# Mac or Windows?



## Neil S. (Sep 25, 2010)

Do you use Mac or Windows for editing photos?


----------



## shuttercraft (Sep 25, 2010)

Almost all the major editing platforms are on both Mac OS and Windows OS. I use Aperture and it only works on mac. I am a mac guy simply because its what I use. 

Now I am going to sit back and watch the mac and PC fanboys duke it out. 

*grabs popcorn*


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 25, 2010)

shuttercraft said:


> Almost all the major editing platforms are on both Mac OS and Windows OS. I use Aperture and it only works on mac. I am a mac guy simply because its what I use.
> 
> Now I am going to sit back and watch the mac and PC fanboys duke it out.
> 
> *grabs popcorn*


 
Sometimes I wish that I could edit on a Mac, but it would require me to buy all new hardware.

I have been using Windows for like 15 years.

Also I like to build my computers now, and I don't think you can build Macs.


----------



## Josh220 (Sep 25, 2010)

Mac guy here too. I own 2 macs and a PC. I do all of my editing on my Mac though so my PC doesn't explode.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 25, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> Mac guy here too. I own 2 macs and a PC. I do all of my editing on my Mac though so my PC doesn't explode.


 
Haha...

Your PC must be slow then. Mine is so fast, its insane.

I just built it less than a year ago, and I love it so much.


----------



## Josh220 (Sep 25, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac guy here too. I own 2 macs and a PC. I do all of my editing on my Mac though so my PC doesn't explode.
> ...



Thats the way to go if you use a PC. There's no point in even comparing Mac vs PC on a consumer level. But people will, you'll see. You've opened up a touchy subject.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 25, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> Thats the way to go if you use a PC. There's no point in even comparing Mac vs PC on a consumer level. But people will, you'll see. You've opened up a touchy subject.


 
Ya I am starting to see that may be an issue lol...

You are right that its not even fair to compare the two. They are very different in a lot of ways.

I just wanted to get an idea what platform people use for editing.

Honestly if money was no object I would probably be editing on Mac right now.

I do love my PCs though. :mrgreen:


----------



## table1349 (Sep 25, 2010)

Hardware is hardware.  Period It's not about the hardware.  

It's actually not a hard thing to understand if you look at and understand the company philosophies of Microsoft and Apple. 

Apple builds proprietary machines with their proprietary operating system based on Unix that is coded for those machines.  Their code is simple, compact and stable.  They build them this way for one simple purpose.  Give the end user something that they can sit down to and work.  No muss, no fuss, it just works.  For this you pay a bit more up front.  

Microsoft on the other hand wants to rule the computer world.  Look at their track record and that is obvious.  They don't build machines, just an OS that they try and make work with every available piece of hardware know to man, be it good hardware or the biggest piece of cow flop in the pasture.  Their coding is complicated, bulky and has been proven time and again to be, buggy and often with many unstable attributes.  Think ME as a perfect example.  As a friend of mine that works for Microsoft likes to say, "We are the Pinky and the Brain of the computer industry."   They want to be the only game in town.  Problem is the town it just too damn big and they can't get the job done. 

After years of Windows use, I have switched to Mac and never looked back.  I prefer to maximize my computer time working at the task at hand and not worrying about anything else.  It all comes down to what you want to do and what is important to the individual user.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 25, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Hardware is hardware. Period It's not about the hardware.


 
Well it seems to be about the hardware for Apple.

This is why they make their own cases/monitors/etc. and dont allow you to build your own machines. They want you using THEIR hardware only.

I agree with a lot of the rest of what you said.

You may not know though that Windows 7 is an extremely stable and reliable OS. I have been running the same install now for almost a year, and have had close to zero issues with it. It is the 64 bit version too, and I play a lot of games and run CS5+LR3.

Windows OS releases are hit and miss though, and I hated ME and Vista a lot.

Windows 7 is what Vista should have been.

You may also not know that there are tons of DIY guys that build custom PCs, and you simply cant do that with Apple. I am one of them, and I enjoy it a lot.

Please dont try and stir the pot here with your hate for Microsoft.

I asked which one you used for editing, not which one you think is better.

Edit: Perhaps I was a bit harsh here, sorry for that. I am trying to prevent this from turning into a Mac vs. Windows fanboy argument though...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 25, 2010)

Although I am a windows guy, I do enjoy editing photos on a mac (in the apple store! haha). I do build my own PCs and probably will forever. I wish I had the money to throw down for a nice mac but I just dont. I get way more bang for buck with building my PCs.


----------



## Sachphotography (Sep 25, 2010)

Like comparing Apples to Oranges! LOL

they both work and both get the job done. Which ever works for you..Great. 
Canon Nikon
Ford Chevy

There will always be a Protagonist for every Antagonist.

I use a Pc and I have used a mac. I like Pc better and I like I can upgrade the hardware with no issues. I dont think Mac's take to modifying very well. Plus I can get double the power for half the price.  Thats me


----------



## table1349 (Sep 25, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Hardware is hardware. Period It's not about the hardware.
> ...




Except it for the most part isn't their hardware.  It is selected, better quality hardware that they pick to put into their machines.  You won't find a WD green HD in their machines, but they will and do use WD top of the line HD's.  They are no different than HP, Dell, Sony, etc.  You have a mother board problem you can't go to the local computer part store and pick up a new mother board, you have to replace it with a proprietary one.  Ever try to install a Dell version of Windows on and HP machine.  Same thing.

I'm not a MS hater, I just don't want for me to spend my time doing computer work anymore.  Obviously these days I edit on my Mac's.  It's all I own.  

If you are someone that likes to build machines, and mess around with the system/hardware end, Great, more power to you.  It can be not only fascinating but a lot of fun.  

Here is a short list of the systems I have used and for most coded for: Frotran 77, Cobol 1974, Unix, Linux, AIX, IRIX, SOLARIS, DOS, Every version of Windows and Almost every version of Apple OS since 1.0.    If you know Frotran 77 and Cobol 1974 then you have figured out that I'm an ole timer.  

I used to be into hot rods when I was younger too.  Now, I buy my cars from the dealer and enjoy the ride cause the new ones just aren't as much fun for me to build anymore.  

Just comes down to personal choices. There is no real right or wrong here.  Well unless you are trying to edit on an old mainframe running OS/360. :lmao:


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 25, 2010)

I am not hip enough use a mac.  You need funky hair, dark rimmed glasses, skinny jeans to be able to use a mac.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 25, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> I am not hip enough use a mac.  You need funky hair, dark rimmed glasses, skinny jeans to be able to use a mac.


or this guy:


----------



## cfusionpm (Sep 25, 2010)

I have never needed to nor wanted to use a Mac. I had to for much of my undergrad work at UCSD, but found that I worked quicker and more efficiently on my PC at home. Perhaps it's because I pretty much know Windows inside and out and my PC is fast and powerful (pretty much double the power/storage/speed of an iMac of the same price when I bought it). I prefer not to pay premium prices for pre-built, un-upgradable laptops trying to pass themselves as desktops with mediocre hardware.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 25, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > I am not hip enough use a mac. You need funky hair, dark rimmed glasses, skinny jeans to be able to use a mac.
> ...


 
Hey at least he didnt have Bill Gate's mug shaved into his head!

Now that would be scary...


----------



## usayit (Sep 25, 2010)

Neil S... you had to start this thread?

Mac user here.  Even convinced managers at work to put one on my desk.  

I have nothing against windows (but they do frustrate me at times).. I deal with that O/S (and others) daily at work. 





Most Mac users are Windows users too.. the opposite is often not true.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 25, 2010)

usayit said:


> Neil S... you had to start this thread?


 
Umm no lol...

I can't be held responsible for people wanting to argue about something, that is on them.

The question of the thread was "do you use Mac or Windows to edit photos?" not "is Mac or Windows better?"

I am trying to get an idea of how many people here use each platform, thats all.

Do you blame the noob asking if he should get a Canon or Nikon when it turns into a giant 20 page mess of a thread?

Edit: To be honest I was hoping someone might provide some insightful information about WHY they use one or the other for photo editing. I dont know much about Macs, but I hear they are very good for photo/video editing. I am always trying to learn, and I hope you realize thats all I was trying to do here too.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 25, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S... you had to start this thread?
> ...



I do like that macs come with iPhoto, its somewhat useful for newbies. It is better than nothing. What does windows have? MS Paint?


----------



## usayit (Sep 25, 2010)

yeh... I understand but these usually degrade into such discussion...  Yes..  there are past threads that specifically stated "for editing photos"

To answer your question.

For the most part, it doesn't matter.  Unless you have an urge to use Aperture 3 (which doesn't support Windows), you should stick to whatever you feel most comfortable with (kinda like choosing between Canon and Nikon).  The key here is

1) Make sure you have enough resources to support the software and the file sizes you intend on working with.  In general, max out memory.
(note: video editing is more resource intensive than photos)
2) Make sure you get a good monitor
3) Make sure you get something to calibrate that monitor
4) Make sure you think about backups.

The whole, Mac is better for video and photo editing is a long played out cliche that really just doesn't apply any longer.  What you do on a Mac, you can accomplish the same on a Windows box.

I still prefer Mac.


