PC vs Mac

Kbeg3

I'm looking to upgrade my PC

I'm looking at the iMac

I'm not sure whether to stay with Pc or change to Mac
I know all the pro's use Macs

I will be mainly using it for photo editing in Photoshop

Any opinions?

Thanks

Fajitas!

Have you used the Mac OS?

Have a play about with it and see if you like it - At the end of the day, it comes down to what you like more. I use Mac and Windows.

Hugh_C

As Fajitas says, it's a personal choice.

If you already own all the windows stuff, you can also run it on the Mac platform using a variety of tools like Bootcamp for instance.

I use Mac for everything.

Hugh

DaireQuinlan

It -obviously- depends on what camera system you're bought into !

Nikon -> mac
Canon -> PC

which ... uhhh ... makes Pentax linux then I guess, and Olympus can be BeOS or something.

See ? Easy !

SemperFidelis

Stick with the PC

davmigil

Kbeg3 wrote: »

I'm looking to upgrade my PC

I'm looking at the iMac

I'm not sure whether to stay with Pc or change to Mac
I know all the pro's use Macs

I will be mainly using it for photo editing in Photoshop

Any opinions?

Thanks

I am sure lots of pros are using macs, but not many using iMacs I would guess.

Photoshop, Lightroom and Photoshop Elements is available on both platforms (though Elements tends to be a version behind on Macs). Aperture available on Mac only. Intel Macs will let you install Windows natively as a dual boot setup, so you get to use both.

Macs tend to be more expensive compared to similarily specced PC, but you do get a lot of extra value included (e.g. lots of good software packages included). Macs tend to depreciate less than PCs so you might get a bit more back if you sell/upgrade.
iMacs have limited potential for upgrades though. Unlike a PC you can't just swap out the graphics card (though you can upgrade the memory and hard drive). The arguments are endless. Not sure what the quality of the LCD is like on the iMac for photoediting (don't know if they have matt or glossy screen options available), but you will be stuck with it.
Decide on your budget and what specs you need and see what you can get. Maybe try asking in a few of the computer forums. It is a bit of a religious question though!

CabanSail

I have been using PC's for years but just won a Macbook.

have only played with the Mac for a few hours so far & getting used to it, but so far I like it. Will probably keep a foot in both camps though. If i had not won the Mac I sort of doubt I would have bought one.

ScumLord

If your already using a PC and don't know much of anything about Macs I don't see why you'd want to change, I'd say the main factor behind pro's using Macs is that, that's the way they where thought and their not going through the hassle of learning new ways when they don't need to.

Overall there won't be all that much difference in the end results and PCs are cheaper and more common, meaning easier to get fixed or upgraded.

wasper

davmigil wrote: »

I am sure lots of pros are using macs, but not many using iMacs I would guess.

Photoshop, Lightroom and Photoshop Elements is available on both platforms (though Elements tends to be a version behind on Macs). Aperture available on Mac only. Intel Macs will let you install Windows natively as a dual boot setup, so you get to use both.

Macs tend to be more expensive compared to similarily specced PC, but you do get a lot of extra value included (e.g. lots of good software packages included). Macs tend to depreciate less than PCs so you might get a bit more back if you sell/upgrade.
iMacs have limited potential for upgrades though. Unlike a PC you can't just swap out the graphics card (though you can upgrade the memory and hard drive). The arguments are endless. Not sure what the quality of the LCD is like on the iMac for photoediting (don't know if they have matt or glossy screen options available), but you will be stuck with it.
Decide on your budget and what specs you need and see what you can get. Maybe try asking in a few of the computer forums. It is a bit of a religious question though!

Macs are more expensive, but nearly zero trouble shooting time wasted.
The OS X is far superior than Vista or XP.
Make the jump.
Some people will come here & say but not all s/w is available. Well name a major s/w that you will be needing that is not available on the Mac.

Fajitas!

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

It -obviously- depends on what camera system you're bought into !

Nikon -> mac
Canon -> PC

Apart from Nikon beginning to work more with Windows and creating a Windows OS only RAW format...

Silly silly people...

Phototoxin

the mac is simipler and less fiddeldy.

Macs tend to be more expensive compared to similarily specced PC, but you do get a lot of extra value included (e.g. lots of good software packages included). Macs tend to depreciate less than PCs so you might get a bit more back if you sell/upgrade.

