| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2003 04:38:19 PM · #26 |
|
|
|
04/13/2003 09:51:16 PM · #27 |
I thought this debate was a thing of the 90's.
Most arguments here are based on myths. I own 3 Macs, 2 power books, an iMac and one PC. I have either owned or worked with every Mac produced since 1994, at least. Having both worlds, I can only say, there is (really) no contest. Apple makes dream machines, especially running on OS X. There are no crashes, no restarts, no downtime. They're fast, miraculously elegant and efficient to a T.
The Quartz LCDs are crisp and wonderful for image processing, print media production and infinitely superior to their PC equivalents (if there should be such a thing). God, even the kids hate to use the PC. If you ignored the contortions you have to go through to accomplish a task, the repeated downtimes can be 'really' long, costly and annoying, when you're used to Apple computers.
No, Macs aren't 'cheap'. But you can get them for almost the same price and probably save several times the investment over time. And you'll be guaranteed not to be stuck with yesteryear's technology.
Do Chevy owners contest the quality of RRs? It would be equally ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2003 11:05:57 PM · #28 |
Speaking of cars and computers, this is a good one:
If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all
be
driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to
buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You
would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of
the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows
before
you could continue. For some reason you would simply
accept this.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause
your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case
you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was
reliable,
five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but
would run on only five percent of the roads.
6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all
be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation"
warning light.
7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.
8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door
handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn
how to drive all over again because none of the controls
would operate in the same manner as the old car.
10.You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2003 01:25:22 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by daysez:
IMO Mac's rule in image processing. But for any platform I do not recommend the LCD displays, I am told that they can't be calibrated. |
Take a look at the Formac Gallery displays. They *can* be calibrated. Sorry, I didn't want this to be my very first post but I thought I'd chime in on this one for the heck of it. :)
Just my two cents on this Mac/PC issue: This preference war has been going on for years. I've been using Macs since the Mac SE and I love them. I currently have a dual 1GHz/1.25GB RAM both at home (along with a 2.4GHz P4 Dell) and work and I love em. I mainly do page layout (InDesign 2) and Photoshop work. Although I have never used either application on a PC (except an older version of Photoshop on the PC) I just feel comfortable on that platform. If you have a PC and like it, why switch and spend more money on a second system? But like many people have said, a great majority of service bureaus use the Mac and prefer it vs the PC.
Hard to say anything else new on this topic that hasn't been already said before. The PC may have many more programs to choose from but if you need specialized applications available only on one platform and not the other, then the choice is clear. But if all you're using are readily available commercial apps like Photoshop, InDesign, Office or whatnot, then the platform of choice all boils down to personal preference.
For all the PC people using a Mac and saying how slow it is never mentioned what the hardware specs were. For all we know, they could be older PowerPCs (601/603e/604/604e) or even a 68040 with minimal RAM! If those same people were to use a current platform such as a fast single processor G4 or even a slower dual processor (dual 450 or so) with lots of RAM, I'm sure they'd have different feelings. Even PCs benefit from a faster processor and lots of RAM. Also, one needs to question how well maintained the Macs are. Too often people have needless applications running wasting memory and clock cycles. Same is true in the PC world. I could go on and on but no matter what, you will have problems on any computer no matter which you choose. |
|
|
|
04/21/2003 09:22:48 AM · #30 |
i've had 6 macs. i know how to do everything on the mac, from allocating memory to installing an ultra2 scsi adapter card and setting up a RAID disk system. i used to be a die-hard mac defender and apologist, making a lot of the same statements macheads on here make - like 'oh the PC won that test, well it wouldn't if you did such and such with the mac!' - i.e. rationalizations.
When I first started working in a PC-centric environment (i'm a graphic designer), I was repulsed and appalled. I evangelized macs to everyone around me. I was openly disappointed when my friends would buy a PC.
But over time, as I had to work with the various platforms day in and day out, my eyes began to open. The PC's were always quicker, multitasked more smoothly (no mp3 stutter when you launch photoshop, for example. not to mention while a program is launching you can still use the OS, instead of WAITING), and crashed less. they weren't any harder to use or troubleshoot, either.
