|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/09/2005 11:59:39 AM · #51 |
ok so i'm mac. all-the-way (for the arts)
i'm use my powerbook G4 as my portible recording studio, darkroom, and for just the usial computer stuff typing papers and such......
but if u don't do mch art stuff it is not nessary....
u see my dad is a graphic designer and for him to be in key with printers he must use mac. (at the dawn of time printers started with mac. and they have not changed over yet [and prob. can't they dug their own hole price wise]).
mac. ARE expincive something they are working on but have not prefected........
PC are darker if u do do any proffesional printing u NEED a Mac. or to re calibrate your PC.......
1 more thing if u are going to get big or even amiture into the photo stuff there is and aritical in Mac. World on how to get a set-up sans camera for $5000 flat including printer and other grar u should have exturnal HD and so on......
if u are think of getting a mac. remember u pay alot to start but u don't upgrade much
I recomend Picking up Aprils Mac World mag. should be at your local book store.....they do a compairsion the the mini and a low line dell too quite intrsting since they present it very un-byestly.
have a good time chosing don't rush if u do u may regret your purtous go to an Apple store and mess with everything don't hold back they clean their systems at night and wipe there cashes......lol.......big probs. if they didn't
_brando_
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 12:25:49 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by fotodude:
ok so i'm mac. all-the-way (for the arts)
i'm use my powerbook G4 as my portible recording studio, darkroom, and for just the usial computer stuff typing papers and such......
but if u don't do mch art stuff it is not nessary....
u see my dad is a graphic designer and for him to be in key with printers he must use mac. (at the dawn of time printers started with mac. and they have not changed over yet [and prob. can't they dug their own hole price wise]).
mac. ARE expincive something they are working on but have not prefected........
PC are darker if u do do any proffesional printing u NEED a Mac. or to re calibrate your PC.......
1 more thing if u are going to get big or even amiture into the photo stuff there is and aritical in Mac. World on how to get a set-up sans camera for $5000 flat including printer and other grar u should have exturnal HD and so on......
if u are think of getting a mac. remember u pay alot to start but u don't upgrade much
I recomend Picking up Aprils Mac World mag. should be at your local book store.....they do a compairsion the the mini and a low line dell too quite intrsting since they present it very un-byestly.
have a good time chosing don't rush if u do u may regret your purtous go to an Apple store and mess with everything don't hold back they clean their systems at night and wipe there cashes......lol.......big probs. if they didn't
_brando_ |
Wow, my brain hurts after deciphering that post! :-)
Chad |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 01:41:46 PM · #53 |
I read an article in an english pro photography magazine where MAC vs PC was done by a obvious PC fanatic, the computers they used to compare were the dual XEON 3.6 GHz DELL and the dual 2.5 GHz G5. the purpose of the article was to see wich platform was better for photo editing and related subjects like music and video.
the result was if you are upgrading from a slow system and have to buy everything new, then go for the mac. even if you already got monitor(s) and other external devices then the mac is still a better coice, it´s only when you just need processor upgrade that it´s better to stick to PC and buy a upgrade kit and that is only to save money.
performance was tested and the MAC outperformed the dual XEON in most tasks, (all photo editing tasks).
security was tested and the MAC outperformed the PC in ALL aspects of security.
reliability was tested, MAC came out a lot more reliable then the PC
uptime was tested, after 9 hours of hard work in photoshop, freehand, indesign, and other programs the PC had to be rebooted, after 72 hours the test ended and the MAC was still running without any problems.
the man who did the test was a major PC fan and in the begining of the article e was agains MAC, but his final words were, "If you´re upgrading your system, GET A MAC ! "
and the MAC was cheaper then the PC even with double the memory, 8GB DDR in the mac vs 4GB DDR in the PC
Message edited by author 2005-03-09 13:48:28. |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 02:06:11 PM · #54 |
Without delving into a lot of research on what the sots of the 2 systems tested is or if they are acutally comparable systems or not, I do take issue with the upgrade cost scenario.
If i have a computer (pc or mac) and want to upgrade, then it will almost always be cheaper to stay with the same line of processors/OSs. If i were to switch to a Mac now, i'd have a LOT of software to bay, and probably some peripherals as well. (not sure my 10 year old HP laser is mac ready, or my scanner)
MS Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and some specialty software i have would all have to be upgraded or outright replaced.
Depending on how far ones upgrades in the PC world, much can be re-used. Last year i upgraded my RAM, OS, HD, MB power supply and processor. Essentially a new computer. $400 if i recally, and a goodly chuck of that was for XP Pro. I did it in phases, and one day may get another video card without having to buy a whole new machine.