[EDIT]

A little off topic... anyone running Vmware ESXi on a Mac Intel workstation?


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 25, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> I do like that macs come with iPhoto, its somewhat useful for newbies. It is better than nothing. What does windows have? MS Paint?


 
lol

I am having flashbacks of trying (unsuccessfully) to edit photos with ms paint.

Its funny because its still there in Windows 7.

I think most people would agree that its pretty fail...


----------



## timbearden (Sep 25, 2010)

This question is like comparing Nikon to Canon.  I love my macs for so many reasons.  All my editing is done on my macs.  My PC is super slow as I have had it for years.  I used to do all my websites on PC, but have converted that to macs as well.  

There are pros and cons to both.  A lot of software doesn't cater to mac, which is a downside for me.  However, with macs I never have to worry about viruses, or virus software slowing down my computer.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 25, 2010)

usayit said:


> yeh... I understand but these usually degrade into such discussion... Yes.. there are past threads that specifically stated "for editing photos"
> 
> To answer your question.
> 
> ...


 
See now thats what I am talking about.

Ty for the insightful and informative post.

This is kind of what I was thinking already, because most of the major photo editing programs are on both platforms.

I thought there may be some stuff that I didnt know about Macs though...


----------



## usayit (Sep 25, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Hardware is hardware. Period It's not about the hardware.
> ...



Not the entire truth...

UNIX systems maintain stability via strict control over the hardware they support.  This is why most will only support the hardware they retailed that has undergone their expectations of test and quality assurance.  It doesn't mean that they actually build all the hardware BUT they strictly try to limit third party because of a certain commitment to uptime / reliability that can potentially become a liability.  

HPUX for example have sourced their SCSI cards from LSI and previously QLogic.   The cards are then reflashed with HP's firmware which has been specifically tested with their O/S and drivers.  This means that HP and only HP is responsible for the reliability of that operation.  No need for HP to worry (and waste resources supporting) problems/issues that could have been introduced by some third party hardware, firmware, or software.  Even if they could deny liability/support when unsupported third party items are introduced, it still sours the relationship between the customer and HP.  Afterall, the HP-UX O/S is the most visable portion.  Let's not forget that it costs $$$ to HP to even make that determination. 

Ask any Windows IT guy... most have been stuck with a problem with Microsoft pointing fingers at the third party vendor and the third party vendor pointing fingers at Microsoft.  It is extremely frustrating for all parties and very costly.  

I have no doubt that much of the "Windows Sucks" experiences are steming from misbehaving drivers/software/firmware/hardware that came from other vendors and Not Microsoft. 


On the other hand..


It is a double edged sword because it means you cut out most third parties which limits availability of hardware and support software.   It is a trade off.. flexibility or reliability through stricter control.

Apple's treatment of MAC OS X and their hardware is following this model.  The hardware they deliver is of higher than consumer level quality.. which costs.   The only reason why it seems expensive is that there are no cheaper alternatives.    Some would say.. its not that Mac hardware is expensive is that others are so darn cheap.  Their laptop prices are on par with high end Sony's, Lenovos, HPs, etc...   its just people keep insisting on a comparison with lower end Dells...

After a career experience in all sorts of platforms, I will say Mac can be as bomb stable as many production Unix servers I have worked on.  The internals of my old G5 Mac workstation are definitely outfitted with good quality components for that time.


I personally think Apple doesn't much care for taking over the entire market from Microsoft.  I think they perfectly happy remaining the niche alternative... doing well at it too.   Let's not forget that Microsoft pushed out other competitors through business moves that limited availability to other O/S's... I'm sure Apple does make some $$$ from this same move... they are all guilty of it to a certain extent....


----------



## cfusionpm (Sep 25, 2010)

usayit said:


> Apple's treatment of MAC OS X and their hardware is following this model. The hardware they deliver is of higher than consumer level quality.. which costs. The only reason why it seems expensive is that there are no cheaper alternatives. Some would say.. its not that Mac hardware is expensive is that others are so darn cheap. Their laptop prices are on par with high end Sony's, Lenovos, HPs, etc... its just people keep insisting on a comparison with lower end Dells...


Back in summer of 2008, when I was shopping for a new desktop, I seriously considered a Mac. I ended up with a Dell box because of the following:

I purchased this Dell XPS 420 desktop (Q9450 2.66GHz quad core, 4GB ram, top line 8800GT 512mb, 750gb HD, 24" 1920x1200 monitor) for $1,800$. At the time, the most comperable iMac was the 24" model. The 2.8GHz was nice, but it was a dual core, not quad. It only had 2GB ram, a 320gb HD, and a ho-hum Radeon 2600 256mb video card. To bring the specs as equal as possible (4GB ram, 750GB HD, 8800GT), the price was brought to $2,300; which is _$500 more_ than the Dell. And despite being that much more, it still didn't have a quad core processor, and was stifled from any kind of internal upgrades, like the bluray drive I added to my box a little over a year ago.

So this is where I personally get my "overpriced" mindset from. I'm not sure how things faire now, but since my PC still runs like a champ, I haven't looked to anything new anyway. Well.. other than the recent pump from 4gb to 8gb RAM.

With that platform and Creative Suite tools from Adobe.... Why would I need a Mac for anything?


----------



## DC-Photog (Sep 25, 2010)

PC - only because I've been building my own system for many years. My editing workstation is incredibly fast, doesn't crash, and I have an external rack system for my hard drives.

Monitor - Apple Cinema Display from 2005. Hands down the best monitor I have ever owned. I ran a series of print tests with three labs, and the prints were so accurate to the monitor that I didn't need to run any calibration. My Eye One puck has been collecting dust ever since.

Software - Current version of Photoshop. I upgrade every time.

Other Software - Custom plugins for PS that I write.

That's it.


----------



## usayit (Sep 25, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> So this is where I personally get my "overpriced" mindset from. I'm not sure how things faire now, but since my PC still runs like a champ, I haven't looked to anything new anyway. Well.. other than the recent pump from 4gb to 8gb RAM.



It might not matter to many consumers but open up the two boxes and check out the components spec'd.  That's were the differences lie.  You have to look beyond the sheer specs.

I once worked in a data center that was equipped IBM servers as well as racks of Dells.  We had higher failure rates out of the Dells but then again.. expected as the powers that be chose to save a few bucks with the lower ends.  Once you figure in the quality of the components, the higher end Dells might have been just as good as the IBM servers but the price was pretty much a wash.   Its not that Dells are cheaper its simply that they have a cheaper alternative to the more expensive IBMs.  Its the same with Apple... the misunderstanding here is that Apple doesn't have "low" and "high end".... 

one example....

Apple memory freakin expensive for the Powermac workstation line.  I can source them from third party at 1/3rd (or less) the cost from Apple Corp.  Out of curiosity, I priced out the same amount of memory for their Xservers.  Guess what.. the same price.. Its the EXACT same memory bank!  The same memory intended for a production based commercial server is sourced for my powermac at home.   This is like buying a hammer from the Military to their specs to be used to hang a picture on my wall.  That's why it gets expensive.

Honestly... I don't particular care... I am primarily a mac user for the O/S not the hardware (hence I have a hackintosh too).   But I do appreciate the components when I break open one of my powermacs. 



> With that platform and Creative Suite tools from Adobe.... Why would I need a Mac for anything?



Absolutely nothing.... if it doesn't matter you.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 25, 2010)

usayit said:


> cfusionpm said:
> 
> 
> > So this is where I personally get my "overpriced" mindset from. I'm not sure how things faire now, but since my PC still runs like a champ, I haven't looked to anything new anyway. Well.. other than the recent pump from 4gb to 8gb RAM.
> ...


 
I selected every part in my computer myself. I picked very high quality components, and my computer is extremely fast and stable while still being affordable.

Look at this screenshot.







Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no Macs no matter what you pay that run this fast. This will likely be the case for some time still, even though my PC is almost a year old.

Keep in mind that I have been running the same overclock since day one of the build.

I just speced a Mac Pro to close to what my hardware is, and they want $4300 for it. For just my base hardware I doubt I spent over $2,000, and that was with an Intel 160GB G2 SSD back when they cost over $600. I just configured the Mac with a cheap 2TB HDD.

The Mac I built on the site had a 3.2Ghz quad core mind you, and mine runs all day at 3.8Ghz stable as a rock. My processor cost under $300...

To go from 3GB to 12GB of ram right now they want $1200...lol?? My 12GB ram kit cost me under $300 A YEAR AGO.

Macs are cool, but they are way overpriced and not my style. If I was rich though they are pretty sexy...


----------



## table1349 (Sep 25, 2010)

Since your original question was about editing, here is a comparison with various processors, OS and versions of Photoshop.  
Improved Photoshop Benchmark CPU speed test for both Mac & PC &#8211; Free Radial Blur filter test  Photoshop  Keith Simonian Wedding Photography &#8211; San Francisco Bay Area &#8211; Napa Valley &#8211; Monterey &#8211; Carmel

The 1 second advantage the Quad core 2.93Ghz Nehalem has over the Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown overclocked to 4.70 GHz is insignificant when it comes to speed.  It is kind of interesting that the 2.93 Nehalem is faster than the overclocked 4.70.  