On a hard ware to hardware comparison then yes macs are more expensive however the OS takes less to do the same job so in the case of a pc running vista and a mac running osx with the same phyical specs the mac will run better.

imacs are a bit sillyilly priced for what you get imho Maybe research into getting the smallest one available and upgrading the hdd, ram and suchlike yourself. It will work out a lot cheaper.

as its all built in one unit you would need to make sure that the screen is good although the new laptop screens are crappy they tend to be colour calibrated I think

I myself use my pc for my photoediting if possible as i have a bigger screen and my mouse's shortcut buttons work on a pc. That said if my pc died it'd be an imac that i'd replace it with once I'd gotten useage out of my macbook

DaireQuinlan

Fajitas! wrote: »

Apart from Nikon beginning to work more with Windows and creating a Windows OS only RAW format...

Silly silly people...

?? Thats not actually the case is it ? I thought there was some sort of native support for NEF in windows. Thumbnails and the like, so the OS could treat them more like, say, a JPG on the file system or something. I don't see how they'd make an actual -file format- OS specific

MagicMarker

I switched from pc to mac a few months ago, love the mac and you get used to it quickly enough. I think i'd stick with the mac in future, funds permitting.

Cabaal

Its a personal choice as already stated, however I've been using Windows for donkeys years and hell I'm even the Windows Mod on boards, but I bought a MacBook last year while in Las Vegas after only using Mac OSX for maybe 3 hours total before hand and I'm very very happy with it.

Basically to sum things up when I need to replace my current Windows desktop I'm buying a 24" iMac

Overall the Mac runs smother, has only crashed once on me, apps seem just less buggy and bloated (lightroom is a perfect example when compared to it on Windows), and backup on Mac is a life saver and is piss easy :pac:

While there is a slight learning curve if your used to Windows I'd recommend a Mac over a PC specially if the person is willing to learn.

stcstc

i saw a review recently where the writer compared the cost of a macbook with similar speced branded windows boxes

there was almost nothing in the difference in terms of cost

it used to be the case. but its a bit of a myth now

BUT this only is correct if you compare with major brand machines.

Having used both and installed both into visitor centres etc for over 10 years now, i can say the actual cost of ownership is less on a mac over its lifetime. as they generally require less maintenance etc. BUT when a mac fails it generally fails proper, ie major fixes required.

bmcgrath

Ok hope this helps a bit...
This comes from a person who uses both Mac and a PC with Windows.

I first got a Mac about 10 years ago. It was a really cool iBook that I had won. It was a pretty cool machine but after many years, I needed to upgrade but couldn't afford to replace it with a new Mac. So I had to go the PC route which was rather a shame....

Back in 2006 when Apple switched to Intel, it made Macs much more comparable to PC's and also brought the price of them down a bit too. I bought myself a Macbook Pro for my photography needs and to be honest I would never use Windows as my main machine ever again.

I find Mac OS simply a joy to use. It's quick, reliable, and zero viruses to worry about. So no need to keep an eye on anti virus software.

The other thing I was really interested in about the Mac was Aperture for my photo management. It's very easy to use, and integrated nicely into Mac OS. I've also compared my Macbook Pro screen to other laptops out there on the market and I've yet to find a screen as good as Macbook Pro. It's sharp, colour accurate and plenty bright.

I know Macs tend to be more expensive to purchase but that price is well worth it compared to the hassle I find I have to deal with Windows. Less troubleshooting to be done.

But at the end of the day... It's what you prefer. If you like MS Windows then stick with it. If you like the Mac then get a Mac. It's really that simple.

Creamy Goodness

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

It -obviously- depends on what camera system you're bought into !

Nikon -> mac
Canon -> PC

which ... uhhh ... makes Pentax linux then I guess, and Olympus can be BeOS or something.

See ? Easy !

can you explain why

nikon -> Mac
canon -> PC

i honestly don't know why, i have a macbook which i use to edit and manage all my photos on and i also have a canon camera. there was no hassle with it apart from downloading a raw plugin for CS3.

AnCatDubh

linux? that explains my irrational attraction towards better optics and more solid builds

*/runs for cover/*

Fajitas!

