites, I went out an bought a PC laptop and, even though it has Vista it hasn't given me any problems. When I'm typing out some quick documents, I head to the PC because there are fewer translation issues; when I'm editing pics or working with photos and other art, I go to one of the Macs.


----------



## asfixiate (May 1, 2008)

I assume everyone here has jobs where they can use a computer all day?


----------



## Village Idiot (May 1, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> I assume everyone here has jobs where they can use a computer all day?


 
Frankly, I don't understand what would give you that crazy idea.


----------



## asfixiate (May 1, 2008)

LOL...I just wonder how much work is not getting done right now with these 8 hour conversations.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 1, 2008)

cdanddvdpublisher said:


> A lot of Mac/PC debates come down to one thing: personal preference. Of course, that being said, some of what should determine which you buy comes down to what you do.
> 
> I have a Mac desktop and a Macbook, but when I started editing more websites, I went out an bought a PC laptop and, even though it has Vista it hasn't given me any problems. When I'm typing out some quick documents, I head to the PC because there are fewer translation issues; when I'm editing pics or working with photos and other art, I go to one of the Macs.


 
The you'd agree that Adobe has a much nicer interface on OS X?

I do find myself at work hitting the bottom right corner of my screen then feeling like a moron because all my windows don't instantly show themselves.


----------



## Dao (May 1, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> I assume everyone here has jobs where they can use a computer all day?




Yes.  Fedora at work, Windows at home.  Just wondering, anyone here use Apple II Plus in the past? (Off topics??    Sorry )


----------



## Village Idiot (May 1, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> LOL...I just wonder how much work is not getting done right now with these 8 hour conversations.


 
Considering my duties for today include renaming about 9000 image files at a time with an automated process that takes about an hour for each set of images, my productivity is remaining fairly high.


----------



## asfixiate (May 1, 2008)

Yeah good old DOS batch files and VB scripts always make me seem like I do a lot more.


----------



## nicfargo (May 1, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> You can run two different versions of windows and 3 different windows distros on a Mac SIMULTANIOUSLY at full speed, while running photoshop in OSX.
> 
> Try that on a PC.



Pft, I do that all the time on my PC, it's called VMWARE and it's awesome...and I didn't pay nearly what I'd pay for a Mac.  

For photo editing it honestly doesn't matter, a powerful PC will do just as well as a Powerful Mac.  I can get a much more powerful PC for much cheaper then a MAC (I've got a Quad Core processor, 8gig or Ram, 10k Raptor HDD, 2 Nvidia cards in SLI) and it cost me a whole lot less then any Mac would have...I know, I researched it.  You can't get a Mac with those specs unless you spends thousands of dollars.

The only reason to use a Mac is if you don't want to actually think for yourself.  If you want limited options on what type of program you can use for something, Mac is the way to go.  I honestly like that I have options on my PC.  I can make it look however I want (I can even make it look like a mac, but why would I do that when there are much better things out there).  I like that I can use home brewed applications. I like that I can write my own apps for my PC.  Mac is so proprietary and locked down, you can't do that stuff.  Plus I honestly think they run pretty slow.


----------



## asfixiate (May 1, 2008)

I concur with VMWare...I've had 3 instances on windows running at once with it doing OCR of about 10,000 pages per instance.  Was still able to do normal computing as well.  This was with less t han 1 gig ram. and around 2.0 gig processor.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 1, 2008)

nicfargo said:


> The only reason to use a Mac is if you don't want to actually think for yourself. If you want limited options on what type of program you can use for something, Mac is the way to go.


 
And now we hear from the pc fan boys.

The reason I bought a mac was for using Logic Pro. It was definitely an upgrade from cubase. Final cut pro is also another big name, but in the film industry.

Each platform has stregths and weaknesses and people that don't recognize that and blantantly just bash another platform is generally considered a fan boy.


----------



## Mav (May 1, 2008)

nicfargo said:


> The only reason to use a Mac is if you don't want to actually think for yourself.


