PDA

View Full Version : Mac vs PC



Alonzo-ny
April 2nd, 2008, 11:15 AM
This is the almost ubiquitous question these days but Im finding it hard getting current info from google.

Im thinking of getting a Mac but I need to know exactly what does and doesnt work with it. I hear of problems with flash and Microsoft centric programs. Any points of view, experiences and links and welcome before i shell out some cash.

mart
April 2nd, 2008, 01:01 PM
Hi
once you go mac you wont go back, what programs are you looking at using.
No problems with flash what so ever.
What model are you looking at getting ?

The Benniest
April 2nd, 2008, 01:22 PM
I'm on a mac right now at school and I used to use macs at my college 'graphic design' course. No problems whatsoever. However, if you get one of the old macs, it may go slow and have lag.

If you are interested in projects like graphic design, photography, or working with photoshop/illustrator .. a mac is for you (from what I hear).

Just giving my two cents. :)
Ben

Alonzo-ny
April 2nd, 2008, 01:22 PM
Im worried about MSN messenger which i use alot, things like photoshop, autocad for my architecting. Types of files, are all usable on Mac like Jpeg, bmp, tiff? and are Mac image files accepted by programs like photoshop, and online at Flickr?

I am thinking of getting a plain old Macbook as thats all i can realistically spend and thats all i need. I would get a AIR but it has no CD drive and its overpriced considering its size is all thats better than a normal mac.

mart
April 2nd, 2008, 01:58 PM
I have MSN running on my macbook and Imac with no problems,
photoshop runs with ease as i use it for my work on an Imac, not tried autocad to be honest.
All file types are supported that i have come across Jpeg ,Jpg, bmp, tiff, i can save a photoshop image on a windows PC and open it on a Mac. No problems with online albums like flickr as i use that also.

Hope that helps

Ninjahedge
April 2nd, 2008, 02:49 PM
You pay for a Mac.

The amount of performance you get from a mac you can get for much less from a similarly configuerd PC, hence the lack of mentioning price on many, if not all, Mac ads.

If you have some technical sense, and can screw in a lightbulb and insert a disk, then you can find sites that will recommend certan builds of machines that you can do yourself rather inexpensively.


The other added feature of a PC is just the general availability of parts from just about everywhere. Mac is still lacking in that.



That said, Mac still does very well in graphic design, and has a friendlier (but harder to open up and look inside) OS. It spends more time on appeal than actual content, and little things like the one-button mouse drive me crazy.

I am not in any way endorsing M$, BTW. I think Windows is trynig to steal whatever it can from Apple in terms of market appeal, but I also have to say that many of the "classic" formats of Windows (not the new cushy-feeling crystal looking, rounded corner windows and apps) work better for me, especially since I am in a technical field.



So the bottom line is, what will you be using it for? High end number crunching? (Analysis, conversions, etc). Games? Low cost? PC.

Photoshop (and the rest), video editing, audio mixing? Mac. You just pay for the comfort...


BTW, if you "emulate" things, they generally run slower than if you run them strait. There are exceptions, and Vista is still having problems (I believe it actually runs faster on a Mac!). If yuo get a PC, stick with XP for your OS. Also, look for deals at the big manufacturers (HP, Dell) or build one yourself.

GL, hope you find what you need!

Alonzo-ny
April 2nd, 2008, 03:04 PM
This is personal use really. Internet, MSN Messenger, music (i already use itunes), photos, some editing drawing software eg. Photoshop, perhaps Autocad would be handy but I wouldnt be using them intensively like I did in college just the odd drawing here and there. Streaming video (id like it if it could stream from every site) I dont use it for games. I dont need the cheapest computer out there id probably spend comparable money elsewhere.

ZippyTheChimp
April 2nd, 2008, 04:31 PM
^
Except for high-end products where performance differences flatten out, I agree with Ninjahedge about more bang for the buck with a PC.

More software is written for PC, but so is more malware. (Contrary to some misleading advertising, Macs get viruses too).

I've used both and have no preference, Macs are more user-friendly, but it's a non-issue with me. I mostly stay with PC because I started on it, and see no reason to switch. I assume that's the same for a Mac user.

Ninjahedge
April 2nd, 2008, 06:07 PM
Photoshop is better on the Mac. It was written for it. But it is not bad on a good PC (memory is a must!)

Autocad? PC.

Messenger? Anything. they have watches that can do that now! ;)

Video? Both. Video makes money, so it is in their best interest to make sure you can see just about everything.

If you are looking for mid-range, PC gives you the best bang for the buck. If you want a few more pre-installed creature comforts, go Mac.

Macs have less compatibility issues, but that is mainly because most of the things you get for them are made only for them, AND you pay for that lack of competition. You have to read a bit to get the right stuff for a PC, but it is not as hard as you would think (hell, I found putting my last two together less infuriating than trying to figure out how to turn on the DST feature on our clock/thermometer w/o the manual!!!!).

I actually like putting my own machine together. It is like a cross between techie and wood shop. You get to work with your hands AND play with gadgets! ;)

Alonzo-ny
April 2nd, 2008, 10:04 PM
Im not into the putting a computer together thing, I prefer just to biy and fire it up. Money isnt a massive issue, i can accept what my price range buys, I guess ill just have to make up my mind!!

MidtownGuy
April 2nd, 2008, 11:28 PM
I'd say get a Mac then.

The Benniest
April 2nd, 2008, 11:41 PM
I'm not sure how much it is, but if you wanted have both (mac and pc) on one computer, you could look into something like this. (http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html)

This is new to me as well, and I will be looking up on it as well. :) Looks quite interesting.

Alonzo-ny
April 3rd, 2008, 12:14 AM
Ive read about 'dual-boot' but it seems you divide the processor up between both OS'? Is this right, so performance on both would be less?

MidtownGuy
April 3rd, 2008, 12:51 AM
People always worry about compatibility and software on mac, as if they won't find mac software for any and every thing they ever need to do:) Unless I were an avid gamer bent on certain titles, i wouldn't even think about this for a second. You'll find whatever you need for a mac. You may not find some obscure and creepy crackware that a technogeek is sharing, but you'll certainly find anything you'd need based on what you listed, and for most of those uses the mac software is better anyway, especially just about anything creative.
I can tell you from many years of experience on both machines (as a normal user in most ways except I have very intense graphic needs) that I crash less on a mac, have a smoother, more intuitive experience, and even have a two-button mouse for those right clicks.
Life is better with a mac.

The Benniest
April 3rd, 2008, 06:41 AM
Life is better with a mac.
Agreed.

:D

Ninjahedge
April 3rd, 2008, 09:53 AM
Ive read about 'dual-boot' but it seems you divide the processor up between both OS'? Is this right, so performance on both would be less?

Nope.

That is emulation. Dual Boot means you choose one or the othe at startup. PC's have been doing that for about 20 years. Hell, before hard drives, the machine booted with whatever you put in the drive first! ;)

Like I said, Vista is strangely more suited to the architecture present in some of the higher end MAC's these days, but Vista itself still needs some kinks to be worked out.