Mac's on the other hand, if one wants to upgrade, you have to buy an entire machine, probably a new monitor as well (not being a mac person i cannot be sure though)
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 02:20:50 PM · #55 |
one thing about mac design, almost all external peripherals that work on PC will also work on MAC, PS/2 keyboards and mouses excluded.
apple monitors are about the best monitors on the market today, and they are very popular amongst PC users because they work with most computers.
you do not need to upgrade hardware in the mac, you can ADD memory until you reach 8GB, you can put in 2x S-ATA HDD and that´s about it. you can upgrade your videocard if needed, usually the mac comes with a good videocard. and there are PCI-X slots in the powermac for fiberchannel cards or other high performance cards.
but with the laptop, you buy it, everything is included and you use it until everything is outdated then you buy a new one, mac is designed for those that want to use the computer for work, not for those who want to spend their time fixing and upgrading one part at a time like the PC.
in the mac everything is "the best" at the time of purchase, and everything gets outdated at the same time, the videocard doesn´t get outdated years before the processors.
at the time MAC is slightly more expencive then the PC, but it looks better, works better, and you only need to set up the operating system ONCE, there is no need to format the hard drive frequently and reinstall, that only happens on windows systems ;) |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 02:54:34 PM · #56 |
We have several Macs at our house, and use them often. I often use PCs at work. I like the Mac relative to PC for several reasons:
1. Stability. I've never had a Mac lose data or even crash (well, one did crash on me once back in 1990).
2. Longevity. We are still using a Mac that is several years old, and it still does great work for us, even with new software like Photoshop. I'm not sure a PC has the longevity of a Mac.
3. Elegance. Being an artsy kind of guy, I just like the look and feel of a Mac.
4. We do lots of sound and video work, and the industry standard is Mac for this.
5. Price. Some folks mention that Macs are more expensive, but I disagree. Most Macs come with software that to purchase independently would make up for any price saved when purchasing a PC. Add this to the longevity issue, and I think money could be saved in the long run. (I'm no expert, though).
There are good reasons to use PC, too (as you can read above). It just depends on your preferences and the things you do.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 03:02:44 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by ganders:
...Mac viruses are certainly a lot less common than Windows ones, but that's just because of the huge market share Windows has.... |
This is an often repeated argument employed by PC advocates, which ignores the fact that it would require considerable skills to write malicious programs for the MacOS whereas it takes comparitively little to do the same for Windows. |
Well, I'm not sure I'd classify myself as a "PC advocate", I was simply arguing against the ridiculous claim that Macs were magically immune to viruses.
I think I also said that there were technical reasons why there were less Mac viruses too; but it's a plain fact that if there are (roughly) 20 times the number of PCs in the world then you're going to find more viruses being created on them.
Windows is a much bigger and much softer target. So it gets hit a lot more. All I am saying is that Macs are also a target; just a much smaller and trickier one; so they are still at risk. I'll give up now!
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 03:10:03 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by ganders:
...All I am saying is that Macs are also a target; just a much smaller and trickier one; so they are still at risk. I'll give up now! |
No, don't give up. I agree with the gist of your posts, and expanded on one aspect of one. Macs are not immune. Complacency is never wise. And, yes, I wouldn't be caught dead without a virus protection program. ;-)
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 03:20:36 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Well, I'm not sure I'd classify myself as a "PC advocate", I was simply arguing against the ridiculous claim that Macs were magically immune to viruses.
I think I also said that there were technical reasons why there were less Mac viruses too; but it's a plain fact that if there are (roughly) 20 times the number of PCs in the world then you're going to find more viruses being created on them. |
It's really more about architecture than numbers. You can't easily sink a battleship because it has compartments that are sealed off in the event of a hull breach. A UNIX based system is based on a similar concept. Sure you can design a virus for Mac/Linux/UNIX, but the best it gets is fumbling a single user's home directory.
In contrast, windows is more like a canoe. Once the virus breaches the hull, water goes everywhere. That's because windows is descended from a long line of non-networked, single user systems where it made no difference. UNIX is descended from a longer line of network-centric multi-user systems.
There's pros and cons to Mac and Windows overall, but when it comes to security and viruses, there is a clear winner.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 03:28:54 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
It's really more about architecture than numbers. You can't easily sink a battleship because it has compartments that are sealed off in the event of a hull breach. A UNIX based system is based on a similar concept. Sure you can design a virus for Mac/Linux/UNIX, but the best it gets is fumbling a single user's home directory. |
I know I said I'd give up, but...!