That's seriously the stupidest thing I've read in this entire thread.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 1, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> Also, the learning curve on a Mac takes about 45 minutes to learn coming from a PC, where a person going from Mac to PC would probably take a week. Mac OS is intended to be simple and user friendly by design.


 
I don't know, it may be a toss up between these two.


----------



## Dao (May 2, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Each platform has stregths and weaknesses and people that don't recognize that and blantantly just bash another platform is generally considered a fan boy.




I agree.   If a platform has decent amount of users, it must be good in some way.  And we need more good platform out there.  Just like people who use Internet explorer will appreciate there are other browsers out there that has features that IE don't have in the past. i.e. Tabs 


As for why Windows has more problem with stability than Mac.  I strongly believe Windows is stable.  But it is a little open platform, it allow other manufacturer to make parts and use it in Windows such as video card, sound card,   ....   And problem maybe related to those 3rd party drivers.

So is it good or bad?  Bad for someone who really want a very very stable platform.  Good for those who like to be on the cutting edge.


Also as I said earlier, I do not believe Mac is virus nor spyware proof.  I really believe most of the virus coder out there do not want to target the Mac platform.   As job related issue.  We had a client (few years ago) website under attack.  The cause of the attack was someone created a virus to infect Windows PC.  Once the Windows PC was infected, it went to the target website in the background.   I am sure the attacker wanted to send a lot of traffic to bring down that web site.  And it will be wise for him/her to make the virus to target a platform that has the largest user base.



No need to install anti virus does not mean the platform is technology better in that aspect.  But certainly better for a user point of view.  One less thing to worry about.  But I am sure a lot of PC power users out there seldom worry about this issue as well.  In my PC at home, I do not have anti-virus installed and it runs fine.  However, in my buddy machine, I installed anti-virus, anti-spyware software ......   in his machine, he still infected all the time.  So ..  user problem??  (no wonder about 60 to 80 percent of the support calls to a major PC maker are virus/spyware related issue)


You know ...  thanks to the OP, this thread is getting interesting.


----------



## Socrates (May 2, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> Can you build your own MAC?


I don't build my own camera, I don't build my own automobile, I don't build my own refrigerator, I don't build my own house.  Why in the world would I want to build my own computer when I can buy a Mac that does exactly what it's supposed to do with no fuss and no bother?

Certainly, it makes sense to build your own computer IF building it is your objective.  I'm more interested in USING it, much as I use cameras, automobiles, regrigerators and houses.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 2, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I don't build my own camera, I don't build my own automobile, I don't build my own refrigerator, I don't build my own house. Why in the world would I want to build my own computer when I can buy a Mac that does exactly what it's supposed to do with no fuss and no bother?
> 
> Certainly, it makes sense to build your own computer IF building it is your objective. I'm more interested in USING it, much as I use cameras, automobiles, regrigerators and houses.


 
Because building your own computer takes 20 minutes and all the parts fit together, most snapping into place. Plus building your own saves you money, gets you the exact specs you want, and leaves you with a machine where you know what's exactly in in. And I don't see many snap together camera, automobile, refridgerator, or house kits...there's usually a lot more involved with building those.

I've built PC's before and they do exactly what I want them to with no fuss. It's amazing what happens when you install the correct drivers. Plus there's many possibilities with building your own machine that a Mac can't touch.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but when's the last time you heard of some one over clocking a quadcore Mac's cpu and gpu's while making sure the liquid cooling system keeps everything from blowing up? Some people are into other things.


----------



## usayit (May 2, 2008)

Certainly.. but there's more to time and effort required to build a high performing computer.  Research, selection of parts, etc..

I know a person who can practically build a car in their sleep.... doesn't mean that he expects that to be the norm nor expects everyone else to do the same.

You can build a computer in 20 mins. good for you.. but don't expect the rest of the world to do the same nor WANT to do the same.



Again.. comparing a custom build computer and a purchased one is not a well thought out comparison.  I can certainly cook at home or go out to dinner.  Doesn't mean I want cook at home ALL the time.  Even if my home cooked food was better than going out to a restaurant, the experience is just not the same.


----------