Just do not go by what advertisments tell you. The same way that people do not approve of Hillary going negative on Obama when they both have merits, the ad campaign by Mac to say there is something wrong with PC's (and in some cases, PC users) is really demeaning and insulting.

So, look for what you need, and how much you are willing to spend on it. Macs are better all-in ones but they are more expensive. PC's are generally cheaper, but inolve a bit more knowhow if you want to tweak them or add stuff to them later.

GL!

Ninjahedge
April 3rd, 2008, 09:58 AM
People always worry about compatibility and software on mac, as if they won't find mac software for any and every thing they ever need to do:) Unless I were an avid gamer bent on certain titles, i wouldn't even think about this for a second. You'll find whatever you need for a mac. You may not find some obscure and creepy crackware that a technogeek is sharing, but you'll certainly find anything you'd need based on what you listed, and for most of those uses the mac software is better anyway, especially just about anything creative.

Are you insulting PC users? ;)


I can tell you from many years of experience on both machines (as a normal user in most ways except I have very intense graphic needs) that I crash less on a mac, have a smoother, more intuitive experience, and even have a two-button mouse for those right clicks.
Life is better with a mac.

I have a 9 button mouse at home, the Logitech G5 I believe, that installed w/o a hitch. I miss it when I come to work and cany use my thumb on the side of the mouse to hit "enter". Side-clicks on the wheel are nice too, being able to surf through things on the net or in a directory without having to remove my hand from the mouse! ;)

Anyway, it all depends on what you use. I have PS and dozens of other proggies on my machine at home. And it 2 years it has yet to crash once (knock on silicon).

9 times out of 10, it all depends on what the user puts on it. Give people more choices, you open the risk of incompatibility. The strength and weakness of PC's.



Again, it all boils down to what you are going to use it for, and how much you are willing to pay.

ZippyTheChimp
April 3rd, 2008, 10:28 AM
And we're off to the races.

The Get a Mac ads are similar to the rationale behind the Pepsi ads in the 80s.

There is not enough difference between the products to induce one soda drinker to switch to the other. Pepsi realized that the overwhelming majority of Coke drinkers were going to stay put, so they wrote them off, and concentrated on labelling Coke as an old drink, and marketed Pepsi to entry level consumers as new and hip.

So if you want to be cool, and maybe get laid more - buy a Mac.

:p

NYatKNIGHT
April 3rd, 2008, 10:38 AM
A Mac it is, then.

Alonzo-ny
April 3rd, 2008, 11:11 PM
How many fingers do you have Ninj?

Alonzo-ny
April 3rd, 2008, 11:58 PM
A compelling case is being made for Macs. By the time i get round to being in a position to buy, in a couple months, I may just by one. Seems like for a personal comp that doesnt need amazing specs and enjoyment value is worth my cash then the Mac seems the way to go. Another complaint Ive heard is that the only people who can fix it is apple. Any thoughts?

Zea mays
April 4th, 2008, 01:39 AM
Another complaint Ive heard is that the only people who can fix it is apple. Any thoughts?I bought the three-year extended warranty on my iBook G4 (IBM components) and took the computer back to the Apple Computer Store whenever I had a problem: two logic boards and a disk drive in three years. They kept the computer about a week to ten days each time. On my last return (the three-year warranty had expired but I had a one-year warranty from the previous repair), they decided to give me a free 2 GHz Intel MacBook. I was surprised at their offer, as I never suggested it.

On software, I was very disappointed with Apple's word processor (Pages) and spreadsheet (Numbers) which comes with Apple's iWorks'08. I've since bought Microsoft's Office for the Mac (Student Edition) and am now using Word and Excel. This is one case where Microsoft has the better software, as much as I hate to admit it. :mad:

As for hardware, Apple memory is very costly but it is easy to inexpensively upgrade memory with memory from, say, Crucial Technology or from other sources. And if you plan to use Leopard's Time Machine for frequent backups, consider getting a larger disk than you normally would.

I like my MacBook.

Ninjahedge
April 4th, 2008, 09:22 AM
How many fingers do you have Ninj?

All 11.

You aren't Inigo Montoya?

Ninjahedge
April 4th, 2008, 09:31 AM
PS.

This is what I have, but not in this color.

http://pan.fotovista.com/dev/0/0/00033100/l_00033100.jpg

The side buttons are great, and the side-to-side on the mouse wheel is handy too.

The buttons below the wheel are only handy for occasional tasks (I have mine set to change the mouse sensitivity for different programs). and the wheel-click is not too helpful.

But when using Autocad and other programs, more buttons is really useful.

I can't find any pics, but the old workstations used to be a digitizer pad with a copper-coil pointer that would have anywhere from 6 to 20 buttons on it. That stuff can be REALLY handy for graphic applications where you don't want to keep looking around for commands, or moving your mouse through a bunch of menus......

kz1000ps
April 4th, 2008, 03:59 PM
I have both a PC (a six year old desktop) and a Mac (three year old laptop), and I spend about 90% of my time on the Mac. Granted, it's a laptop and it's newer, but even if the two were equal in those respects I'd still use the Mac way more. It's just a more enjoyable experience.

For instance, this is the typical window you use to access the contents of your hard drive (mine's named Gronky, a word I first heard on this site):

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/695/asdffb5.jpg

Pictures, music, documents, applications.. the stuff you use 95% of the time is right there, clearly labeled and easy to find, while the background technical stuff is tucked away. I do agree that it can be annoying trying to troubleshoot on a Mac, but really, I only need to troubleshoot maybe a couple times a year.

MidtownGuy
April 4th, 2008, 04:25 PM
I totally agree. And the way you can move things around is just better and easier. When I switched over to using a mac 100% of the time, about 7 years ago, my life felt like it became simpler in a bunch of little ways that are hard to itemize. It just boils down to a superior OS in my opinion.
Also the whole Adobe creative suite is so much better on a mac, of course.

Alonzo-ny
April 4th, 2008, 10:30 PM
Interesting, Mac is looking more appealing all the time, Im going to go to the Apple store next time I get a minute to feel it out.

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 6th, 2008, 11:37 AM
Macs, just like London,

SUCK
HARRY
BALLZ

And Im typing this at the CrApple Store on 5th.

But seriously, get yourself a Hackintosh and run Leopard on it if you like Mac so much.

Windows XP Professional is still the choice of a lot of art and media pros and I use it myself and get it installed on new PCs. Also, you can get the 64 bit version of Windows which means you can have 4 GB + Ram on your machine (just like a Mac) - but who needs it unless you are editing color temperature on 35mm telecine - you simply dont.

Just like London, Macs are expensive for no reason. And just like Limes, Mac users are somewhat superior in tone for no reason...

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 6th, 2008, 11:38 AM
http://lifehacker.com/software/hack-attack/build-a-hackintosh-mac-for-under-800-321913.php

Heres your $800.00 Mac.