For fun I would like to see the specs for a 2 X 2.93GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon &#8220;Westmere&#8221; (12 cores) 32GB (8x4Gb) w/Two ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB running Snow Leopard with CS5.  I wouldn't want to see the price tag though.


----------



## Kalemine (Sep 25, 2010)

My desktop is a PC, and more power, and my laptop is a Macbook Pro. Since I do most of my editing on the laptop, I ended up choosing Mac in the pool.

I like the 8 hours battery, the screen with very nice color, the low weight and the fact that Mac OS X can show RAW and PSD files directly in the finder.

But honestly, there isn't that much of a difference between the two system nowaday on a photo editing perspective. Choose what you like.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 25, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Since your original question was about editing, here is a comparison with various processors, OS and versions of Photoshop.
> Improved Photoshop Benchmark CPU speed test for both Mac & PC &#8211; Free Radial Blur filter test Photoshop Keith Simonian Wedding Photography &#8211; San Francisco Bay Area &#8211; Napa Valley &#8211; Monterey &#8211; Carmel


 
That is very interesting. I wonder why PCs run PS slower for the same processor speeds...

I still think they are overpriced though.

Like I said before, I would probably be editing on a Mac if money was no object.

Edit: It could be because the Mac was running a Xeon processor. If I remember correctly, they have bigger L3 cache and possible other advantages. I also think that the 3.2 and 3.33 GHz ones have a QPI speed of 6.4 GHz where a core i7 920's overclocked have a QPI speed of only 4.8 GHZ. I dont know if that makes a difference for the test though. Maybe the OS is more effecient somehow too.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 25, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Since your original question was about editing, here is a comparison with various processors, OS and versions of Photoshop.
> ...



Oh I don't know. This is the top off the shelf system from Apple: 


Two 2.93GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon &#8220;Westmere&#8221; (12 cores)
32GB (8x4GB)
Mac Pro RAID Card
512GB solid-state drive
2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
Two ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
Two 18x SuperDrives
Apple LED Cinema Display (27" flat panel)
Apple LED Cinema Display (27" flat panel)
It only comes in at *$14,947.00*.:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

But with it you get built in WiFi and bluetooth. :mrgreen:  :mrgreen:

You don't want to know what a custom built apple runs.


----------



## cfusionpm (Sep 25, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Since your original question was about editing, here is a comparison with various processors, OS and versions of Photoshop.
> ...


The speedy OSX results may have less to do with the OS, and more to do with the fact that they're using *two* processors, while all the Windows tests are using a single processor...


----------



## usayit (Sep 25, 2010)

Neil, you completely missed my point... sorry.  It literally flew over your head...

Now watch while this thread degrades down the PC versus Mac toilet.





btw... if you don't want Apple spec'd memory, you get more reasonable prices out of other vendors.  I use "macsales.com".  Its 1/3rd to 1/5th the cost.

BUT

I would never ever take the risk and spec that memory to clients that stand to loose $$$$$ per minute if something goes wrong.   

That's the difference between commercial and consumer components.  Unfortunately, Apple doesn't seem to distinguish and offer more affordable alternatives.   The memory in the Xserve is the same as the workstation.



Cameras for example...  A prosumer camera can do 90% of a professional camera.. its the 10% extra that make the professional camera cost several times more than the prosumer.  No different from other consumer versus professional equipment... you always pay a premium.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 25, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...



Possibly, but remember you are talking about a 6 core that has been significantly overclocked, is a 12 thread processor that currently exceeds the ability of any software.  It was specifically built for gamers and content editors.

The only way to really know for sure is to have exactly identical hardware running the Snow Leopard and Windows 7 with CS5.  Then we would finally be able to compare apples to apples.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 25, 2010)

usayit said:


> Neil, you completely missed my point... sorry. It literally flew over your head...
> 
> Now watch while this thread degrades down the PC versus Mac toilet.
> 
> ...


 
Why do you keep talking about commercial and consumer components lol.

Do you even know that I can build a PC from literally anything that I want?? 

Thats what a custom DIY PC is.

I can go online and pick from thousands of individual parts, of any price I desire. Server boards, anything literally.

Can you do that with Apple?

You are talking about Apple spec'd memory. Its just RAM though guy, they dont dip it in gold or anything.

You can buy server grade memory online for PCs, even the ECC registered stuff if you want (although you need the right motherboard).

It is up to you, whatever you want to do. Thats the beauty of a build.

Also you keep implying that Apple somehow uses components that are "superior" to PC components.

You need to know that I have done a ton of research on specific computer parts for overclocking. I know about voltages, loads, grades of capacitors, extreme cooling methods, etc. I have even volt modded a motherboard with a soldering iron in the past.

I built a custom water cooled P4 in the past with danger den waterblocks, and a triple fan radiator.

Many of the parts designed for overclocking bring with them extreme durability, and lifespan. They are built from the ground up to handle huge voltages, and massive heat. They are constructed from higher grade materials, use larger heatsinks and fans that are superior to normal parts.

Overclocking motherboards often have higher phase power delivery systems for the CPU power. This provides more stable and cleaner power. They use higher grade caps, and generally are built to very high standards all around.

I can tell you for sure that Apple does not use components up to these levels. 

PCs can use extremely high grade power supplies as well like the 920W Enermax that I used for my system. It has extremely tight regulation, rock solid rails, 80 PLUS silver rating and an efficiency of up to 93%. I highly doubt that Apple uses such high grade power supplies.


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2010)

You still don't get it Neil......  You are even farther off now that you are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes.. I know how to build a computers too... I know where you are coming from (I've built server class machines at work).  At that point why don't you just say Dell XPS, Dell Alienware  or whatever other high end computer of any brand is also overpriced?  

You sound like those kiddies who sup up their civics and say.. "Why buy <insert expensive sports car here>?"



Neil S. said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S... you had to start this thread?
> ...



Funny... since you, the OP, keep trying to turn this thread into exactly what you said it was not intended to be.   I have yet to even say that PC is better nor Mac is better.

I have simply stated three things...
1) For photo editing it doesn't matter
2) I prefer Mac
3) Explain why there is a premium on Apple hardware (answer your question).  You are not listening.

Dude... stick to your box... I'm not saying not to...  Obviously it is best for you.  Why do you keep trying to argue?

Perhaps its envy?  Don't know.. I get the same idiotic conversations explaining my Leica.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

usayit said:


> You still don't get it Neil...... You are even farther off now that you are comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Yes.. I know how to build a computers too... I know where you are coming from (I've built server class machines at work). At that point why don't you just say Dell XPS, Dell Alienware or whatever other high end computer of any brand is also overpriced?
> 
> ...


 
You are comparing a Leica to an Apple Mac lol? You must be joking.

Its totally different, because you cannot build your own Camera, at least not practically. Especially up to the standards of a Leica.

You are not trying to argue, but yet your first post here was "Neil S... you had to start this thread?" Good job not starting an argument guy. 

Also you keep saying things about Apple like:

"Apple's treatment of MAC OS X and their hardware is following this model. The hardware they deliver is of higher than consumer level quality.." 

and 

"It might not matter to many consumers but open up the two boxes and check out the components spec'd. That's were the differences lie. You have to look beyond the sheer specs."

clearly implying that they are a cut above hardware wise, which simply isn&#8217;t true compared to a custom built PC.

and

"The only reason why it seems expensive is that there are no cheaper alternatives."

I have proved all of this wrong in my previous post. Apple is not "superior" to PCs as you keep implying. Just stop, as its you who came in here trying to argue that Apple is better. Read all the posts again, if you still dont realize that. I wasnt pointing out Apples flaws until you started saying they were better than PCs.

The cold hard truth is that they are way overpriced, and its not like a Leica or Ferrari is overpriced, because you cannot reasonably build your own camera or car to their high standards. I can build a PC that&#8217;s way better than any Mac you could have Apple build for you.

I find it funny that you can&#8217;t even address the points I made in my last post except saying things like "idiotic conversations" and "You sound like those kiddies who sup up their civics and say.. "Why buy <insert expensive sports car here>?"


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2010)

Dude... again.. right over your head.  I am not arguing with you.. Never said Apple was better.  I simply answered all your questions and you are not listening.  Your inferences to my responses are off base and wrong.    (ie Consumer level quality != custom built PCs.  I'm talking about retail. Apples to Apples.)

Its hopeless.

btw.. I am a Leica shooter.  Leica isn't expensive because it can take a better picture than everyone else.... its a niche product.. the only digital M-mount rangefinder currently in production.  Yes.. I think it is also overpriced.  Yes... its not weather sealed, no AF, no auto anything... Yes.. My sensor has failed and required replacement.    The cost of products and goods are often not a sum of the parts.  Do enjoy it. Hell yes.  Do I love shooting hell yes...  Any regrets.  Hell no.   My reference to Leica wasn't to bring comparison but to point out peoples' idiotic reaction to expensive items they can't afford.  Yours being one of those examples.   

Why the obsession over Apple?  Because you don't see it as affordable.   Custom PCs are also priced lower than high end Dells but you don't see people (you including) complaining about them.


Again.. repeat.. I'm not saying one is better than the other.  Simply explaining why things are the way they are.  Get over it.. you are starting to sound like a kid ranting.