I reckon he's taking the piss

DaireQuinlan

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

can you explain why

nikon -> Mac
canon -> PC

i honestly don't know why, i have a macbook which i use to edit and manage all my photos on and i also have a canon camera. there was no hassle with it apart from downloading a raw plugin for CS3.

uhhh ... I wasn't really being serious. Mac versus PC debates are the original Canon vs. Nikon debates (or more seriously, Amiga vs. Atari ST but thats a while back now and I could never afford an amiga, I had a C64 instead). For the stated purpose there really isn't much to them nowadays, they've more or less equalised in price at this stage as well.

challengemaster

Phototoxin wrote: »

On a hard ware to hardware comparison then yes macs are more expensive however the OS takes less to do the same job so in the case of a pc running vista and a mac running osx with the same phyical specs the mac will run better.

You're not really taking into account that Vista is the biggest pile of ****e to come out since Windows ME. Also have you got a source for these claims? Benchmark results?

bmcgrath wrote:

I find Mac OS simply a joy to use. It's quick, reliable, and zero viruses to worry about. So no need to keep an eye on anti virus software

There's no viruses because virus coders couldn't be arsed writing viruses for mac. There's simply no point. Widnows is the majority in the world, so why waste time coding viruses to target minorities. You code a virus for mac, it effects a few personal owners, maybe 1 or 2 editing companies. You code for windows, it effects probably 70% of people with a pc, most companies, etc etc. You're right, there are no viruses, but its not because Mac OSX is a magical thing.

I'm currently using Windows XP, Ubuntu, and Vista. XP runs perfect, never crashes, and is great for things. Gives me no hassle. Vista doesnt really trouble me either, slow loading up, but its vista.. has to load all its bloaty crap. If I wanted though I could slipstream it. Ubuntu is linux. Nuff said.

And tbh, I would buy a mac, but the only reason is because I'm a very impulsive buyer and go 'ooh shiney' *buy*.

melekalikimaka

challengemaster wrote: »

You're not really taking into account that Vista is the biggest pile of ****e to come out since Windows ME. Also have you got a source for these claims? Benchmark results?

vista is sh1t faster than xp, over 4gb ram, xp cant handle large amounts for ram half as well as vista, like 98 was with over 512mb ram, the os limitations are clearly visable, xp bottle necks round 3

Creamy Goodness

Fajitas! wrote: »

I reckon he's taking the piss

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

uhhh ... I wasn't really being serious. Mac versus PC debates are the original Canon vs. Nikon debates (or more seriously, Amiga vs. Atari ST but thats a while back now and I could never afford an amiga, I had a C64 instead). For the stated purpose there really isn't much to them nowadays, they've more or less equalised in price at this stage as well.

*facepalms for my own stupidity*.

preilly79

if you're considering going with the iMac you need to be aware of some things that may be of concern.

the screen on the 20" version does not natively display 16.7 million colours as advertised. It uses some non-standard method (that i'd like to call dithering but I know it's not) to display colours outside of its gamut.

the screen on the 24" is known for uneven lighting and a search of the apple support forums show that it's quite common. I had the screen replaced on my own 24" iMac for this very reason, and even the replacement is not as good as i'd like/expect it to be. I'm not doing press or colour critical work so I ignore it, and only under very very specific conditions do I notice it.

as for performance ... very very good. do as another poster said and buy with base memory then throw 4gigs in from an online supplier. very cheap and it makes a noticeable difference.

mloc

I just ordered a 17" MacBook Pro, my first Mac since the 90s.

Matte screen, and the 320 GB 7200 RPM hd, other than that as is. I look forward to it.

It just seemed to me, for what I'll be using it for (photography and music creation), the obvious choice.

5uspect

I use XP, Vista and Ubuntu through various machines at work and at home. XP after years of patches has become quite a nice OS, but don't forget it was as much of a piece of crap on releaase as Vista was a year ago. I was quite skeptical of Vista but I have to say Ultimate runs quite nicely on my work Q6600 powered XPS with 4GB of RAM. Of course that defines Vista doesn't it?
I use Ubuntu on a few laptops I'm designing heat sinks for. Wonderful way to get into Linux.