MidtownGuy
April 6th, 2008, 01:47 PM
Windows XP Professional is still the choice of a lot of art and media pros

That is exactly sdrawkcab... It is macs that have always been the choice of the best design studios. There is no real comparison. The difference in color matching capabilities alone would point me to a mac if I didn't already have 3 of them. The ability to match colors correctly is crucial, among other things.
I worked on PCs at a company some years back. For design I thought it was rubbish compared to when I'd get home and sit a down to my mac. The greatest thing was when I started working at home full time and didn't have to deal with PC crashes anymore. When I was doing something in Photoshop or on the PrimaVision CAD system installed on a PC, it would crash too much. When we complained, the CAD people just told us to save your work every 5 minutes. Sometimes you forget when you're "in the zone".

The Benniest
April 6th, 2008, 02:48 PM
I completely agree with MidtownGuy. At my high school, all they have are PC's and the graphic design students (including myself) all hate it. Programs like Photoshop CS2, inDesign, Dreamweaver, and Illustrator repeatedly crash, whether it be were working on a small project or a final project for our semester grade. On top of that, I have a PC home at home, which again ... sucks. I can't stand running Photoshop on a PC, and like MidtownGuy mentioned, color matching plays a huge part and in my opinion, PC's just don't cut it.

When I get enough money to purchase one, I'm definitely going too. College is right around the corner now and I need to be prepared, and like I've told people before, I refuse to go to college (with a Graphic Design/Photography major) with a PC.

ZippyTheChimp
April 6th, 2008, 03:09 PM
Adobe CS4 News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20080403/tc_pcworld/144126)

More (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,144119-c,graphicsmultimedia/article.html)

Alonzo-ny
April 6th, 2008, 07:34 PM
Thanks GT, for the opinion Im going to completely ignore.

ZippyTheChimp
April 6th, 2008, 07:42 PM
The London rider notwithstanding, what GT states is basically true.

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 6th, 2008, 09:01 PM
Yes, you mean about Mac fanboys? We can see that here.

Why is it that the Mac fanboys always hate PCs. I thought that a good tradesman never blames his tools.

Anyway, PCs are like the Millenium Falcon, you can take parts out, put parts in, give it a kick now and then.

Macs are more like the evil Star Destroyers.

Nuff said.

Anyways whoever says that color is better on Macs must be on drugs or doesnt understand how Windows works. Remember, a Mac is a PC - they all use Intel these days - and they just have a different OS. The rest is just marketing hype which I thought only attracted 40 year olds with a paunch.

http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2007/02/14/this-is-your-mac-on-drugs/

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 6th, 2008, 09:03 PM
BTW This thread belongs right up there with this other classic:

Nikon v Canon

At the end of the day its the golfer, not the clubs.

There are at least 2 Playboy shooters I know who use PCs in the studio. I guess it must make their pictures look all funny - you better tell Heff.

ZippyTheChimp
April 7th, 2008, 08:22 AM
Yes, you mean about Mac fanboys? No, the machines.

Ninjahedge
April 7th, 2008, 10:21 AM
when I started working at home full time and didn't have to deal with PC crashes anymore

Again, 2 years and no crashes.

Hell, I have only crashed a few times in the past 6 while usually trying to do something like start up another program before letting on e shut down completely.

The other interesting thing to note is that the programs you seem to be mentioning having problems were, I believe, originally designed for the Mac. So having more problems with them is not surprising.

As for "easier to copy", geez, what planet are you coming from. I get a folder open, and a second, I grab a bunch of files and I drag one to the other. It has been that way for years. The main problem is that people get used to one way of doing things, and if something does it differently, it MUST be wrong! ;)


The only thing I DO miss, however, was the older File Explorer where I could have several file trees open on the same window. Made dragging easier and less cluttered.


Oh, GT, you are not helping things by trying to include London in almost every point you make. I know you are being sarcastic because you are feeling bitter about the pro-London posters here disagreeing with you, but please do us all a favor and stay a bit more relevant and on topic.

ZippyTheChimp
April 7th, 2008, 11:31 AM
Crashes and hangups aren't a to-be-accepted part of the everyday use of a computer.

Every time someone asks me to check their computer because it crashes so often, the first thing I do is check the power wall outlet. If I find the computer is simply plugged into the outlet, or almost as bad, one of those cheap power strips masquerading as a surge-protector; I tell them to buy a UPS and call me again.

Commercial AC power is dirty, with noise, spikes and undervoltages. Sometimes they cause obvious hardware problems, but the majority of these transients go unnoticed.

They often corrupt files, directories and programs, problems which are not corrected when the session ends. While the computer will still function, these corruptions manifest themselves unexpectedly.

Get an Uninterruptible Power Supply.

Alonzo-ny
April 7th, 2008, 03:25 PM
One thing Im getting bored of is the constant crashing of programs. I leave a program on and return to it after a while and find it is unresponsive and have to force end it.

MidtownGuy
April 8th, 2008, 12:31 AM
Gregory T puked up this bit of pleasant talk:
Anyways whoever says that color is better on Macs must be on drugs

Oh really, GT? Tell me, do you work with color matching and color choice issues on a daily basis like, for example, a textile designer would?
Because if you don't, stop talking junk. Think you know something because you open up photoshop once in a while and make yourself a greeting card?
Why do you think most professional photographers and designers use Macs? Because they are "on drugs"? Just following blindly? Sure, keep telling that to yourself.
Do you even know what "colorsync" is and how to properly use it...oh, why bother...
Anyone can google around for a bit and think they know something about the daily issues of designing on mac vs. PC, based on some link to a tech article. Meanwhile, the best design teams in the world use mac. Go figure, must be all those drugs.
GT, learn what you're talking about before making insulting comments. If you don't design every day for a living, why not comment on some aspect of the platform debate that you actually know about. Spreadsheets or something, I dunno. It's generally accepted that color calibration is better on a mac. It isn't just me talking.
So, exactly how have you gained such authority on the nuance of color matching, if you aren't a professsional artist? I'm curious.

By the way, I'm no music producer but I've heard similar things from the world of music. MAC is just better for some things. It's OK, just accept it, no need to get nasty.

kz1000ps
April 8th, 2008, 04:21 AM
Why is it that the Mac fanboys always hate PCs.

Has any Mac fanboy here said they hate PCs? I know I haven't.

I also love how a person who likes Macs is always derided as a "fanboy." I've spent plenty of time on both types, starting out on PCs, and through the years I've come to like Macs better. No blind fanboying here thankyouverymuch.

Lastly, my Powerbook crashes maybe five times a year, while the PC, running on XP Pro, goes a couple times a month (it would crash a few times a day with the original Windows ME... barf).

kz1000ps
April 8th, 2008, 04:28 AM
And on the music production aspect, Berklee is 100% Macs. In the studios, the libraries, the laptops you must buy to be a student -- everything and everyone uses a Mac, for better or worse.