Envy isn't a good thing.  Be happy with your choices... obviously you are.  Nothing wrong with that.  But don't pick an argument over some elses choices.


[EDIT]

Let me make this clear...

Your custom built PC is the most awesome best PC on the planet earth for YOU.  Nothing more nothing less..    The key is "for YOU".  Or is that not simplistic enough for yah?


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Oh I don't know. This is the top off the shelf system from Apple:
> 
> 
> Two 2.93GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon &#8220;Westmere&#8221; (12 cores)
> ...



You forgot the FC adapter $1000
and the external storage to attach to it $8k-$20k  

From a commercial point of view.. these are still relatively "Affordable".


BTW..  A fully loaded Xserver is well $100K.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2010)

usayit said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I don't know. This is the top off the shelf system from Apple:
> ...



Actually I didn't forget it I choose Two ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB and the Raid card, With two graphics cards you can't have both the FC and the Raid card.  If they only had one more slot in their box.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2010)

Neil S.  

Actually your original question is pointless. I refer you to this post of yours in regards to a person inquiring about photoshop.  http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-advice-purchasing-photoshop.html#post2031266

Based on your post you must use a PC since a Mac doesn't run Paint.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 26, 2010)

I think I agree with Neil S.

So what if this memory in a mac is a high standard or for commercial use or for servers... Is it THAT MUCH BETTER then some good corsair memory or other good brand? A mac is indeed overpriced for its specs (even if the memory is "better") and other parts are high-grade because you can still build a kick-ass stable GOOD computer yourself for a LOT cheaper.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 26, 2010)

This reminds me on those kids whose mothers made their clothes for them....yeah! Home-made clothes! SO cool!


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2010)

prodigy2k7 said:


> I think I agree with Neil S.
> 
> So what if this memory in a mac is a high standard or for commercial use or for servers... Is it THAT MUCH BETTER then some good corsair memory or other good brand? A mac is indeed overpriced for its specs (even if the memory is "better") and other parts are high-grade because you can still build a kick-ass stable GOOD computer yourself for a LOT cheaper.



Custom builds are significantly cheaper than high end machines of any other brand.   Yet, mo one ever starts Custom versus <insert PC brand here>  threads?    So then ask, why all the PC's versus Macs flame war threads??  The only conclusion I can come to lies within the idiotic and immature notion that one must justify their own choices externally... especially when the alternative is an expensive one.

As I said many times...

Almost all Mac users are also knowledgeable Windows users...  Not all Windows users are knowledgeable Mac users  (usually the ones that start dumb threads like this).


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2010)

This here thread inspired me to write to NASCAR about their racing.  Thought I would CC: you all in on the letter I sent them.

          Dear NASCAR,

              Me and bunch of other fellers were discussing computers totherday and was marvelin over how much some of them there fancy computers cost.  There be a whole mess a folks that build their own computers out of cheaper parts and they swear that they be just a good r even better then them machines what is engineered to exacting specifications.  Heck if&#8217;n that there be tru, why yoall could save a heap of money if you would quite using all them high priced stuff and start racing on the cheap.  Here be a list what we done come up with to save money.

  1.     quite using that high priced custom blended gasoline.  The quickie-mart selling regular unleaded for $2.51 a gallon.  If you wanta save even more on fuel costs, buy all your hotdogs, nachos and beer that you sell at the refreshment stands at Kroger.  Fer evey $100 you spend on groceries you get a dime off on your gas.  Heck if you were to by $1000 worth a food from them theyed give  you a hole dollar off per gallon.  

  2.     Quit using them there fancy racing tires.   These here tires from walmart only be $408.00 a set and they come with a 50,000 mileage guarentee.  Shoot them cars could go a whole season on just one or to set a tires instead of putting on them fancy racing tires ever 100 miles or so.

  3.     Quite using them fancy frames and bodies and such.  One of the fellers was telling how the bestes car he ever had was a 1980 Pinto.  Go get a whole bunch of them there suckers from the salvage yard and give them out to all the fellers you got racing.  Won&#8217;t need near as many of them there dang ole pit stops to fix stuff and adjust stuff an all.  Weld a plate behind the gas tank though, them pintos tend to blow up if you hit em in from behind.   Heck if you want some real fun letem use Chevy Vegas and AMC gremlins too. 

  4.     Oh yeah, use Seran wrap on them windshields stead of them fancy tear offs.  Hole roll of seran wrap is only $2.25.  

  5.     Quite putting all that fancy roll bars window nets and such in the cars.  Just roll the windows down and they don&#8217;t need all that stuff nor them fancy water drinking things  Get a good cup holder for the window and a 64oz slurpy from the 7-11 and them boys be good fer the whole race. 

  6.     Stop using them there fancy dancy engines.  The 2.3L 88hp pinto engine was a doozy.  Why I bet you could overclock that thing to 93 or 94 hp easy.   What more does a feller need?   Look how much you will save on them dang restrictor plates.  Don&#8217;t need one on a Pinto motor. 

  Well, hope me an the boys have given ya some good idears for improving NASCAR.  Looking forward to the changes.  Shoot, you might even be able to get the cub scouts to sponser it since it will be more like the pinewood derby they run.  



  Boogitie, boogitie boogitie. :mrgreen:


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

usayit said:


> Again.. repeat.. I'm not saying one is better than the other. Simply explaining why things are the way they are. Get over it.. you are starting to sound like a kid ranting.
> 
> Envy isn't a good thing. Be happy with your choices... obviously you are. Nothing wrong with that. But don't pick an argument over some elses choices.


 
Nothing is going over my head guy.

LOL envy?

Ya I am jealous of people with too much money and not enough tech savvy. Thats it, you got me.

Thats the 2nd time you accused me of "envy", and it seems that your status as a Mac user is important to you, as well as thinking you are better than others and that everyone is jealous of you. Trust me I am not.

I think this is really funny because guess what, my PC will smoke any Mac you have in most apps by a long shot. Trust me I am not jealous at all.

I also have the freedom to upgrade what I want, any time I want.

If being a Mac user means acting like you, and getting a complex about how much better you precious Mac is than PCs, then I know that its not for me.

You ARE saying its better, because you are implying it without outright saying "Apple is better".

Its the same thing, you dont have to actually say "Apple is better" to imply it. Look up imply in the dictionary if you dont understand this part.

You just keep trying to justify the high price, and say that they are made from better components. This is not true, they DO NOT use superior components over PCs.

I simply said that Apples are overpriced, thats all. Am I not entitled to my opinion on this?

This is a fact, and I can prove it all day long.

With an unlimited budget I can build a PC thats far better than any Mac. This is because custom PCs have the absolute best components available for use in them, and Macs DO NOT.

I can admit that they are nice, so why can't you admit they are overpriced?


----------



## icassell (Sep 26, 2010)

I was an apple user before there ever was a PC. It worked fine and did what I wanted it to do.  I wound up switching to PC in about 1999 when I needed Windows for work compatibility and work bought my computer for me.  

Now, many years later, I use Dell XPS 8100 i7-860 running Win 7 and it works fine and lightning-fast for CS5/LR3/GF 6.0.  It cost me (from Dell Outlet Store -- Scratch/Dent) all of about $750.  I can probably buy 3 of them for the price of a Mac Tower. The difference in price between my machine and a Mac Tower bought me more glass. Is it better than a Mac?  I have no idea. It does my job fast and reliably and that's what counts to me.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Again.. repeat.. I'm not saying one is better than the other. Simply explaining why things are the way they are. Get over it.. you are starting to sound like a kid ranting.
> ...




Wrong.  Any pc that you can build can also be built as a Mac.  Hardware is hardware.  Any hard drive can be formatted to NTSF or HFS+  Electricity is Electricity, there is no MAC electricity or PC electricity etc.  It all comes down to the OS and a Unix based system is not that tough to write mods for.  

If you like windows use a PC.  if you like OSX use a Mac.  There is only one really big difference between a Mac and a PC.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

usayit said:


> Custom builds are significantly cheaper than high end machines of any other brand. Yet, mo one ever starts Custom versus <insert PC brand here> threads? So then ask, why all the PC's versus Macs flame war threads?? The only conclusion I can come to lies within the idiotic and immature notion that one must justify their own choices externally... especially when the alternative is an expensive one.


 
LOL, are you serious???

THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT YOU CANNOT BUILD A CUSTOM MAC

I wasnt flaming anything, I truly was curious how many people used each platform.

You pretty much started all of this, talking about how good you think Macs are.

For everyone else reading this, go back and look at the first two pages and you will see I am right...


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Wrong. Any pc that you can build can also be built as a Mac. Hardware is hardware. Any hard drive can be formatted to NTSF or HFS+ Electricity is Electricity, there is no MAC electricity or PC electricity etc. It all comes down to the OS and a Unix based system is not that tough to write mods for.
> 
> If you like windows use a PC. if you like OSX use a Mac. There is only one really big difference between a Mac and a PC.


 
Ok maybe I am missing something...

Are you saying that you can install OSX on any hardware?

I was pretty sure until now that it had to be only certain types, and you have to use their specific case, etc.

If you had to even just use their case, then you cannot use any hardware, as some motherboards would not fit the form factor.

Please explain this...