The real turning point came when it came time for me to upgrade my main powerbook. for the first time, i was considering a PC as a viable alternative. a survey of what you get for your money on the mac side vs what you get for your money on the pc side really drove the point home: no matter how faithful you have been to Apple, they will still stick you in the wallet when it comes time to buy a new system.
ultimately, i was able to get a pc laptop with the fastest processor, a much higher resolution screen then is available on ANY mac laptop, PERIOD, huge and fast HD, gobs of ram, the latest graphics adapter (why do macs always have last year's graphics adapter?) and many other bells and whistles, all for the price of the lowest-end powerbook G4. And I have to say that windows xp is the most stable consumer operating system I have ever used. my laptop goes weeks without ever needing or wanting a restart. and furthermore, no longer do i go to internet sites that i can't use - they all WORK for a change with my computer ! no longer a second class citizen! imagine that!
i still have a mac in operation -- i'm also a musician and amateur recording engineer. i have a system dedicated to pro-audio recording with high end disk drives and beefed up ram. it still does what it needs to and i have a lot of equipment tied up in it, so i'm not replacing it anytime soon (another sore spot -- if i upgrade, all my peripherals will no longer be compatible since apple dumped serial and SCSI) ..
so my feeling is that macs are not a cost-effective solution. you just don't get nearly as much for your money - both in terms of hardware AND compatibility with the rest of the world. for those made of money this won't be a problem, but for the rest of us, I no longer recommend macs. (btw, if anyone wants, I will take a picture of all the macs in our house - most of which are gathering dust now). |
|
|
|
04/21/2003 10:11:25 AM · #31 |
well said, mag. although i don't have actual ownership experience with macs, i have worked and currently work in very mac-centric environments and have had to work closely with them. i feel very much the same as you on all points.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2003 10:38:37 AM · #32 |
| Mag, are you comparing your brand new, fancy PC laptop to your Mac with serial ports and scsi? If so, that system is at least 5 years old and I can see why the PC was so much better. In addition, you must be comparing an old Mac operating system with XP, have you tried OS X? I know a lot of computer scientists that are buying Macs for home use just because of the UNIX based OS X. I think Macs and PCs can live quite happily side by side. There are strengths in both. If you're into gaming I would also suggest a PC, but if you're into video,design or music, a Mac may be the best choice. My sister is a software engineer, she has her PC on one desk and her iMac on the other. |
|
|
|
04/21/2003 11:13:42 AM · #33 |
no, david. i also have access to newer mac gear. spec-wise, there was no mac laptop with a 1600x1200 screen at the time i purchased (august). dont know if there even still is. and i am not using os x because at the time i wanted to upgrade most of my core apps had not been re-written for it.
I think they can live happily side by side but i dont see any advantages to spending the extra $ for a mac anymore. i think a lot of people do it because they don't know better. i dont want to rip on macs because like i said i used to be very emotionally invested in them like so many mac-users are. but i dont think they are superior in any way to a pc - and therefore do not justify the premium price. if they were priced more in-line with other products, i would have probably continued to be a mac-owner, as i have tons of software and was really used to the platform.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2003 11:14:16 AM · #34 |
In a perfect world, I would have both. I'm a long time mac user. When I had to upgrade, I was between jobs and could not afford a new Mac. So I went for a PC. The PC gives me the flexability to use just about anything. I don't have to worry about paying an arm and a leg for a Mac compatable item. That said, the mac has historically been a more user friendly and stable system. I still find the Mac OS more intuative and user friendly. WinXp has cleared up many of the stability problems, but it's still got elements of clunk.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2003 11:24:43 AM · #35 |
Well...if ya want the best of both worlds...you still have to buy a Mac. Get Virtual PC and now you have them both on your Mac.
I don't have a problem with PC's...I have a problem with Windows!! Love that one Sage! (see below). Go back to Windows 3.0..that is when they started "emulating" Macs. ie: the point and click, etc. The people at Apple have the ideas, but Microsoft is able to out sell them.
tracy
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 10:22:07 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
I don't have a problem with PC's...I have a problem with Windows!! Love that one Sage! (see below). Go back to Windows 3.0..that is when they started "emulating" Macs. ie: the point and click, etc. The people at Apple have the ideas, but Microsoft is able to out sell them.
|
The GUI interface was actually developed by Xerox. Both Apple and Microsoft are equally guilty of stealing those ideas and running with them.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 09:49:43 PM · #37 |
Not quite. I have a feeling that when mci said Windows he meant the functionality of Windows as conceived by Apple, not a Xerox template.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2003 10:00:12 PM · #38 |
| The argument will be murkier in a few years if the Mac OS is ported to Intel-based chips as rumored... |
|
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: 06/24/2025 04:38:43 PM EDT.