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 8th, 2008, 01:33 PM
Gregory T puked up this bit of pleasant talk:

Oh really, GT? Tell me, do you work with color matching and color choice issues on a daily basis like, for example, a textile designer would?
Because if you don't, stop talking junk. Think you know something because you open up photoshop once in a while and make yourself a greeting card?
Why do you think most professional photographers and designers use Macs? Because they are "on drugs"? Just following blindly? Sure, keep telling that to yourself.
Do you even know what "colorsync" is and how to properly use it...oh, why bother...
Anyone can google around for a bit and think they know something about the daily issues of designing on mac vs. PC, based on some link to a tech article. Meanwhile, the best design teams in the world use mac. Go figure, must be all those drugs.
GT, learn what you're talking about before making insulting comments. If you don't design every day for a living, why not comment on some aspect of the platform debate that you actually know about. Spreadsheets or something, I dunno. It's generally accepted that color calibration is better on a mac. It isn't just me talking.
So, exactly how have you gained such authority on the nuance of color matching, if you aren't a professsional artist? I'm curious.

By the way, I'm no music producer but I've heard similar things from the world of music. MAC is just better for some things. It's OK, just accept it, no need to get nasty.

Whatever dude, you are the Master.

But to say that "Mac" has better color is just wrong.

I posted the links for you and yes, I do earn income from using color, images, moving and non moving, and yes, it has nothing to do with Mac v PC.

If you are using 64 bit Windows you can get the same processing power as any Mac for about half the price. Anyway for what I do 3 or 4 GB is enough (except for some HDV rendering of color temperature)

If you are just talking about color then a Mac wont help you if you dont have a calibrated monitor and know how to use the color space and how to process your image for printing.

To say that most professional photographers etc prefer to use a Mac means nothing. Its what you do with it. And its not necessarily even true. Perhaps 15 years ago when color management was easier on a Mac yes, but now no.

The hardware is all Intel and the Mac monitors are not that special compare to Lacie or other well calibrated monitors.

Spend your money how you want. I guess all those photographers who use non Mac computers like Terry Richardson and the Playboy shooters I know must have gone crazy. It must be all those girls, high end work, and all that money.

lofter1
April 8th, 2008, 01:57 PM
amazing how the argument always seems to come back to the playboy thing :cool:

ZippyTheChimp
April 8th, 2008, 02:41 PM
There's usually confusion about how a computer operates. At it's basic level, it's a dumb numbers cruncher - ones and zeros, ons and offs.

A computer isn't smart. It doesn't know anything about color; it's just turning switches on and off. The more data a CPU can handle, the more accurate the rendition of color. And the faster it can run programs.

64-bit architecture is twice as "wide" as 32-bit, and can do the above faster, but for the majority, the nuanced colors and increased speed is not relevant, unless you like to compare performance charts.


A dated but straightforward explanation of color processing:


64 Bit Processing and the Quality of Color

James Hughes, Senior Software Engineer, Spaceward Graphics Ltd.

Spaceward Graphics Ltd have recently launched version 2 of their award winning Satori paint software for Windows NT (Intel and Alpha) and Windows 95. Satori is able to import and export 64-bit images, and mix and match them with their 32-bit brethren. Running on Windows NT, Satori offers high performance layer and object based 32/64 bit painting, special effects, color correction, animation and batch processing on a platform capable of running the vast amount of software available for the windows platform.

One of its almost unique selling points is its ability to seamlessly handle 64 bit color images, but what are the advantages of 64 bit processing, and does it have disadvantages?

Before we start our explanation of 64 bit images processing, it is important to distinguish the use of 32 and 64 bit image data from the use of 32 and 64 bit processors. Much is being said of the latest 32 and 64 bit operating systems, running on the latest 32 and 64 bit processors, but this has nothing to do with the image data being processed. Any processor is capable of dealing with these varying bit pictures given the right software; you do not need a 64-bit processor to deal with a 64-bit image. One caveat of this though, is that generally, a 64-bit processor with a 64-bit operating system will probably be faster at processing a 64-bit image, because it is optimized for working with data that is 64 bits in length.

Most systems on the market, both dedicated and software based, can handle 32 bit images. A 32 bit image consists of 3 color planes, usually red, green and blue, and an additional alpha (or transparency) plane. Each one of these planes is usually 8 bits of information, making 32 in total. With a 64-bit system, each plane is represented by 16 bits. The doubling of the number of bits increases the resolution of each color to 2 to the power of 16, so instead of the 256 levels per color in a 32-bit system, we now have 65536. But why would we want this many color levels?

Imagine our image consists of a color ramp, left to right, from black to red. Using the 8 bits available for red in a 32-bit system, we can have at most 256 levels. Therefor, if our image is greater than 256 pixels wide, we have to duplicate red values. While this is not so noticeable at standard video resolutions, HDTV, photographs or images at film resolution (which are generally about 4000 pixels wide, but it can be as high as 16000 pixels for IMAX) will have large areas of red that are all the same value. This can be quite noticeable because the human eye is extremely efficient at picking out edges. This imaging artefact is known as banding, and can also be noticed in the alpha channel when compositing images together.

There is no banding in a 64 bit image until the horizontal resolution of the image is greater than 65536 pixels, at which point values have to be duplicated as in a 32 bit image.

While banding of this type is not generally noticeable at video resolution, there are still areas where 64 bit processing of images can give improved color quality. Even when importing and exporting 32 bit image files, internal processing at 64 bits per pixel can lead to improved color correction, chroma removal, filtering, scaling, compositing and anti-aliasing. A system that allows the import of images at 32 bits can.

The increased color resolution of 64-bits is also very useful for processing small detail in an image, such as a brush which is a pixel or smaller in size. In these circumstances the added accuracy of the 64-bit processing means finer and better looking brushes are possible, while in 32-bit they may disappear completely. See fig.2.

So we have talked of some of the advantages of 64 bit processing, but what of the disadvantages. The first is obviously size. By doubling the number of bits used to store each pixel, twice the amount of memory is required to store it. For example, a 1k by 1k image at 32 bits would require 4MB of storage (uncompressed)

1024 pixels x 1024 pixels = 1048576 pixels total

Each pixel uses 32 bits equals 4 bytes, so the total numbers of bytes needed to represent the picture is 4x1048576 = 4194304 bytes.

Converting to megabytes we have 4914304/(1024*1024) = 4MB

Using the same calculation, but with 64 bits per pixels (8 bytes) the image at 64-bit would require 8MB.

The current drop in memory and disk drive prices around the world means this is not as great a disadvantage as might be expected, and if only the processing stage is 64 bit, the disk space requirements are unchanged.

Using a resolution independent paint system such as Satori negates the need for large memory requirements, with even very large 64 bit images being loaded and edited in real time.

Another perceived disadvantage of 64-bit imaging is the added processing requirement for the extra data. Although you might expect a doubling of processor power to achieve the same results this is not the case. Most modern processors are equally happy dealing with 8, 16 or 32 bit data lengths, with little or no degradation of performance for increasing lengths. The overheads generally are down to the added time requirements of moving larger amounts of data around the system, and can be minimal, especially in a resolution independent system

One final disadvantage is the lack of input/output devices at this high bit depth. Most film and flatbed scanners support greater than 8 bits per plane, but video capture devices are generally 8 or 10 bit. Output devices also vary greatly, but higher bit depths usually involve a larger financial outlay. However, if you only wish to process at 64 bit, any input/output bit depths are fine. File formats are now available for storing and transferring images of 64-bit depth (Cineon, PNG, TIFF, RIR) so the barriers to using this advanced imaging feature are almost fully eroded.