It is HARDER to go further on a UNIX-based operating system but it's simply not true that it's impossible for malicious software to exceed it's permissions and do pretty much anything it wants to. YES, it is (in general) a lot harder than on a Windows OS but it isn't impossible.
What do you think bored students did back in the days before Windows? They broke into Unix systems :-)
Originally posted by cgubbell:
There's pros and cons to Mac and Windows overall, but when it comes to security and viruses, there is a clear winner. |
Undeniable; never claimed otherwise.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 03:58:58 PM · #61 |
it´s one thing to break in to a unix system, a virus is a whole other concept, to delete a system file you have to enter administrators password and you don´t get multiple attemts like you do with login, one attempt wrong and you have to start all over again. but in the windows system when you get in then the system it doesn´t ask for approval to delete the system it just does if it´s told to, that is impossible with unix, to delete unix system files you have to reboot the computer from another source, you cannot delete a running system, not even system administrator is allowed to.
and IF there were viruses for the mac, they would target the users profile and home directory, not the system.
ofcourse you can write a virus for your own computer, even mac, but then you have all the passwords and can use them in the virus program so the virus works, without system passwords a virus will die at first attempt at the system. |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 05:18:49 PM · #62 |
You know, I'll quit while I'm behind. I'm sure you're perfectly right when you say that Unix systems can't be damaged without the password, that no malicious code can or would attack system files, and that you can't damage a running system without a reboot.
I'm sure the times I've seen and done it were just figments of my imagination ;-)
I don't think I have the energy to get into a virtual pissing contest over who has the most accurate Unix security knowledge...
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 05:41:00 PM · #63 |
so ganders, do you have a mac running osX ?
my info doesn´t come from my personal experience but from my brother that is a system administrator with over 20 years of UNIX/LINUX/SOLARIS/BeOS/HPUX and other systems experience, both of maintaining, setup, programing, debuging and every other thinkable and unthinkable use of the systems.
and now he´s a system administrator at a university, and he was a system administrator for a bank and was responcible for setting up the computers that managed online banking.. so he MUST know something about security in UNIX ;)
but I´m not on this site to talk about computers...
a virus is always a possibility, but at the moment there are no known viruses that attack the OS-X system.
and the programmers that buy mac and os-x are not the type to write viruses ;)
I was only trying to give some pointers on wich to choose MAC or PC, at the moment MAC is the better choice for photoediting, and that is recognized and accepted throughout the industry. |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 06:06:00 PM · #64 |
I could concede that Macs are less vulnerable to a virus attack.
What I don't get, and this could just be me, where all this hysteria of viral attacks come from.
I have been usings PCs since the fall of 1984, and been on the net since '98 or so. For the past 4.7 years I have had a cable modem and an always on PC. I have used Windows since 3.11 and dos before that.
I have had a few attempted virus attacks(3 or 4), Norton stopped them cold. All via emails. While i know the threat is out there, I don't think it is as bac as the media hypes it to be and with a little common sense you can be safe.
Originally posted by DanSig:
at the time MAC is slightly more expencive then the PC, but it looks better, works better, and you only need to set up the operating system ONCE, there is no need to format the hard drive frequently and reinstall, that only happens on windows systems ;) |
If people are re-installing windows it is becuse they are not knowledgeable. I have XP Pro now, no issues with stability or need to reinstall. I think I might have reinstalled Windows ONCE in the 10+ years i have been running it. (3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP).
You can run old macs. I have an old laptop running 98SE. It runs PS 7.0. If that is all you use you don't notice HOW SLOW IT IS. It is a Pentium 100, 1.2Gb HD with 64Mb ram. I bought it, used, for $200 4 years ago. It has never been upgraded and still works.
As to macs and monitors, etc...I know USB and firewire are the same, and much software on CD has both mac and PC versions. However, the G5 is an all in one box...just like a laptop. That is not upgradeable, it is disposeable. And the software that is listed there is about what you get with XP. No office, no PS....
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 06:15:20 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
...the G5 is an all in one box...just like a laptop. That is not upgradeable, it is disposeable.... |
The 'G5' you link to is an 'iMac G5' (with a G5 processor inside). The term 'G5', as a model name, is usually employed to describe a 'Power Mac G5', a tower with a separate display, which is completely upgradable.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 06:33:05 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Natator:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
A Mac running OSX can comunicate with any PC and Windows programs now run native on Mac. |
Do you mean that any program that will run in Windows can now also rum on a Mac? Sounds unlikely to me, but I could well be wrong. |
I'm pretty sure that's not what I said. |
*blinks*
Why so defensive?????
I asked a genuine question to try and clarify something as I did not know what you said. Look at what I wrote, I asked "do you mean ..." it was a genuine question.