Macs are just expensive toys.

thedarkroom

I have been using Macs for 22 years now since the first Plus came out and I would never consider anything else. I know it is a personal thing and some would swear by the Mac (me) and others would swear by the PC (85% of everyone else) but I just find it so easy to use and the system logical and easy to decipher. Every time I sit down at a PC I just end up getting irritated at the way it's operating system and menu system seems to purposefully set out to confuse me. I know, I know, I'm old and losing it and my brain only functions at 25% of everyone else's capacity.
Like I said, I have been a Mac user for 22 years and have progressed to a G5 for my work and at home I have a G4, and iBook G4, and have just purchased a new Macbook for my son for his college work. We do have a PC at home and I consider it a disaster and now relegated to a dustcatcher in the spare room. We have an old green G3 iMac which still runs perfectly using Photoshop 6 (I think), Microsoft Word, Pagemaker (honest to God!), etc, etc on OS9 and the kids use this almost daily for school work. We did make one concession this summer and one of my sons bought a Dell Studio 1535 laptop because he is in to music creation and he was interested in some particular software which would only run on PC so we relented. We had a problem with the screen on it (it died after a month) but top marks to Dell, a technician personally called and replaced the screen within a week of us reporting the problem.
The Macs just seem to go for ever and I will always use them. They're a pleasure to use and easy and intuitive for a novice. I will be buying a new iMac before Christmas for the extra features it offers and I reckon it is about time that we upgrade our G3 version. I will be getting myself a new Powerbook as soon as budgets allow and almost certainly some time next year, if I can, I will be changing my own G4 for a souped up G5. I work in the education sector and am involved in some freelance photography and graphic design so you can see where my background lies and why my preference.
Once you buy a Mac you become evangelical about them (You never would have guessed!!!) and it would be extremely unlikely that you would change from them back to PC, particularly now that you can run Windows if you really need to.
Do you want me to go on? I could!

Valentia

melekalikimaka wrote: »

xp bottle necks round 3

So does Viata unless you use the 64 bit version AFAIK.

Biro

melekalikimaka wrote: »

vista is sh1t faster than xp, over 4gb ram, xp cant handle large amounts for ram half as well as vista, like 98 was with over 512mb ram, the os limitations are clearly visable, xp bottle necks round 3

That's a load of crap, and from that post it seems like you don't know what you're talking about. If you have a Windows 32-bit OS, be it Vista or XP, then you can't address more than 4GB of RAM. Due to the way Windows uses RAM (shares it a bit), you'll probably only see around 3.2GB or maybe a bit higher, depending on your graphics card etc.
64-bit Vista can address 128GB of RAM, but so can 64-bit XP. So you need to compare apples with apples.
Out of the box, Vista Home Premium will sit there using between 700MB and 900MB of RAM after booting. XP Professional will use around 300MB. (Both 32-bit versions). Vista is more resource intensive than XP. If you have decent hardware however, there isn't a massive difference between them.
@OP - you could always buy a Windows PC (Intel Based) and buy OS-X and install that as a dual boot!

Hugh_C

Biro wrote: »

@OP - you could always buy a Windows PC (Intel Based) and buy OS-X and install that as a dual boot!

Now there's a load of crap, as you put it. This isn't legally possible, I'm not sure if it's even illegally possible.

challengemaster

Hugh_C wrote: »

I'm not sure if it's even illegally possible.

It is. Since pcs and macs are now so alike (hardware is pretty much the same), its made it easier for the hacking community to make this possible. There's even an entire community dedicated to making OSX available to use on PC (hackint0sh). All you have to do is google 'osx on pc' and you'll find out for yourself. It's entirely possible, but due to the legalities of it, I won't discuss it further.

Hugh_C

challengemaster wrote: »

It's entirely possible

I see, ISTR reading though that it gets broken with each software update ...

Doesn't apply to me, I've been using Macs for a very long time.

HC

gutta

5uspect wrote: »

Macs are just expensive toys.

yer taste in operating systems is nearly as bad as ur photography

:P

davmigil

Running Windows on an intel Mac, no problem using Bootcamp.

Running OSX on a PC - really only for geeks to play around with. I'm not mocking, by all means do it for the craic, but I wouldn't be depending on it as your main viable system.

5uspect

gutta wrote: »

yer taste in operating systems is nearly as bad as ur photography

:P

sob sob /runs away and cries in the corner.

I don't need an expensive PC
I don't need an expensive PC
I don't need an expensive PC
I don't need an expensive PC
I don't need an expensive PC

mloc

Again, it's up to personal preference I think.