So to summarize:

Advantages:

* Massively reduced banding
* More accurate rendition of sub-pixel brushes
* Finer color correction
* Improved anti-aliasing and scaling
* Improved compositing

Disadvantages:

* Greater memory requirements in some cases
* Slightly slower performance
* Fewer suitable input and output devices than 32 bit

MidtownGuy
April 8th, 2008, 05:38 PM
I have photographers coming to me several times a week and it just seems like 99% of them use macs.

I was poking around on forums discussing photography and these comments were pretty typical of what I hear all the time:

"I have been a PC user since the year dot but changed to a mac a few weeks ago. I was a user of Lightroom on the PC and I'm a user of Lightroom on the mac....the difference?? I will not be going back to a PC any time soon...

I had quite a powerful PC but had to put up with regular bouts of programs locking up, slow response when I made adjustments in Lightroom, and loads of little niggles that were just plain annoying.

Using the mac for my Photography work has been great...everything just works the way it should...no slowdowns...no hangups...fast response.

I did have a go with Aperture 1.5 but preferred Lightroom, however, Aperture 2.0 looks like it's copied all the good bits from Lightroom so I will give it a go in case it's even faster, etc.

All of that is on top of the fact that the mac and OSX is just a joy to use over years of swearing regularly at PC's and Windows....

All the above IMHO of course....

Mark Morb"

________________________________

"Eauboy - I was using a Sony Vaio PC for the last 5 years. I am a working photographer and have been shooting for 35+ years. This last December I purchased the Mac pro Quad Xeon and will never look back. As I shoot Nikon, digitally, and the Mamiya RB67 Pro SD for film work in Medium Format I use NEF, RAW and Tiff images. The comparison on my monitor (DELL WFP 2407) is unbelievable when working in PS CS3 and/or Capture NX. The colors from the Mac are much truer. I won't compare the speeds as the PC was far under powered. It ran 2 GB's RAM whereas the MP runs 9 GB's. However, the PC was constantly needing maintainence to keep it running correctly. The MP runs like a watch and I can keep 5 apps running with no slow down.

IMHO, the Mac, as long as it has enough RAM for the tasks it is required to do, is by far the better computer for photography. The MP is also the reason that I am doing less work in the darkroom now than I had anticipated. I am now doing only B/W in the DR as I still am not that impressed with the PS process as compared to all the years I have done B/W. I may even have a Besseler 67C enlarger for sale since buying the MP."

______________________
"PC's don't have the true colors like that of the Mac's which is built into the OS... You have to fiddle around much more using Windows.

Basically the only pro photos which use PC's are the ones who can't afford Mac's."

________________________
"Elements and Lightroom/Aperture do differnt jobs. As I see it there are two classes of photo software, in the first are Aerture, Lightroom and iPhoto. these are for organizing and making very minor tweaks. In the second class are Adobe Photoshop, Adobe "Elements" and some others like "Gimp". These are imge editors that allow you to get inside a picture and edit it. They have feaures like layers and masks and brushes.

Why the Mac? From a photographer's perspective: The entire OS is color managed. On Windows some applications (like Photoshop) know about color profiles but on Mac OS it is built-in. Makes it much nicer. Also Apterure ONLY runs on the Mac.

The Applications are NOT the same on both platforms. On the PC for example Adobe makes the workspace background not-clear so you loose direct access to the OS level desktop (maybe Adobe thought that on Windows it needed hiding?)

Then there are the small frustraitions Windows uusers go through. I tried to connect a Wacon tablet to a PC the other night and had to mess with driver CDs and re-boot. On my Mac I just plugged in the tablet."

______________________

MidtownGuy
April 8th, 2008, 05:46 PM
Mac is UNIX based. I'm told that is better. I admit I'm no technician, I am an artist and I'm speaking only from my years of experience, but most people say that makes macs much more secure.

This is from the apple website but you find basically the same thing said everywhere:

"By the end of 2005, there were 114,000 known viruses for PCs. In March 2006 alone, 850 new threats were detected against Windows. Zero for Mac. While no computer connected to the Internet will ever be 100% immune from attack, Mac OS X has helped the Mac keep its clean bill of health with a superior UNIX foundation and security features that go above and beyond the norm for PCs. When you get a Mac, only your enthusiasm is contagious."

Connecting a PC to the Internet using factory settings is like leaving your front door wide open with your valuables out on the coffee table. A Mac, on the other hand, shuts and locks the door, hides the key, and stores your valuables in a safe with a combination known only to you. You have to buy, configure, and maintain such basic protection on a PC.

On a Windows PC, software (both good and evil) can change the system without your even knowing about it. In order for software to significantly modify Mac OS X, you have to type in your password. You’re the decider. You approve changes to your system...."

MidtownGuy
April 8th, 2008, 06:00 PM
Gregory Tanenbaum:
BTW This thread belongs right up there with this other classic:

Nikon v Canon

At the end of the day its the golfer, not the clubs.

Of course a mac won't make you an artist and a new set of clubs won't make you Tiger Woods! But if one's work can be less stressful, involve a more stable platform, and be better suited to the specific tasks one needs, then one should go for it.
I remember first being trained as a designer and learning how to paint with gouache. My instructors at FIT told us what brushes we should get if we could afford them. I didn't get acrylic, even though I was financially challenged... I splurged for the red sable brushes. They didn't give me new hands and fingers, but I noticed a difference in the way they held the paint. Of course, to a monkey using the paintbrush they would feel the same.

The tools don't make the artist, but the artist suffers with inferior tools. Tiger Woods could probably beat most people in golf using a broomstick, but you won't catch him with less than his favorite clubs at a real tournament. :p:p:p

ZippyTheChimp
April 8th, 2008, 07:01 PM
Are those comments based on 64-bit comparisons? I don't think so.

And people are generally prone to reinforce their choice when making a change in a product, rather than admit it was all to do about nothing.

Most comparisons for virus, security, etc are based on skewed data.

That quote is just PR from a company website. Apple no longer claims in ads that it it's faster than PC, or implies that it is immune to viruses. The overwhelming majority of computers are PC, so that's what virus programs are written to.

PC owners fit a broader profile than Mac owners. Many people buy bargain basement systems, and never take care of them. Their data is included in the crashes, hangups, and virus attacks that Apple has used in ads. If I were thinking of investing money in a Mac, and then chose a PC - my mindset, whether I built it myself of bought a complete system, would never be to "leave the front door open." All my computers have been secure, stable, and fast.

I've used several versions of Photoshop from PS3 to CS2. While there were some issues with earlier versions because PS was developed on a Mac, the situation has gradually changed since Adobe bought the rights, and realized that most of the world is PC. If I upgrade to 64-bit, I'll consider CS4, which Adobe has first written to PC, not Mac.