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. Any pc that you can build can also be built as a Mac. Hardware is hardware. Any hard drive can be formatted to NTSF or HFS+ Electricity is Electricity, there is no MAC electricity or PC electricity etc. It all comes down to the OS and a Unix based system is not that tough to write mods for.
> ...



Thats why it's called a Hackintosh. http://lifehacker.com/321913/build-a-hackintosh-mac-for-under-800  Just one example. 

We just don't make a big deal out of it like some builders do.  Why do you think linux came about.  A unix based system that unlike Apple OSX isn't proprietary.  It's open source.


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 26, 2010)

Anyone can buy any computer they want... from an Apple to a PC to a one-off Linux system. Anyone trying to imply one is better than the other and that owners of the other are somehow evious... has some serious insecurity issues. 

Do your own research, make an informed choice, and give fanbois from either camp the finger.


----------



## RSPhotography (Sep 26, 2010)

The main difference i've found with using both a mac and PC is that the PC tends to get clogged up and gradually slows down, especially if it is not a dedicated photo editing machine and other software is installed.

I tend to find that PC's need replacing more often than my mac, which I've had for 3/4 years without any issues. 

Hope this helps!


----------



## Manyak (Sep 26, 2010)

I use a PC, for several reasons.

1) It's fun as hell to build them, and you get a lot more bang for your buck that way no matter which company you're comparing it to (especially when you overclock).

2) I'm running a server that does a lot besides hosting and backing up my files. Basically, my home network is set up "business" style - I can log onto any PC I want, whether it's at my desk or on my TV, and all my programs, files, settings, etc, will all be there. Integrating a mac into this setup is just way more trouble than it's worth.

3) I prefer programs that give you full control over every parameter possible instead of leaving out a lot just to make it "user friendly". Windows and Linux (I run both) tend to have more programs that fall under this category than Mac does.

4) There really isn't any software I need that's only available on Mac. If there was I wouldn't mind getting one, but so far there hasn't been a reason to.


At the end of the day computers are just tools, and it's up to you to pick the tool that's best for the job you want it to do.


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> I wasnt flaming anything, I truly was curious how many people used each platform.
> 
> You pretty much started all of this, talking about how good you think Macs are.
> 
> ...



This is the most immature crap...

The good things I posted about MAC or the explanations I offer imply nothing about PCs nor Windows.

I have said nothing negative about PCs....  In fact, i was the one that told you to stick with PC/Windows.  I too have several machines... some servers (windows), a couple workstations (MAC OS X), and a netbook (Hackintosh).  

Have you ever thought that PCs and Macs are both good? (I've said that in my responses already)  Can I say Macs are "great" and why I like them without implying anything about PCs?

Why so defensive?  I can only think there are some serious emotional issues on the other end...


----------



## Whootsinator (Sep 26, 2010)

I would rather die than use a Mac. I hate Apple as a company. Not because Mac's are bad... Macs do what they were designed to do very well... I would rather die than use a Mac because Apple fanbois are the swine of the Earth.

Now that I've expressed that opinion, I will kindly run out the door.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

usayit said:


> This is the most immature crap...
> 
> The good things I posted about MAC or the explanations I offer imply nothing about PCs nor Windows.
> 
> ...


 
I am finished discussing this with you.

You have resorted to calling names, and saying things like that I am envious of you. Not of even of Macs, just you. This is completely absurd lol.

I don't feel like wasting any more time responding to this garbage.

Everything was fine here until you showed up and started preaching about how superior Macs are.


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2010)

Hey buddy...

I'm not the one who blurted out how their custom PC is better/cheaper....  how fast it is...

I'm not the one who took each and every positive remark as a negative one...


I never said Macs are Superior... nor better...  

In fact I agree with yah that they are expensive....  I simply explained why...  but again over the top of that head of yours..



> The only reason why it seems expensive is that there are no cheaper alternatives.
> 
> ..
> 
> Apple memory freakin expensive for the Powermac workstation line.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Thats why it's called a Hackintosh. Build a Hackintosh Mac for Under $800 Just one example.
> 
> We just don't make a big deal out of it like some builders do. Why do you think linux came about. A unix based system that unlike Apple OSX isn't proprietary. It's open source.


 
Never heard of it.

This is interesting stuff

I would assume that you are still limited to certain hardware when doing this

The reason that I say this is because I highly doubt there would be drivers for hardware not sanctioned by Apple.

I could be wrong on this though...


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

usayit said:


> Hey buddy...
> 
> I'm not the one who blurted out how their custom PC is better/cheaper.... how fast it is...
> 
> ...


 
Are you mad lol? Really?

I already told you I am done discussing this with you.

If you continue trying to provoke me, as you have been doing since your first post of "Neil S... you had to start this thread?" then you will have the privilege of being the 3rd person on my ignore list.

Honestly I could care less, either way. 

Whats it going to be Mr. everybody is envious of you and your Macs???


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 26, 2010)

Dude, calm down a little, lol.  If you don't care - why make the thread?

The "you had to start this" comment was, IMO, clearly referring to the pointlessness of these kinds of threads.  No different than if it said "Canon or Nikon?"

Personally, I use Windows.  I don't really feel one way or the other about it though.  I would happily switch if something else did what I needed.

I haven't used a Mac since I was in grade school, and that's all there was.  I don't hate Mac though, and I certainly don't love Windows, lol.


----------



## shuttercraft (Sep 26, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Hardware is hardware. Period It's not about the hardware.
> ...



Do you have any idea what you are even talking about? Have you never seen the pro end of the mac lineup?


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> The "you had to start this" comment was, IMO, clearly referring to the pointlessness of these kinds of threads.  No different than if it said "Canon or Nikon?"



Thanks man....

No different than saying "I like Canon" and posting why.. doesn't imply anything is wrong with Nikon.


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2010)

shuttercraft said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...



SSShhh...  You might say something nice about Mac....

<I'm joking..>


----------



## shuttercraft (Sep 26, 2010)

*Grabs more popcorn and watches the Mac vs PC Battle continue*


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Thats why it's called a Hackintosh. Build a Hackintosh Mac for Under $800 Just one example.
> ...



Depends on the degree of hackintosh you want.  Hacked instal of OX10 or hacked OSx86.   Apple doesn't sanction OSx86.

That's the problem with growing up in a Microsoft world.  If it ain't Bill's build most people don't understand it nor have they every played in it. They understand Windows, and maybe DOS.   That is where starting with old time programing like Fortran and Cobol come in.  They are obsolete, but they expanded the range of what is possible in the computer world, not just the Microsoft world.  The Microsoft world is only a small part of the computer universe.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2010)

shuttercraft said:


> *Grabs more popcorn and watches the Mac vs PC Battle continue*



Dude at least include a graphic or two.


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2010)

I've already had a bag full..... sometime during page 3 .. i think.   

I'm on my 2nd beer now...


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

shuttercraft said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


 
Why yes I do have an idea what I am talking about, thanks for asking lol!!! :thumbup:

By "build your own machine" I dont mean configure it on the Apple website.

I am talking about actually building it from scratch with your own hands, from parts you select.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)




----------



## cfusionpm (Sep 26, 2010)

shuttercraft said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


Oh their pro stuff looks fantastic!  ...If I wanted to spend five to eight thousand dollars....


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> That's the problem with growing up in a Microsoft world. If it ain't Bill's build most people don't understand it nor have they every played in it. They understand Windows, and maybe DOS. That is where starting with old time programing like Fortran and Cobol come in. They are obsolete, but they expanded the range of what is possible in the computer world, not just the Microsoft world. The Microsoft world is only a small part of the computer universe.


 
Have you seen the Robin Williams live on Broadway special lol?

One of his jokes was:

"Mr Gates, when did you realize you were creating a monopoly? "Monopoly's just a game, Senator... I'm trying to control the ^#*%!$& world....."

For me Windows is just a means to an end.

I do greatly enjoy the flexibility though, and widespread compatibility. Even if it means that sometimes you will have hardware or driver conflicts.

I will say that Windows 7 surprises me every day, because its so stable and reliable. At least compared to other Windows releases over the years.

Perhaps they are finally getting one right...


----------



## Derrel (Sep 26, 2010)

I'm looking in to a home-built d-slr....I just KNOW I can build a better one than one designed by 100, 150 engineers with a collective 1,500 to 2,000 years' worth of experience...

I owned a Windows XP machine..it surprised me every day, with how clunky and kludgy and idiotic the entire file management system was...Windoze was so lame I would never call it an "operating system", just a file management system (effort).


----------



## cfusionpm (Sep 26, 2010)

Derrel said:


> I'm looking in to a home-built d-slr....I just KNOW I can build a better one than one designed by 100, 150 engineers with a collective 1,500 to 2,000 years' worth of experience...
> 
> I owned a Windows XP machine..it surprised me every day, with how clunky and kludgy and idiotic the entire file management system was...Windoze was so lame I would never call it an "operating system", just a file management system (effort).


A better analogy would be the ability to swap out your focusing screen for an aftermarket one, rather than being "stuck" with the hardware it came with.... though, the whole DSLR metaphor is a tough sell anyway considering how packaged that kind of product is and how relatively easy it is to put together a basic computer.