"Windows programs now run native on mac" can be interpreted to mean precisely what I thought it might, so I asked for clarification as I thought I had misunderstood.
Your comment back was pretty pointless, it quoted the same phrase I was questioning, then managed to completely fail to expand on the meaning any further.
Would it not be more constructive to then, now here's a thought, actually try and clarify what you said if someone has asked for clarification? Is a response of "no, I didn't mean that, I meant ...." just a little more helpful?
Sheesh, lighten up will you!
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 07:24:10 PM · #67 |
most windows programs can run on mac usin virtualPC from microsoft, but most games are excluded, and this only works on dual G5 since that computer got power to spare :)
virtualPC will make the 2GHz dual G5 run windows programs like 1.2GHz pentium4 wich is enough for most programs like office and other NON graphical programs, photoshop is really slow in virtualPC and so is Autocad.
but in theory they all run on mac, unlike mac programs on PC, there is an mac emulator for windows, but it slows the PC to about the same speed as a calculator.
90% of the most used programs on PC (games excluded) are available in MAC version, and programs like the Office 2004 and Photoshop CS are known to work better on the MAC then the PC.
funny that Microsoft makes their office 2004 better for the mac then it is for the PC ;) just shows that even Microsoft realizes the big marketshare of apple computers and want to be a part of it, but MAC users are used to having programs that work without conflicts or problems so microsoft got some new demands for programming for mac, the first and second office for mac were really bad, and if the office 2004 would have been bad to then microsoft would have been out of the apple market, but the succeded in making a great office for MAC, even better then the windows one ;)
Message edited by author 2005-03-09 19:25:39. |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 07:39:50 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Natator:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Natator:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
A Mac running OSX can comunicate with any PC and Windows programs now run native on Mac. |
Do you mean that any program that will run in Windows can now also rum on a Mac? Sounds unlikely to me, but I could well be wrong. |
I'm pretty sure that's not what I said. |
*blinks*
Why so defensive?????
I asked a genuine question to try and clarify something as I did not know what you said. Look at what I wrote, I asked "do you mean ..." it was a genuine question.
"Windows programs now run native on mac" can be interpreted to mean precisely what I thought it might, so I asked for clarification as I thought I had misunderstood.
Your comment back was pretty pointless, it quoted the same phrase I was questioning, then managed to completely fail to expand on the meaning any further.
Would it not be more constructive to then, now here's a thought, actually try and clarify what you said if someone has asked for clarification? Is a response of "no, I didn't mean that, I meant ...." just a little more helpful?
Sheesh, lighten up will you! |
I wasn't being defensive. I was tired and getting ready to go to sleep. And my PC had crashed twice yesterday so I was making my answers short. The first one that you responded to was definately too short to be understood and I probably worded it wrong anyway. I was talking about Microsoft Office XP running native on OSX, not Windows. Sorry. What happens when you type too fast and get in a hurry.
You can run Virtual PC on a Mac and then you can use any program available to a PC on the Mac, but Virtual PC is not native and will slow down the system (and probably crash like a PC)
Sometimes when I type a half a sentence and click Post I must be thinking that every thought I am thinking at that very moment is being completely and fully communicated.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 07:57:38 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
...the G5 is an all in one box...just like a laptop. That is not upgradeable, it is disposeable.... |
The 'G5' you link to is an 'iMac G5' (with a G5 processor inside). The term 'G5', as a model name, is usually employed to describe a 'Power Mac G5', a tower with a separate display, which is completely upgradable. |
See how little i know of macs? From the Apple website, a dual processor G5 looks cool, but at $1999 with only 256mb of ram you have to upgrade before you can even run a program! Moving up to the dual 2ghz unit, for $2500, you get about what i have in a PC...but i have maybe $700 in mine. (yeah, i don't have dual processors...insert derogatory remark about macs needing dual processors to keep up with PCs -here- LOL)
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 08:17:59 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
...to keep up with PCs...[/i] LOL) |
I've never used a 2GB G5. I've used a 2.5GB one though. I didn't feel like it was 'keeping up' at all.
I've had some kid on a bicycle trying to keep up with me the other day. Being a nice guy, I slowed down and let him pass me.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 08:42:59 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
...at $1999 with only 256mb of ram you have to upgrade before you can even run a program! Moving up to the dual 2ghz unit, for $2500, you get about what i have in a PC...but i have maybe $700 in mine. |
There isn't a $700 PC on the planet that could keep up with even a single processor PowerMac G5 (unless you drop both from a high window). OS X will run software on 256MB, though many online retailers (MacConnection, MacMall, etc.) give you 1Gb of RAM for free. |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 08:45:50 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
...to keep up with PCs...[/i] LOL) |
I've never used a 2GB G5. I've used a 2.5GB one though. I didn't feel like it was 'keeping up' at all.