I know about UNIX. My company invented it decades ago, for reasons other than that it was a "more stable platform" or "more secure."

As I stated earlier in the thread - I have no preference in use. I use PC because I'm computer literate, and there is more available to me to personalize a system, for

I wouldn't use that as a reason for the thread originator to opt for a PC, as I wouldn't use any high end advantage of either system as a selling point.

I would stress that, whatever system one uses, it's a good thing to believe that it's the best. Using a computer is in some part, an emotional experience.

I just feel a need to respond when I think something is not correct. Like that annoying TWC ad, where the guy eating bran cereal answers the door, and tells that doofus Verizon guy that, "Time Warner has been using fiber-optic for over a decade."

Total bull. Any phone is fiber optic once the line reaches the phone building, but TWC is not fiber-optic to your door.

I wish I could get FIOS.

MidtownGuy
April 8th, 2008, 08:41 PM
They may not be referring to 64-bit technology but the comments don't seem to be centered around processing speed either, or getting a brush less than a pixel wide for example. I'll embrace it when it arrives for mac users but for most work at normal sizes it seems like overkill anyway.
You seem excited about 64 bit and for good reasons but I doubt it would have much effect on what those people were talking about.

Look, I am not some apple spokesman but I am speaking for many design professionals that apple seems better for many creative tasks in a variety of ways, with an easier work flow, better color and better sound.

Would "UPS" have prevented most of those crashes on PCs that used to get me swearing, I have no clue. I am not a technician or a programmer and you are better qualified in that area to comment. What I can give here is only my personal opinions and to some degree the opinions of other creative professionals. We seem to like macs better for a variety of reasons, some of them hard to explain since I am not a techie and just speak from what I see before my eyes and "feel" in my flow of work. I'm not sure 64 bit will affect many of the issues most important to us.

I'm not very interested in participating in this debate here since versions of it can be found all over the internet that go on for many pages without going anywhere but in a circle, usually ending with some variation of, "whatever floats your boat." I sought to offer an opinion from a creative perspective to add to the more business, economic, and programmer oriented responses.

I am curious about one thing zippy and I am professing my ignorance here, admitting that what I have heard may be untrue...what is the deal with the virus issue? Do macs get them or not? I have read there are no viruses that affect OSX. What is the real deal since your comments were rather vague.

Also, is there no difference in stability of UNIX? People are always saying it is more "stable". Is this true? I'm wondering and you seem very knowledgeable- i'm really just qualified to speak about less technical aspects, and my experience of hardly ever crashing in photoshop regardless of how many things I'm doing at once. I know it has much to do with memory, etc, but what's the deal with UNIX,
is it inherently more stable and secure or no real difference?

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 8th, 2008, 09:09 PM
amazing how the argument always seems to come back to the playboy thing :cool:

Well its all a matter of perception.

Ask the average person in the street who some of the most technically proficient photographers in the world are, and the last thing they will think of is Playboy. Yet Heffners shooters are the best in the world, more than most of the "high class" fashion and beauty guys.

Just like the Mac, people assume that its better than a PC. I guess all those advertising dollars havent gone wasted.

As for giving a monkey a paintbrush Fab, I get your point. But the real point is that with the best horsehair paintbrush or a charcoal stick, a good artist can still produce something wonderful, and will never, ever blame his tools.

I just wish one day that this Mac hype gets brought down to earth. Its like hearing about Washing Powder Wonder! Gets those stains out better than the other brand!

Do your own little bit to deflate the Great White Cartel Hype and say

Mac
Sux
Harry
Ballz.

Zea mays
April 8th, 2008, 09:20 PM
I am curious about one thing zippy and I am professing my ignorance here, admitting that what I have heard may be untrue...what is the deal with the virus issue? Do macs get them or not? I have read there are no viruses that affect OS X. What is the real deal since your comments were rather vague.I am not “zippy” but here are two links that may address your question:

Should Mac Users Run Antivirus Software? (http://db.tidbits.com/article/9511)
and

How Leopard Will Improve Your Security (http://db.tidbits.com/article/9251).

I have never run antivirus software on my Mac.

ZippyTheChimp
April 8th, 2008, 10:08 PM
...
I accept your reasoning for a creative preference for Mac. My responses in this thread only concerned the belief that there was some technology issue that accounted for it.

My interest in 64-bit has little to do with PS; I'm happy with CS2. More for other apps to handle the relentless increase in data flow - once that Verizon doofus comes a knockin with FIOS.

Anyone who's crashing regularly has a problem with their computer, not the OS they're running.

The virus issue: In 2003, Windows based systems accounted for about 97.5 of all systems. In 2007, it was about 90%. Malware is targeted to a specific OS, and if I wanted to spread mischief across the internet, I'd write Windows based virus programs. If Macs increase their market share, virus threats will increase.

UNIX was developed for its portability at a time when everything was connected to a mainframe - and made available to various educational and government networks.

UNIX can be more stable in the high stress load of a server, but rarely on a desktop.

Windows is more scalable.

The problem I have with the advertising doesn't imply that anything is wrong with the product, or that anyone's getting cheated. I understand the reality of market-share that's driving the ads, and I'm glad they're doing it.

The last thing I need is Microsoft minus competition.

MidtownGuy
April 8th, 2008, 10:55 PM
But the real point is that with the best horsehair paintbrush or a charcoal stick, a good artist can still produce something wonderful, and will never, ever blame his tools.

But that isn't the real point because nobody here blamed PCs for bad art, merely for occasionally frustrating the artist during the process of creating it.

Same would be the case for working with a poorly bristled brush and trying to achieve a very fine, clean stroke. As a "good artist" I would just use my crappy bristles to go for a rougher technique; make something great, like lemonade out of lemons. I suppose that is what you are getting at, but if what I needed for a specific project was precise details, I'd be slightly screwed, or at least frustrated.
So you see dear GT, tools aren't to blame for bad art, but an artist still strives to procure the best supplies for his studio that he/she can manage. It just makes it even more enjoyable to create, you spend less time getting pissed and brought out of the "zone" because of problems with inferior materials. I just had to take a moment to make that clear because your statement wasn't directly related to what was being expressed.



I do earn income from using color, images, moving and non moving,
"Earn income from using"? :confused::confused: Rather evasive, are you an artist/photographer or not? I'm wondering if you deal with having products/designs printed, or sit at a desk with a book of pantone colors next to you like it's the bible.

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 10th, 2008, 03:48 PM
But that isn't the real point because nobody here blamed PCs for bad art, merely for occasionally frustrating the artist during the process of creating it.

Same would be the case for working with a poorly bristled brush and trying to achieve a very fine, clean stroke. As a "good artist" I would just use my crappy bristles to go for a rougher technique; make something great, like lemonade out of lemons. I suppose that is what you are getting at, but if what I needed for a specific project was precise details, I'd be slightly screwed, or at least frustrated.
So you see dear GT, tools aren't to blame for bad art, but an artist still strives to procure the best supplies for his studio that he/she can manage. It just makes it even more enjoyable to create, you spend less time getting pissed and brought out of the "zone" because of problems with inferior materials. I just had to take a moment to make that clear because your statement wasn't directly related to what was being expressed.