I use both, recently ordered a new Macbook Pro, but I'm not "swapping over" as such as much as it suited my needs better. I still use a PC desktop, a very nice one too.

I will say however, that as far as I can see, there seems to be a much greater proportion of professional photographers using Macs than the general computer using population. E.g. while x% of computer users use Macs, y% of Pro photographers use them, where y is much bigger than x.

rasmasyean

Kbeg3 wrote: »

I'm looking to upgrade my PC

I'm looking at the iMac

I'm not sure whether to stay with Pc or change to Mac
I know all the pro's use Macs

I will be mainly using it for photo editing in Photoshop

Any opinions?

Thanks

Adobe Photoshop® Extended and Acrobat® Pro natively support 64-bit editions of Windows Vista. Adobe Premiere® Pro, After Effects®, Soundbooth®, Encore®, and Adobe OnLocation™ are certified on 64-bit Windows Vista.
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/mastercollection/systemreqs/

Adobe CS4 is 64-bit only on Vista. OSX have to wait for CS5 or something like that when they catch up.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Adobe_CS4_will_be_64bit_but_only_on_Windows/1207258861

To put things in perspective, this is what 64-bit does...

What are the advantages of 64-bit computing?
In early testing of 64-bit support in Photoshop for Windows®, overall performance gains ranged from 8% to 12%. Those who work with extremely large files may realize noticeably greater gains in performance, in some cases as dramatic as ten times the previous speed. This is because 64-bit applications can address larger amounts of memory and thus result in less file swapping — one of the biggest factors that can affect data processing speed.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/faq/?promoid=DRHXB

Of course to take advantage of this, you have to go 64-bit. But there are also other advantages in this avenue that OSX can't match...unless you are interacting with a lot of Mac users in your job.

If this is any indication that 64-bit is the wave of the future and 32-bit will be “obsolete”…

There appears to be a shift taking place in the PC industry: the move from 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
We've been tracking the change by looking at the percentage of 64-bit PCs connecting to Windows Update, and have seen a dramatic increase in recent months. The installed base of 64-bit Windows Vista PCs, as a percentage of all Windows Vista systems, has more than tripled in the U.S. in the last three months, while worldwide adoption has more than doubled during the same period. Another view shows that 20% of new Windows Vista PCs in the U.S. connecting to Windows Update in June were 64-bit PCs, up from just 3% in March. Put more simply, usage of 64-bit Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit. Based on current trends, this growth will accelerate as the retail channel shifts to supplying a rapidly increasing assortment of 64-bit desktops and laptops… PC Accelerators built into Windows Vista, such as Windows SuperFetch, improve performance by keeping commonly used programs in memory, even when the program is closed. More memory capacity on 64-bit PCs allows SuperFetch to do its job more efficiently.
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/07/30/windows-vista-64-bit-today.aspx

Understanding how SuperFetch uses RAM to enhance system performance…
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=735

Windows Vista - SuperFetch & ReadyBoost
http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/03/29/windows-vista-superfetch-readyboost.aspx

Considering this, SuperFetch is probably the most significant feature that distinguishes Vista from all other OS's for users of all walks. Many other features won't be noticeable or even used by the common person (that is until commercial developers start using WPF/WFC etc., and even more DX10). So why not take advantage of it since RAM is so cheap?

rasmasyean

wasper wrote: »

Macs are more expensive, but nearly zero trouble shooting time wasted.
The OS X is far superior than Vista or XP.
Make the jump.
Some people will come here & say but not all s/w is available. Well name a major s/w that you will be needing that is not available on the Mac.

It's true that if you are a "computer idiot", you might be better off with a Mac in many cases.

OSX is superior in "human factor design". However, OSX is horrible for power users and most business users.

Adobe 64-bit is not available on the Mac.

Microsoft Office is available but nerfed on the Mac. Just google Mac Office 2008 for criticisms. Or just go to Wikipedia and look at the features. Mac's don't have the technology for an "equivalent" WinOffice to be developed...at least not on an economic time scale, so they have to release a half-baked one.

There is no Microsoft Outlook, and other Office items. Though the Outlook can be substituded by another organization software, albeit inferior by industry standards.

rasmasyean

challengemaster wrote: »

You're not really taking into account that Vista is the biggest pile of ****e to come out since Windows ME. Also have you got a source for these claims? Benchmark results?