I've had some kid on a bicycle trying to keep up with me the other day. Being a nice guy, I slowed down and let him pass me. |
I'll agree. There is no keeping up going on. I run a dual 2GB G5 for my imageing and you would be hard pressed to show me anything in a PC for $2500 that can do what that can do with the ease and speed that it gets it done with.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 09:03:30 PM · #73 |
There is so much misinformation in this thread it's almost laughable.
To the OP:
The short answer, the Mac is going to cost you more upfront, but will likely be easier for you to maintain if you aren't into computers heavily. The graphics arts industry is still heavily entrenched in the Mac camp, but you should be clear that there's not really a technological advantage one way or the other for the average user.
There are 2 commercial advantages. The Apple camp can argue all the want but the reality of it is this: software developers are in it to make money. the biggest market is the PC market. So software dev is generally focused on PCs. Also, likewise, if you go to most any business, or even most schools these days(reality check again here, Windows boxes are everywhere), or you have kids that will use this, skills with Windows is likely to be far more useful.
I won't bother arguing the security merits and such. Generally a Windows XP box run by a competent person doesn't have issues. Windows just doesn't try to save you from yourself as much, although they are starting to do it. But it's also a big fat target compared to a Mac, so you will get attacked more if you are on the net with it.
I'm not presenting my info second hand. I'm in IT, I'm not a photographer. I'm a programmer and sys admin for a Big 10 university, trying to improve my photographic skills, not a computer user guessing how things work or relaying "what I've heard". But feel free to fire away.
BTW, it's interesting to contemplate how much focus Apple has on it's computer biz right now. Think I'm kidding? What's the first thing you see if you go to apple.com? I'll give you a hint...it's not an Apple computer.
Message edited by author 2005-03-09 21:05:35. |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 09:56:18 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by colema19:
There is so much misinformation in this thread it's almost laughable.
To the OP:
The short answer, the Mac is going to cost you more upfront, but will likely be easier for you to maintain if you aren't into computers heavily. The graphics arts industry is still heavily entrenched in the Mac camp, but you should be clear that there's not really a technological advantage one way or the other for the average user.
There are 2 commercial advantages. The Apple camp can argue all the want but the reality of it is this: software developers are in it to make money. the biggest market is the PC market. So software dev is generally focused on PCs. Also, likewise, if you go to most any business, or even most schools these days(reality check again here, Windows boxes are everywhere), or you have kids that will use this, skills with Windows is likely to be far more useful.
I won't bother arguing the security merits and such. Generally a Windows XP box run by a competent person doesn't have issues. Windows just doesn't try to save you from yourself as much, although they are starting to do it. But it's also a big fat target compared to a Mac, so you will get attacked more if you are on the net with it.
I'm not presenting my info second hand. I'm in IT, I'm not a photographer. I'm a programmer and sys admin for a Big 10 university, trying to improve my photographic skills, not a computer user guessing how things work or relaying "what I've heard". But feel free to fire away.
BTW, it's interesting to contemplate how much focus Apple has on it's computer biz right now. Think I'm kidding? What's the first thing you see if you go to apple.com? I'll give you a hint...it's not an Apple computer. |
Thats so sweet that you are so knowledgeable but I know how this works in everyday real use. I have a 64 bit AMD 3200 with 3 gigs of PC3200 400MHz ram and 800 FSB. Pretty fast. It runs in real life situations working in PS CS about 4 times slower then my Mac.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 10:02:11 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Thats so sweet that you are so knowledgeable but I know how this works in everyday real use. I have a 64 bit AMD 3200 with 3 gigs of PC3200 400MHz ram and 800 FSB. Pretty fast. It runs in real life situations working in PS CS about 4 times slower then my Mac. |
Well I won't respond to the rather childish insult.
But I will concede the Photoshop point. It's well known that Photoshop, and possibly Premiere are 2 apps that regularly perform very well and are well optimized on Macs to the point that they do run better on Macs. But it's also their traditional market space. PS is almost always, if not always, the first app that's optimized on the new Mac OSes and hardware. It does have a performance advantage on Macs. Do any other apps besides Photoshop perform better on your Mac though? Of course if Photoshop is all you use, by all means, get a Mac. It will run better.
I noticed that the PS benchmark is the only thing you commented on. Do you have anything to say on anything other then the one PS performance figure?
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/15/2025 04:39:40 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/15/2025 04:39:40 PM EDT.
|