"Earn income from using"? :confused::confused: Rather evasive, are you an artist/photographer or not? I'm wondering if you deal with having products/designs printed, or sit at a desk with a book of pantone colors next to you like it's the bible.

So I guess Rembrandt and Tiziano were brought out of the zone with their rudimentary materials simply because in the succeeding 4 centuries materials have improved and become easier to use (such as finer thinners, brushes and pre mixed oils).

And I guess all of those covers of Sports Illustrated taken with the Canon 1d back in 2002 with 4 megapixels should now be considered unfit for publication because your grandmothers point and shoot has 8 megapixels.

Then again I guess pigs fly backwards too. Or should I just say "pearls before swine".

You are the Master dude just like I said, but I am concerned with your emphasis upon minute differences in technology that mean little or nothing in reality.

If the Mac has such better features or specs to what you do, then kindly articulate what they are so at least we know you understand what you are talking about and not just recanting the Mac fanboy line.

It would also help me understand, and maybe you could resolve one of the Internets most useless debates in the process, so that we can move on to the "Staedler v Mitsubishi Pencil" debate next.

Ninjahedge
April 10th, 2008, 05:02 PM
amazing how the argument always seems to come back to the playboy thing :cool:


Wonder where his mind is.






Actually, I don't, and I really do not want to know. :eek:

Alonzo-ny
April 10th, 2008, 05:10 PM
What I can gather from all this is that the Mac is prettier and has a nicer user interface and may or may not run certain programs better.

Ninjahedge
April 10th, 2008, 05:13 PM
Would "UPS" have prevented most of those crashes on PCs that used to get me swearing, I have no clue. I am not a technician or a programmer and you are better qualified in that area to comment.

That's the key MG. Most of the people that have problems with this, I have found, have not known too much about what they are doing (on the technical side).

They have done as Zip says, either bought shoddy merchandise, surfed where they shouldn't w/o the necessary protection, installed stuff they thought would magically work w/o reading possible conflicts (the problem with too many chefs is that sometimes one will fry garlic in your cake-pan).

There are many curses to a PC's best benefit, interoperability. The more freedom you give the user, the more they can screw it up.

Mac has worked very hard to give people a WYSIWYG machine. You buy it, it does what it should, no more, no less. Great for some, lacking for others. I commend them on their market research, and some of their design implementations (which I also curse when I see the condescending ads they did about 5-7 years back).

Here's the thing. If you get a PC, you have to know what you are installing. And, just like an old house, sometimes you have to rip it back down to the studs to get rid of its old and conflicting decor.

You install too much stuff on a PC that was not tested in combination with everything else, you probably will come up with a problem. Like I said, blessing is that those programs are all easily available. Curse is that you never know when you will be pouring in that baking soda into your vinaigrette.

Ninjahedge
April 10th, 2008, 05:14 PM
I am not “zippy” but here are two links that may address your question:

Should Mac Users Run Antivirus Software? (http://db.tidbits.com/article/9511)
and

How Leopard Will Improve Your Security (http://db.tidbits.com/article/9251).
I have never run antivirus software on my Mac.

I wish you luck.

The more popular Macs become, the more that will be written to take them out (or use them for other purposes AKA Trojans/Backdoor/Rootkits).

It is like saying that your store has never been robbed when only 3 people visit it a month.

Why lock the door?

Ninjahedge
April 10th, 2008, 05:19 PM
What I can gather from all this is that the Mac is prettier and has a nicer user interface and may or may not run certain programs better.


Pretty much.

WYSIWYG with a bow vs. a Friendly Frankenstein.

One is a real beauty, that will pretty much be the same beauty for as long as you own it.

The other is a big box that CAN be pretty, but is also a cheaper date. The thing you have to be careful is that it WILL eat anything, and if you feed it the wrong stuff, she can get to be a real handful.........



I need an Analogy file or something, they are getting too numerous to keep track of.

Sort of like flies near...... SEE!!!!! THERE IT GOES AGAIN!!!!! ;)

MidtownGuy
April 11th, 2008, 04:41 PM
Gregory Tanenbaum said
So I guess Rembrandt and Tiziano were brought out of the zone with their rudimentary materials simply because in the succeeding 4 centuries materials have improved and become easier to use (such as finer thinners, brushes and pre mixed oils).

Apples and oranges.
Actually, if you want to talk about non-electronic media, many artists would argue the best artist materials are still made according to time honored tradition. Hence natural hairs instead of plastic, and natural pigments too.
See, you are just a big gasbag. So blow away.

Ninjahedge
April 11th, 2008, 05:39 PM
Wait until he gets in the other room before you say that!!!!!


/me looks for air freshener..... ;)

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 11th, 2008, 09:18 PM
You win.

You are the Master.

Mac winz the warz against the PC.

Just coz you said so.

Nuff said.

Ninjahedge
April 14th, 2008, 09:52 AM
You win.

Nuff said.

Much better. :rolleyes:

Fabrizio
April 14th, 2008, 10:46 AM
I use the Mac because the work flow seems more fluid and direct.

However, a very important factor for me is the design... they are attractive.

See that mouse that Ninjahedge posted a few pages back? I could never own a thing like that... it just too ugly. I don't care how great is. I only buy beautiful things.... and visually at least, the Mac experience is beautiful.

Be that as it may:

I got a new 24inch flat-screen IMac with a harddrive that died. I lost 3 months of work. The screen now has slightly darker areas at the corners... not normal.

I had a PowerBook that all you had to do was look at it and a new scratch appeared on the titanium surface. The CD player had to be replaced after a few months. The firewire port connection died. It's now basically a piece of junk with a screen that has a red cast.

I've had 2 mac keyboards die before their time. Mouses that die.

I've just had the worst luck with mac hardware.

But it is beautiful.

Ninjahedge
April 14th, 2008, 11:25 AM
And that is what they make their mony on Fab! ;)

BTW, there ARE other mice that cater more to the "It must look pretty" crowd. As well as cases, monitors and the whole shebang. It is not as bad as it was in the 90's where all you had to choose from in PC's were the beige boxes! Still, Apple is a pretty box. That is what they were targeting.

kz1000ps
April 14th, 2008, 01:25 PM
It is not as bad as it was in the 90's where all you had to choose from in PC's were the beige boxes!

You're forgetting about putty grey! That color totally rawked.

Ninjahedge
April 14th, 2008, 02:14 PM
But putty grey did not "age" the way tan did!!!

How could you tell how obsolete your machine was if it did not turn various shades of bad leftover coffee as time went on!!!!

In all seriousness. I think we all know what to look for in each. If this box is going to be in your back office, and you have a decent technical understanding, then a PC would be the cheaper and more reasonable route (for the same interoperability and performance).

If you are keeping it in the living room, you need to either do a bit more research for a good custom box (or parts to do it yourself) OR go for the Apple that you like the look of. So long as it is not too old...