Edit: OR! Consider the entire idea of DSLR (interchangable lenses, compatible with 3rd party lenses, etc) like a PC, where as the Mac is like a self-contained point-and-shoot. There are some really great point and shoots, but you still can't change lenses on them and they still have smaller sensors. In this fictional analogy, Apple could also have a Hassleblad-like supercamera that performs extraordinarily well, but also costs about the same as a new car. 

Idunno though, I always liked the car metaphor best; like comparing a WRX STi to a BMW M3 or a Corvette Z06 to a Ferrari F430. Some people just care about the lap times, some people care about the image, some people care about the "whole package;" whatever they dictate that to be. How someone justifies spending their own money is totally up to them! If handed to me, I would gladly take an M3 and 430. With my own money, I'd have a Chevy and a Subaru.

I suppose I'm done fanning flames for now... :hug::


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

Derrel said:


> I'm looking in to a home-built d-slr....I just KNOW I can build a better one than one designed by 100, 150 engineers with a collective 1,500 to 2,000 years' worth of experience...
> 
> I owned a Windows XP machine..it surprised me every day, with how clunky and kludgy and idiotic the entire file management system was...Windoze was so lame I would never call it an "operating system", just a file management system (effort).


 
Derrel lol...

I want you to know that I can in fact build a better machine than 150 engineers, at least with the restrictions that are placed on them when designing it for the average joe.

I am not kidding you, I am that damn good at building PCs.

Custom companies like Alienware just use really high end parts, and often ones targeted at the overclocking crowd.

Why would I pay them 2x what it would cost to build the rig myself though? I will leave that to the people who don't know how, or aren't good enough.

Building it is only part of the equation by the way, keeping it running stable is another factor.

1,000,000 engineers can't do much here, if the user doesn't know what they are doing.

This why people who don't know much about computers are always screwing up their OS.


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 26, 2010)

...yeah, this is the same asshattery I see in Nikon Vs Canon threads.


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2010)

very same reason comparing a custom built PC to a retail box (of any sort) is a lame comparison.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > That's the problem with growing up in a Microsoft world. If it ain't Bill's build most people don't understand it nor have they every played in it. They understand Windows, and maybe DOS. That is where starting with old time programing like Fortran and Cobol come in. They are obsolete, but they expanded the range of what is possible in the computer world, not just the Microsoft world. The Microsoft world is only a small part of the computer universe.
> ...



It's actually not a joke.  It is the direction that Microsoft has taken from the very beginning.  I'm not saying it is either good or bad, Nor am I saying that the Apple philosophy is the right one.  I am just pointing out that they take different approaches to marketing and their customers.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> ...yeah, this is the same asshattery I see in Nikon Vs Canon threads.


 
I realized something today.

The Canon vs. Nikon threads are probably good for these forums overall, at least if it doesn't get out of control with name calling, etc.

Think about it.

Arguing which one is better in such detail is bound to increase peoples knowledge and understanding of the two.

I have already learned a lot of stuff from people here arguing why one or the other is better.

I just try to squash it when people start calling names and making it personal. Thats when it gets ugly.

The same thing goes here.

I have already learned quite a few things in this thread, and I already knew a ton about computers (PCs at least).

I am sure that the people that dont know very much have learned even more.

Can we all just agree to be mature during these types of discussions? Yes I mean me too, I know that I am not perfect.

If we can just keep it positive, there is a lot of good knowledge to be shared.


----------



## shuttercraft (Sep 26, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > cfusionpm said:
> ...





Neil S. said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 


My brothers Mac pro has* 32 gigs of ram*, *Two ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB*,  *Two 2.93GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon &#8220;Westmere&#8221; possessors, **4TB of hard drive space, and he has never maxed it out running final cut pro, aperture, browsers, and much more at the same time.   Its faster then your PC. *


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

shuttercraft said:


> My brothers Mac pro has* 32 gigs of ram*, *Two ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB*, *4TB of hard drive space, and he has never maxed it out running final cut pro, aperture, browsers, and much more at the same time. *


 
Ya but what did it cost? It had to be like $5,000-8,000 right?

For what it did, I 100% gaurntee you I could build a better/faster/cheaper PC.

Give me the price and I will list the parts if you want, to prove it.


----------



## shuttercraft (Sep 26, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> shuttercraft said:
> 
> 
> > My brothers Mac pro has* 32 gigs of ram*, *Two ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB*, *4TB of hard drive space, and he has never maxed it out running final cut pro, aperture, browsers, and much more at the same time. *
> ...



He got the mac for 3,700 and upgraded it. We work with macs because we love macs. 

You don't get much better then the specs listed above.

I would never go back to a PC.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2010)

Perhaps it would be better to use the word assemble rather than build in these discussions.  Take two people involved in the making of a Cadillac.  There is the engineer that designed the thing from paper sketch, to computer model, to clay full size model to final production car.  

Then there is the guy on the assembly line that attaches the bumper.

Which one really built that Cadillac?


On a side note, the Mac pro described by shuttercraft has a maximum potential Ram capacity of 1TB.  That is based on the particular configuration of the Westmere processor in a 12 core configuration.   The only limitation to meeting that capacity is the physical one of building either a MB that could hold that many ram sticks or build 4-250gig sticks.  OX10 has no ram limitations. Well there would be the one other limitation.  At present ram prices 1TB of ram would run approximately $380,000.00.    

Even if the hardware was available, you can't get Windows 7 to recognize that much ram.  

No matter whether you are a Windows fan or a Mac fan you have to admit having 1TB of ram would be *freaking cool.*  :mrgreen:


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 26, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> The only limitation to meeting that capacity is the physical one of building either a MB that could hold that many ram sticks or build 4-250gig sticks.  OX10 has no ram limitations. Well there would be the one other limitation.  At present ram prices 1TB of ram would run approximately $380,000.00.
> 
> Even if the hardware was available, you can't get Windows 7 to recognize that much ram.
> 
> No matter whether you are a Windows fan or a Mac fan you have to admit having 1TB of ram would be *freaking cool.*  :mrgreen:


Give it a year or two...  Five, tops.


----------



## shuttercraft (Sep 26, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Perhaps it would be better to use the word assemble rather than build in these discussions.  Take two people involved in the making of a Cadillac.  There is the engineer that designed the thing from paper sketch, to computer model, to clay full size model to final production car.
> 
> Then there is the guy on the assembly line that attaches the bumper.
> 
> ...



Just for your information you can configure a mac pro on apples website with 32 gigs of ram shipped. But do we really need that much ram? I told my brother to stop at 16 gigs. He went mad scientist on us.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2010)

shuttercraft said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps it would be better to use the word assemble rather than build in these discussions.  Take two people involved in the making of a Cadillac.  There is the engineer that designed the thing from paper sketch, to computer model, to clay full size model to final production car.
> ...




Try and keep up, your behind the times.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...reviews/218869-mac-windows-3.html#post2032381

:lmao::lmao:


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

shuttercraft said:


> He got the mac for 3,700 and upgraded it. We work with macs because we love macs.
> 
> You don't get much better then the specs listed above.
> 
> I would never go back to a PC.


 
Well thats a pretty open ended number, because he could have spent a ton upgrading it.

In the spirit of the "unlimited build" I am listing what I could do if money was no object.

The parts here are far from the most expensive that I could throw togethether, keep that in mind. This is a somewhat realistic build, like the dream Mac listed before.

$300 - LIAN LI PC-P80 Aluminum ATX Full Tower Case

$300 - ENERMAX Galaxy EVO 1250W ATX12V CrossFire Certified Active PFC Power Supply

$600 - EVGA Classified SR-2 (Super Record 2) Dual LGA 1366 Intel 5520 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 HPTX Intel Motherboard

$1225 ea. - (2X) Intel Xeon X5660 Westmere 2.8GHz 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 Six-Core Server Processors

$550 ea. - (2X) OCZ Reaper HPC 24GB 6 x 4GB DDR3 1333 Desktop Memory Kit

$1,600 - OCZ Colossus Series 500GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

$75 ea. - (2X) ZALMAN 120mm 2 Ball Low-noise Blue LED CPU Cooler

$130 ea. - (5X) Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB 32MB Cache SATA Internal Hard Drives

Note: These would be in a RAID 5 config giving you 8TB of fault tolerant storage. The case can easily handle this number of drives, and I own the same one btw.

$140 - LITE-ON 12X SATA Internal Blu-ray Burner

$1860 ea. - (2X) HP DreamColor LP2480zx 24" 6ms HDMI Widescreen Professional Display w/ LED Backlighting

$550 ea. - (4X) ASUS Radeon HD 5870 (Cypress XT) 2GB GDDR5 PCI Express CrossFireX Video Cards

Total: $13,210

*Heres what the case looks like:*

1.





2.





*Power Supply:*






*Motherboard:*






*RAM:*





*SSD:*






*CPU Coolers:*





*LCD:* 





*Video Cards:*





*First this PC is way better than the dream Mac listed earlier.

*Second even if you could build a Mac anywhere near this bad ass (which you cant) it would cost like $30,000 or some insane number. Because they markup sooo much.

Yup this has dual 6 core Westmere Xeons, 48GB system memory, 4 video cards with a combined 8GB of video memory, 8.5TB of storage, and two of the best monitors in the world. Yup the MB supports it all...