Don't listen to the media hype. I've read about all that Vista bashing. Then I tried it myself, and looked up the REAL situation. I found it all to be just bogus venting by Microsoft haters. It's really stupid what you can find on the internet sometimes. People just don't think and just follow the crowd.

Just look a the statistics.

Windows Vista Market Statistics
OK here’s some rough calculations:
18.33% of internet users are Vista
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=11
1.46 billion internet users
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Assuming the usage rate is consistent around the world…
1.46 billion * 18.33% = 268 million Vista internet users
The actually user base would be significantly less than the above number only if for some reason, Vista users surf the internet WAY MORE than all other OS's to skew the percentage up to 18.33%. It’s probably more likely that that some Vista users don’t use the internet much because it’s for work mostly. Hence there is likely more than 268 million Vista users.
Hitslink logs statistics in the “rich” (and more regulated) demographics. Here Vista adoption is probably held back a little by expense. So that could mean that Vista adoption in other “poorer” (Gov’t don’t give a crap) nations is much greater than 18.33% since you can like buy it at the local fruit shop for like $1, etc.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sof_pir_rat-crime-software-piracy-rate
So, if you include ALL of Asia? 500 million Vista users???
Also, check this out...
Vista - a $6 Billion Dollars Operating System
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-a-6-Billion-Dollars-Operating-System-44096.shtml
I don't really know what the markup of it is but for simplicity let's assume that they make $100 off each license on average (which is a conservative estimate wouldn't you say?).
If my math is correct, that's $18 billion dollars as of the last public claim of 180 million copies sold.
Microsoft: 180 million Vista licenses now sold
http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/07/18/three-months-later-180-million-vista-licenses-sold-in-total
If my math is correct again...that's TRIPLE the initial costs!
Of course they likely spent a little more after-market like for Jerry Seinfeld and stuff like that but I don't think it’s anywhere near $12 billion dollars.

A Gartner research report predicted that Vista business adoption in 2008 will actually will beat that of XP during the same time frame (21.3% vs. 16.9%) while IDC had indicated that the launch of Windows Server 2008 served as a catalyst for the stronger adoption rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

heresjonny30

look carefully at mac osx and then at vista, anything familiar. MS are actually trying to emulate alot of the osx stuff. This is likely to provide a familiar feel to both user groups.

I am in the media industry and our picture desk are using pcs now. It took them a while to deal with the change but they are coming around to the it and the only complaint now seems to be the shortcuts. but this can be overcome with a shortcut emulator.

I champion the PC. Value for money leans toward the PC. If you want to look good in starbucks go for the mac.

It is a personal choice though.

Hugh_C

heresjonny30 wrote: »

personal choice

quite.


Rasmy above seems pretty keen on PC/whatever/poweruser. OSX has pretty much never let me down yet and I've been pushing Macs hard since the year dot. Whatever.

I get my job done, Rasmy gets hers done, it's a question of choice, not a question of who's got a bigger bus.

Life is good and too short to argue the toss over OSs, pc architecture and the like.

Personal choice is paramount

mloc

Again, I gotta say, every professional (and I mean that in the "thing that is main source of income" way) graphic designer and photographer I know (and there's a few) use, predominantly, Macs.

PCs are probably more versatile, and have a much wider user base, but for photography, Mac's are an industry standard.

melekalikimaka

mloc wrote: »

Again, I gotta say, every professional (and I mean that in the "thing that is main source of income" way) graphic designer and photographer I know (and there's a few) use, predominantly, Macs.

PCs are probably more versatile, and have a much wider user base, but for photography, Mac's are an industry standard.

just because they are standard by no means...means that thay are better...

rasmasyean

mloc wrote: »

Again, I gotta say, every professional (and I mean that in the "thing that is main source of income" way) graphic designer and photographer I know (and there's a few) use, predominantly, Macs.

PCs are probably more versatile, and have a much wider user base, but for photography, Mac's are an industry standard.

Adobe started out as Mac only back in the hay-days since the original Mac’s graphics and UI was much better than like DOS/Windows 3.x or something. And it abstracted things like computer geek stuff hence making it a lot easier for lay users like emotion workers who aren’t as good with “logic” if you can think of it that way. So since you didn’t have to type things like “C:>\DIR \FILES –R +OL @a”;…whatever. And even like: delete a icon and all the files in the hidden directory to remove something.