The newer machines will still have that new look, and they will still perform, but you will pay a premium for the look and the logo.

And if you want to piss GT off, buy either in England and tell us about it! ;)

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 15th, 2008, 11:13 PM
How often do the Mac users here use Windows on their Intel Macs?

Ninjahedge
April 17th, 2008, 10:32 AM
In the summer they use their windows all the time!

Gregory Tenenbaum
May 26th, 2008, 07:28 PM
The whole iCult iHaveaWhiteThingYouDon't and iSheep thing is getting old.

Apple have gotten where they wanted to, although Im sure theres still room for world domination. Many now see that Apple is the acceptable standard or choice and just choose between Apple products.

Given that there are so many better machines out there from Toshiba, Fujitsu, Sony, HP and other manufacturers that can run XP Linux Ubuntu and all the other software you need, why is there such a mad cult for the Apple?

I guess the buyers of the Apple produces have to justify their purchases and it becomes a frenzy of self justification.

Trust me, Ive looked at the MacBooks - and nearly bought one - but honestly there were other choices that were better.

iFans rave on about Safari as if Firefox, or even Netscape or IE had never existed.

Ive always said that using a PC is like flying the Millenium Falcon - fully customizable and able to be retrofitted - with practically anything.

I guess I prefer to be Han Solo than Darth Vader.

Alonzo-ny
May 26th, 2008, 08:00 PM
Are you aware Apple only have 6% of the personal computer market? Ipods dominate but IMO it is superior to other MP3 players.

eddhead
May 26th, 2008, 09:25 PM
How often do the Mac users here use Windows on their Intel Macs?

Sorry, I just saw this today. I use Windows on Virtual Machine software for business applications. I have a Microsoft office package which is compatible with my business docs, presentations, spreadsheets, etc... . In addition, the Windows Virtual Machine allows me to access my office (workplace) PC remotely.

I use standard Mac applications for everything else. The Macbook is just a better finished product than a PC lapbook is. It never freezes or hangs up,it is not susceptible to viruses, adware and pop-ups, and it integrates with Itunes and Iphoto very conveniently. Also Leopard is not the PIA that Vista is... no pop up dialog boxes. I really like it.

kz1000ps
May 27th, 2008, 02:07 AM
why is there such a mad cult for the Apple?

It's the power of a good presentation and good design. The physical form a Mac computer presents to you is appealing, as is their operating system. It may not be the Best.Computer.Ever. but it's still an outstanding machine, and it looks good doing it :D

Ninjahedge
May 29th, 2008, 09:49 AM
It boils down to price.

Many level-headed PC users would not have so much of a problem with Mac if it did not focus so much on the boutique PC crowd.

Odd that Personal Computer /= Mac when they are, literally, synonymous, but that is another matter.

If Macs were to reduce their price and not rely so heavily on cosmetics and fluffy advertisement (that never details what they can actually do, but rather has a comedian and a model act out characterizations of the machines they are trying to anthropomorphize), if they were to be more competitive in the market, maybe this would no longer be an emotional "I FEEL that XXX is better" argument and actually deal with which is a better machine to do what you need to do.

I grudgingly applaud the designers and advertisers of the Mac, and it is a good product line. The only thing I dislike about it is its reliance on technophobia, slander, and cosmetics to sell its product at the prices it, and it alone, demands.

dramaticrunner
June 4th, 2008, 07:51 PM
i switched to mac's almost 3.5 years ago, and am still using the same 12 inch laptop i switched to.

for me the reasons were interface, security, and efficiency. i just bought my mom a 500 dollar dell and was pretty impressed with what you could get for so little money. but 3.5 years and a few pro tools sessions later, still running strong (hoping my harddrive doesn't fail right after i finish typing this), i think i made a good investment.

i don't get viruses or spyware, and my computer doesn't freeze or start slowing down just cos it's been on a long time (i think i've turned it off less than 20 times in the last 3.5 years). these are issues to me because those were common problems me and all my friends were having when we were using PC's.

honestly though, i really really miss having msPaint.

Gregory Tenenbaum
June 6th, 2008, 09:45 AM
Macs....just aren't what I would buy myself.

nycla3
June 6th, 2008, 10:41 AM
It boils down to price.

Sometimes.

I'll plead brand loyalty on this one. I've had a Mac on my desk since 1985.
To each their own.

Ninjahedge
June 6th, 2008, 01:00 PM
Sometimes.

I'll plead brand loyalty on this one. I've had a Mac on my desk since 1985.
To each their own.

So you are willing to pay the extra 50% to 100% because of loyalty? ;)

I know what you are saying, people did the same for Ford. Even though Ford was known amongst many to be outperformed by many other car makers, including a few other American companies, people still bought Ford because that is what they owned since XXXX.

The key here, though, is just that. So long as you admit the reason you want to pay the extra cash is for certain things, such as aesthetics, familiarity with the OS, brand loyalty, or even ease of compatibility (since there is essentially only one brand of accessories) that is fine.

But when people start going on about BSOD, viruses running rampant, rediculous stories of ill-informed users facing hell with their machines and other manufactured reasons for not only purchasing their machine over others, but to insult all those who did not do the same ("You get whatever you want, I prefer to get Quality", et all), that is where most PC users pull up and say "Whoa!" (Not necessarily in that order).

The very thing that many apple fanboys (not you nycla) practice in alignment with the commercial line that is fed by Apple Inc. is the thing that keeps me ardently opposed to considering it. That and, of course, cost. Oh! AND the fact that I like building my own machine, but that is another issue! ;)

This "holier than thou" thing pisses many people off, and the sheer proclivity and abundance of it, and its advertising makes many ask "what's up with that?". More importantly, though, should be the question "Where is all this (advertising) money coming from?".

It is coming from your I-gear and your loyalty to Apple.

Again, another matter.


There is a narrow niche of legitimate users that Apple and its products satisfy better, despite the cost, than its PC rivals. There is no reason to deny or ignore that. People should look at what they need and how much importance is placed on it.

As soon as that is used, and the brand-name-bias (And advertising vitrol) is ignored, you will get the best machine for your uses, no matter who the manufacturer is.

But we all know that you make more money off of feelings than off of logic and need, so............. Good Luck to any searching for their machine! ;)

nycla3
June 6th, 2008, 01:24 PM
It's actually a much simpler story for me...being in the typesetting, graphic arts and printing community my entire life has endeared (and chained) me to the Mac OS and the usual suspects of software it supports...Illustrator, Photoshop, Quark, InDesign, etc.....heck, way back to the heady days of software like Ready, Set, Go! and PageMaker. I've cracked them open, administered them, networked them and had full staffs using them, so I may not be a good debater on the merits of Mac v. PC. It's my lifeline. That being said, I wish I'd never told my parents to dump their PC and get a Mac and I could be their remote tech support through Timbuktu and iChat...now I'm paying their bills online and having to remember their mindnumbing passwords...and the videoconferencing. Yeah, Dad, I see that damn alligator in the lake....again.:D