It would be reasonable to expect a stable overclock of 3.5GHz, and likely quite higher.

The motherboard is an overclocking model, and is built to very high standards, with solid caps, etc.

This does not include mouse/keyboard/etc, just the base hardware. And oh what nice hardware it is.

Yes I did steal the idea for the MB from the dream machine '10, but so what lol. Its the best mobo in the world, period. It is so big that it has its own form factor "HPTX". 

You would have to dremel tool the motherboard tray, and custom secure it for it to fit the case.

This would make it all that much more of an epic build though...


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

Now would be a good time for someone to admit that this PC destroys the Mac listed before...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 26, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Now would be a good time for someone to admit that this PC destroys the Mac listed before...


I don't endorse all this arguing but you are right.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 26, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Even if the hardware was available, you can't get Windows 7 to recognize that much ram.
> 
> No matter whether you are a Windows fan or a Mac fan you have to admit having 1TB of ram would be *freaking cool.* :mrgreen:


 
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit (which I am currently running) can support 192GB of ram btw...

48GB is the limit that I think you hit with a PC for current motherboards. That is for non-server boards.

Theres a server board on newegg that says it supports 192GB of ECC registered memory.

I am tired and dont feel like checking how much you could really put into it, based on current stick capacities.

It will be a long time before  running 192GB is even a realistic number, and by then MS will release a better OS for sure.

1TB RAM lol?

Its a pleasant pipe dream at least...


----------



## table1349 (Sep 27, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Even if the hardware was available, you can't get Windows 7 to recognize that much ram.
> ...



Actually it is a small amount that is theoretically possible.  Just not physically possible since the hardware is not possible at this time. From Apple's site. 

*64-bit computing shatters that barrier by enabling applications to  address a theoretical 16 billion gigabytes of memory, or 16 exabytes.

*Beats that 194Ghb don't it?*:mrgreen:
*


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 27, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Actually it is a small amount that is theoretically possible. Just not physically possible since the hardware is not possible at this time.


 
I am excited about the fact that storage is transitioning to flash based, it has so many advantages. Once the technology gets cheaper, it will guaranteed become the standard.

I was an early adopter of SSD drives, and bought the 160GB Intel one even before they had the TRIM firmware released.

My SSD is so fast, its scary. Close to zero access time, and insanly hi read speeds.

It quite simply blows any HDD on the planet out of the water in performance.

It is also silent, small, lightweight, resistant to shock+heat, and just generally bad ass overall lol.


----------



## Mauravdl (Sep 27, 2010)

No option for "all of the above"?

I have OSx and Windows boxes - and a linux box, but I don't use it too often.

- Maura


----------



## Derrel (Sep 27, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Now would be a good time for someone to admit that this PC destroys the Mac listed before...



Plus the heat and the cooling fans needed for such overkill would help in creating and moving so much hot air around that such a Windoze machine could heat the basement of the parents' house where such a machine would reside. One thing though....that cheezy Hewlett-Packard monitor...what's that all about???


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 27, 2010)

PROTIP: Your "manly endowment" is not measured by how much crap you stuffed into a computer case.


----------



## JamesMason (Sep 27, 2010)

its not that i like macs, its just i dont like windows


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 27, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Now would be a good time for someone to admit that this PC destroys the Mac listed before...
> ...


 
Are you joking about the HP monitor?

Its the worlds only 30-bit LCD panel, with over a billion colors.

Come on Derrel, I am sure you can appreciate that...

I would like to add that these monitors are over $800 more each compared to the 27" Apple ones.

Edit: Ya your right that it would put off a lot of heat. The $14,000 Mac would too though. And why would the machine need to reside in a parent's basement? Please explain this...


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 27, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> PROTIP: Your "manly endowment" is not measured by how much crap you stuffed into a computer case.


 
Umm...

I dont really know what to say to this lol.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 27, 2010)

*THIS THREAD MUST DIE!!!

























*


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 27, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> *THIS THREAD MUST DIE!!!*
> *
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ya your probably right, but posting here wont help that lol. :mrgreen:


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 27, 2010)

Yes let's lock it up and move on


----------



## table1349 (Sep 27, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > *THIS THREAD MUST DIE!!!*
> ...



Don't make me turn them all around at your Avatar. :lmao:


----------



## Raian-san (Sep 27, 2010)

Any discussion about Mac or PC will get into a war. Same can be said about Nikon vs. Canon.

I recently built my PC to rip blu-ray and play games. I use my Macbook Pro for school and daily use. I shoot Nikon. I prefer Mac over PC, and Nikon over Canon. Why? Personal preference. I still use both everyday. I would use Canon if I had one but pretty expensive to shoot two camera. 

Comparing PC and Mac is like comparing Honda Civic and Honda S2000. S2000 *Mac* is more expensive and faster out the gate but you can tweak the Civic *PC* and make it super fast. If speed is what you aim for, great get the Civic and tweak it. If you tweak, you will stress your parts and you will have to replace it more often. I prefer driving the S2000 which is fast enough, look nicer, more stable, better feel, and I still beat the Civic all around the track. It's all preference, some people want speed to do drag racing and some people want a car with great handling so they can run around the track. :hug::


----------



## cfusionpm (Sep 27, 2010)

Raian-san said:


> Comparing PC and Mac is like comparing Honda Civic and Honda S2000. S2000 *Mac* is more expensive and faster out the gate but you can tweak the Civic *PC* and make it super fast. If speed is what you aim for, great get the Civic and tweak it. If you tweak, you will stress your parts and you will have to replace it more often. I prefer driving the S2000 which is fast enough, look nicer, more stable, better feel, and I still beat the Civic all around the track. It's all preference, some people want speed to do drag racing and some people want a car with great handling so they can run around the track. :hug::


Except that a Civic and S2000 are vastly different in every concievable category. Earlier in this thread, I made this comparisson:


cfusionpm said:


> I've always liked the car metaphor best; like comparing a WRX STi to a BMW M3 or a Corvette Z06 to a Ferrari F430. Some people just care about the lap times, some people care about the image, some people care about the "whole package;" whatever they dictate that to be. How someone justifies spending their own money is totally up to them! If handed to me, I would gladly take an M3 and 430. With my own money, I'd have a Chevy and a Subaru.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 27, 2010)

Well since it won't die, might as well pour some gasoline on the fire here. 

http://www.kidvai.com/zak/uploaded_images/windoze-778515.jpg

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## aadhils (Sep 28, 2010)

I use Macs to preserve my sanity. Prior to that I used windows (for about 15 years).


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 28, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> shuttercraft said:
> 
> 
> > Almost all the major editing platforms are on both Mac OS and Windows OS. I use Aperture and it only works on mac. I am a mac guy simply because its what I use.
> ...


 
I have a desktop I built for gaming that has an i7 920 OC'ed to 3.8ghz stable and has never ran above 60C that I run OS X on. It's also got a 1.8GB GPU in it.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 28, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> I am not hip enough use a mac. You need funky hair, dark rimmed glasses, skinny jeans to be able to use a mac.


 
1 on the sides, trimmed up topped, and faded. Thin metal rims. Skinny jeans are for girls.

I still own a MBP and use OS X. I also use Win7, and a plethora of other OSes


----------



## inTempus (Sep 28, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Nothing is going over my head guy.
> 
> LOL envy?
> 
> ...


Seriously?  Weren't you the one saying you didn't want to turn this into a fanboy flame war?  Obviously you had a chip on your shoulder that you wanted to share with the rest of us.

You have the fastest computer on the planet, good for you.  What exactly does that have to do with photography?

This thread needs to be put to sleep.  There's a good reason why PC vs. Apple threads are banned across the internet.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 28, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > I am not hip enough use a mac. You need funky hair, dark rimmed glasses, skinny jeans to be able to use a mac.
> ...


Yup, I use both OSX and Windows 7, they sit next to each other on my desktop.  







I like them both for different reasons, but for image editing I rely on my Macs.


----------



## cfusionpm (Sep 28, 2010)

^You and I have the same desk chair.  It's quite comfy, isn't it?


----------



## shuttercraft (Sep 28, 2010)

*I am putting together a setup just like this. 
*


----------



## EFHATCH1990 (Sep 28, 2010)

I use PC mostly and a mac at school sometimes. I have never found a real reason to switch to a mac. Most of the reasons people list for using a mac I've never had issues with on my pc, but I also enjoy maintaining and managing my computer


----------



## shuttercraft (Sep 28, 2010)

Its a close game at 26 Mac and 25 PC.


----------



## aadhils (Sep 28, 2010)

shuttercraft said:


> Its a close game at 26 Mac and 25 PC.



Macs are actually better. The one's who use PCs are just addicted to self torture :greenpbl:


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 28, 2010)

aadhils said:


> shuttercraft said:
> 
> 
> > Its a close game at 26 Mac and 25 PC.
> ...


pfft. lies.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 28, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> ^You and I have the same desk chair.  It's quite comfy, isn't it?


Yeah, I like it a lot.  It's been a good chair.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 28, 2010)

aadhils said:


> shuttercraft said:
> 
> 
> > Its a close game at 26 Mac and 25 PC.
> ...


 
Video conversion without CUDA is torture.