Of course over time it’s been grounded into the Arts industry as part of the niche market of Macs. And even throughout Adobe worked a little better on Macs because they put more effort into debugging it etc, because that’s where all the money is…not to mention that most “PC Users” pirated Adobe stuff as one of the top stolen softwares of all time! Rofl!

But recently, Adobe CS4 is 64-bit for Vista only. So that gives a lot of performance advantage for hardcore shops. Will some of them buy Vista machines to run this? I suppose it depends on the budget and how much money they save for their jobs.

One other thing that might come into consideration is that Vista is touch screen capable. Windows 7 is multi-touch screen capable. Now will this have any effect? I suppose only time will tell.

MooseJam

Mac mice have only one button so as not to confuse the less technologically aware users of said platform, PC mice have two buttons, if you think that would confuse you you should go with the mac

Paddy@CIRL

MooseJam wrote: »

Mac mice have only one button so as not to confuse the less technologically aware users of said platform, PC mice have two buttons, if you think that would confuse you you should go with the mac

Er, What ?

The current Mighty Mouse has three buttons, well I suppose four ...

And as far as, to paraphrase an above poster, that industry standard doesn't necessarily mean that they're better. Well IMO it does mean that, it shows that they have been tried and tested and are still chosen above their Windows equivalents.

Before anyone else calls me a fanboy, I use both OS X and Windows on a daily basis.

rasmasyean

MooseJam wrote: »

Mac mice have only one button so as not to confuse the less technologically aware users of said platform, PC mice have two buttons, if you think that would confuse you you should go with the mac

So you would think...but...
Mac mice DO have a "right mouse button"!
This is what you do. Ready? Grab a pen and have a seat.

1) Hold your mouse with index finger to the left of little rolley ball (most ppl already hold it like this).
2) Lift up the index finger off the mouse.
3) Press the mouse downward with your palm until it clicks.
4) You will notice a context menu pop up and now you can put your index finger back on the mouse.
5) If you were left handed...substitute index finger with ring finger and expect more carpel tunnel.

You see, in order to preserve the Mac aesthetic appeal of a smooth shiny mouse that resembles one of the finest soap bars from Bath & Body Works, Apple has included a sub-surface touch sensor strategically placed beneath the mouse surface. This state of the art technology is so advanced that barely anyone knows that it exists! ...including the overwhelming majority of Mac users! And this can be yours for only $50 more than its ugly competitors!*

* Price of $50 extra only applies to standard "noob" mouse and may be subject to change.

MooseJam

lol crazy mac men, though the mac is quite beautiful so maybe we shouldn't complai

Valentia

What I love about the Mac crowd is their balls. They give you 2 Gig of memory with an 8 core processor (Mac Pro desktop). 2 Gig!! Then they factor in an extra €450 if you want to add and extra 2 Gig.

I've said this before but I will not allow them to screw me much and all as I would live to use osx (or whatever it is called now).

I think the Mac has moved even further into status symbol land unfortunately. Why can't they charge a fair price for their hardware or sell an OS that can be used on ant Intel based system?

thedarkroom

This is like the Canon versus Nikon debate. It's getting ridiculous and is turning into a slanging match because people cannot provide justifiable arguments. The fact of the matter is that both PC's and Macs all do the job they are supposed to do and that eventually people will buy and use the machine that they will be happiest with provided it can do the job required.
I've watched this debate for years now and always find it fascinating how people will resort to personal jibes when the argument runs dry. What's the big deal if someone has a preference to one or the other, there's no threat world peace or stability, no one's going to die here because of it. Get over it and make a rational recommendation based on merit and experience with the machine itself, not on some half baked ill-conceived perceptions of the individuals at the keyboard.

On another issue, get voting at http://www.goldenspiders.ie/publicvoting.php
I think boards.ie deserves it.

Heinrich

One of the reasons why I got rid of my iMac was that I use a PC with two screens. That is the ideal when using Photoshop, Illustrator and XPress/InDesign.

It is also good for video editing to be able to have a preview screen in full size. Now you can use four screens as does my music mixing friend. Great to have a really big and wide timeline.

As said befor, macs are big boys toys. I had macs since the classic and finally dropped the idea. PC can be custom built and if you are putting in the same cash as you would pay for a big G5 with a good sized screen and all the bells and whistles you will get a mighty PC.

Apples and pears...