----------



## David Dvir (Sep 28, 2010)

We use Macs at over here for editing photographs and videos.  Aperture for photos and FCP for videos... Have always preferred the software and the hardware.  Six 27"iMacs, 1 15" Macbook Pro and 1 Mac Mini that powers our entertainment system/all the displays around the studio ie televisions and such.  We've got our iPhones and an iPad that all act as a remote for any of the machines so when a client walks in we can turn the music on or off, show them a picture on any of the screen, or all of them, or what have you, or run applications or tasks all wirelessly.  The system works fantastically with itself, however I feel that introducing an outside element now would be difficult.


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 28, 2010)

Since you can run Windows on a Mac and OSX on a PC, and the hardware is now essentially the same, anyone of you who say one is better than the other is being foolish and being a fanboi.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 28, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> Since you can run Windows on a Mac and OSX on a PC, and the hardware is now essentially the same, anyone of you who say one is better than the other is being foolish and being a fanboi.



The Mac still wins out due to the fact that you can run both OS's side by side at the same time on the same machine as long as you are using Parallels.  You can even drag and drop compatible files between the two. 

I'm not aware of a program that will allow you to run Windows and OSX at the same time on a PC machine.  

For those that want to assemble their own machine then you are correct.  However for those that do not want to mess with the assembly of a machine, then choosing the platform you like is not being a fanbol but prudent.


----------



## nemopaice (Sep 28, 2010)

I use Mac too Why? Simply because it works and don't have to have extra programs eating up my system resources like I do in Windows. But it's hard for me to try and bash one OS over the other, and I won't. I hope most of you realize that MS people work on things for Apple all the time and vice-versa. It's funny that they like and admire each-other but most of us can't do the same between these two OS's.

While typing this out I ran over and found this on Youtube. 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Steve+Jobs+and+Bill+Gates+Together:&aq=f

I remember seeing it somewhere else before. It's things I already knew, but I always enjoy watching the two of them together. It's worth watching all the segments, it was an eyeopener for a couple friends of mine who thought MS and Apple hated each-other and more so that they have worked on projects for each-other. And Apple wouldn't be what it is today if not for MS.


----------



## ZZ_topcoat (Sep 28, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> The Mac still wins out due to the fact that you can run both OS's side by side at the same time on the same machine as long as you are using Parallels.



Actually, I can dual boot Linux AND Windows on my desktop.
And, I can run MAC OS. Windows, AND Linux side by side in emulation.
So, I guess the PC wins!

And why does everyone equate the PC to Windows? It has nothing to do with Windows. Just because you can run Windows on it, does not mean it's a Microsoft product. I can run any operating system on my PC.  Mac, Linux, or Windows. 

-----



gryphonslair99 said:


> I'm not aware of a program that will allow you to run Windows and OSX at the same time on a PC machine.



Are you serious? There's a new technology you've probably NEVER heard about but I think one day it will become the standard. It's called "Google".

_


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 28, 2010)

Steve Jobs does not approve of his flock using Google.


----------



## sleist (Sep 28, 2010)

I run linux and win7 on a home made PC with an i5 processor and an nVidia 460 based video card.  My box was more expensive than the packaged PC's, but I got the hardware I wanted and was not stuck with a box that cut corners where I didn't want them cut.

OSX is based off of BSD I believe.  It's a solid OS running on overpriced hardware.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 28, 2010)

sleist said:


> I run linux and win7 on a home made PC with an i5 processor and an nVidia 460 based video card.  My box was more expensive than the packaged PC's, but I got the hardware I wanted and was not stuck with a box that cut corners where I didn't want them cut.
> 
> *OSX is based off of BSD I believe.  It's a solid OS running on overpriced hardware.*


That's exactly what I say. OS X is an excellent OS, just wish their computers wern't so expensive.


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 28, 2010)

Research the term "Hackintosh".


----------



## sleist (Sep 28, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> Research the term "Hackintosh".



Interesting, and an option for the technically inclined, but to do this violates the EULA for the OS which may mean something to folks who value support - admittedly not likely the crowd that would do this anyway.

I think for the purpose of this discussion, the Hackintosh may not really be a useful comparison - Windows can be installed and supported on any hardware it runs on and OSX support is gone if you don't pay the premium for the approved hardware.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Sep 29, 2010)

I have 3 Macs, 2 laptops and an imac and I love them all!

What turned me to macs was windows Vista.  I couldn't stand it at all so I thought I'd give Macs a try and as it turns out I fell in love and can't switch back.  Although I've been hearing Windows 7 is pretty awesome..


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 29, 2010)

Neil S. said:


>


 
^


----------



## IlSan (Sep 29, 2010)

@ Neil S.

Like the picture


----------



## DxAxN (Sep 29, 2010)

I use windows...


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 29, 2010)

sleist said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> > Research the term "Hackintosh".
> ...


 
HA ha ha haha haha. This is funny. A person that would actually call a company for tech support wouldn't know where to start when it comes to installing OS X on non Apple hardware. 

And there is no need to pay Apple's outrageous prices when you can build better for cheaper. 

OC'ed i7-920 to 3.8ghz
6GB RAM
1.8GB Nvidia GTX 295
*Blu Ray burner*
30" monitor
etc... etc...

All is installed, recognized, and works correctly with OS X. I payed $2,700 for the computer and monitor. That's the price of an entry level Mac Pro?


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 29, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > DennyCrane said:
> ...


 
You make some good points...

In my opinion you do not have a Mac though, you have a PC running OSX.

A Mac is a computer that is built by Apple, and is a package including their proprietary hardware. It is not just the OS, on any random hardware.

I am not sure if you feel you have a Mac or not, just saying.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 29, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > sleist said:
> ...


 
I do have a Mac. I hav a 2.53ghz C2D with 4GB RAM, a mediocre GPU, and an overall package that overheats and shutsdown when I try and use my 30" monitor with it. Plus it's soooooo slow when trying to batch process files in LR2. That's why I put OS X on my desktop. It smokes it by a mile and stay below 60C while being OC'ed to almost twice the stock clock speed.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 29, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> I do have a Mac. I hav a 2.53ghz C2D with 4GB RAM, a mediocre GPU, and an overall package that overheats and shutsdown when I try and use my 30" monitor with it. Plus it's soooooo slow when trying to batch process files in LR2. That's why I put OS X on my desktop. It smokes it by a mile and stay below 60C while being OC'ed to almost twice the stock clock speed.


 
No I totally understand, this was my main point before.

I just dont consider a Hackintosh a real Mac.


----------



## Montana (Sep 29, 2010)

Well, that was 15 minutes of my life wasted...............


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 29, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > I do have a Mac. I hav a 2.53ghz C2D with 4GB RAM, a mediocre GPU, and an overall package that overheats and shutsdown when I try and use my 30" monitor with it. Plus it's soooooo slow when trying to batch process files in LR2. That's why I put OS X on my desktop. It smokes it by a mile and stay below 60C while being OC'ed to almost twice the stock clock speed.
> ...


 
I know. It's better. The best of both world with the ability to run Windows and play games instead of reading about them.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 29, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


 
Ya I agree.

Sometimes I want a multi boot system, but I am sacred to try it.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 29, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S. said:
> ...


 
I have the partitions on separate drives and use the MB's boot selection menu to select which one I want to boot to.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 29, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> I have the partitions on separate drives and use the MB's boot selection menu to select which one I want to boot to.


 
Ty for the tip.

I may research this.

Edit: You mean just select the boot drive in the BIOS? Is that all it takes? I know almost nothing about mulit boot setups.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 29, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > I have the partitions on separate drives and use the MB's boot selection menu to select which one I want to boot to.
> ...


 
Most all mobos should have a key that you hit on boot that brings up the boot device selection menu. Mine is f8. It lets me select which device I want to boot from.


----------



## Raian-san (Oct 2, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > DennyCrane said:
> ...



Your setup is pretty basic, anybody can have that set up, some people choose not to. If you paid $2,700 for your set up then it's pretty expensive.


----------



## aadhils (Oct 3, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> HA ha ha haha haha. This is funny. A person that would actually call a company for tech support wouldn't know where to start when it comes to installing OS X on non Apple hardware.
> 
> And there is no need to pay Apple's outrageous prices when you can build better for cheaper.
> 
> ...



Question is; is your computer's i7 processor faster than the Hexa-Core Intel Xeon Westmere processor of the Mac Pros?


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 4, 2010)

aadhils said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > HA ha ha haha haha. This is funny. A person that would actually call a company for tech support wouldn't know where to start when it comes to installing OS X on non Apple hardware.
> ...



That processor by itself cost 1000 usd minimum. The i7 starts below 300 usd. They aren't even in same category. The Mac pro with the processor starts at 3500 usd.


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 4, 2010)

Raian-san said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > sleist said:
> ...


 
The monitor alone was a bit over $1,000. I payed $1,700 for the computer and that's not expensive, that's right on target.

And the whole point is, anyone can have that setup. It's fast and it'll smoke most any Apple computer out there. It's almost two years old and it run OS X better than most Apple products.


----------



## aadhils (Oct 4, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> And the whole point is, anyone can have that setup. It's fast and it'll smoke most any Apple computer out there. It's almost two years old and it run OS X better than most Apple products.



You're really stretching the facts just to prove a point... :greenpbl:


----------

