|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2006 12:44:04 PM · #126 |
Oh I thought I would however mention this to throw everything you might be reading into perspective -
Mac users are an ENORMOUSLY vocal minority. It might just seem like we want to preach the Gospel of Expose, but always be careful in not assuming an overwhelming Macintosh voice means more people are using Macs.
That having been said, I would still recommend one :)
But I disagree with GeneralE - iPhoto is nice, but it is no replacement for Photoshop or Photoshop Elements. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 01:15:49 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by v5planet:
iPhoto is nice, but it is no replacement for Photoshop or Photoshop Elements. |
Yeah, they're different animals. iPhoto is first and foremost an organizer, with a bit of basic editing on the side. Let's also not forget that Crossover ($60) will allow you to install and run Windows software directly in OS X- no need for Windows or rebooting. Only one platform allows you the best of both worlds. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 01:39:13 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by mist:
As far as I can see, the only benefit a Mac has over a PC is that the Mac will be up and running faster "out of the box" from the shop. That being the case, you should bear in mind that you only get it out of the box once, so that benefit is quickly forgotten. |
As a user of both, this is simply not true. They are both equally fast, easy to use and capable of meeting most peoples needs.
Originally posted by mist:
What isn't so easily forgotten is that, now you've got a Mac, you've just committed yourself to more expensive upgrades, repairs and support than with a PC, because the overall user base is so much smaller. |
Again as a user of both, the cost is relatively the same. (I used to buy parts seperately too and build my own PC) The problem is you want to upgrade your CPU, but new CPU's fit in a different socket motherboard, which takes different RAM, different power supply, etc. etc. There are a few components that you can usually re-use but by the time you've upgraded everything else you might as well upgrade those to take advantage of the new hardware. (ex: faster harddrive, better video card)
Originally posted by mist:
Unless you have a specific reason to buy a Mac, I can't see why you would do so. |
Same could be said for a PC.
I have been a PC user since the DOS/Windows 3.1 days. (I was a Windows Fan-boy) I'm now a Mac user and use it pretty much 99% of the time at home. I use Win XP and 2003 at work. I now recommend Macs to others when they ask my advice. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 02:08:21 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by mist:
The only Mac that I have used has been less intuitive than XP.
[\quote]
Surely that's qualititive, too.
[quote=mist]
I think that a lot of people still judge windows based on the days of windows 95, when the product did used to crash a lot and needed restarting every five minutes. The same is simply not the case today with a well-built machine. |
I've been called to help with other people's PCs (having had a couple) and the experience usually leaves me shaking with rage at the appalling user interface. It's got nothing to do with the machine and how well it is built, and almost everything to do with how well the operating system has been designed. The look of the PC gives one the impression that it has not been designed, but has been cobbled together on the fly, even Windows XP. To be fair, I've not had too many issues with PCs crashing, rather with the operating system being difficult to the point of opacity.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 02:21:37 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by ChikaZAWa:
Why dont you just buy the parts and build your own pc? That way you get exactly what you want and need from your computer and it will save you money vs. buying one assembled. |
Typically, money savings is not the advantage to building your own PC, getting exactly what you want is.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 11:15:45 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ionyou:
I'm partial to PCs because I get more for my money. |
More viruses, more worms, more spyware, more bugs, more crashes, more driver issues, more need for tech support... oh man, the features are endless! |
Change those "More"s to "No"s and you would've had it right.
No viruses, no worms, no spyware, no bugs, no crashes, no driver issues, no need for tech support... oh man, the features are endless!
I realize they exist, I just haven't run into anything I couldn't handle.
But then I know WTH I'm doing when I use a PC. I don't take security risks that your typical Mac user would be too clueless to avoid. I've got the latest hardware and sofware and it cost me a lot less than a Mac.
Yeah you do have to know what you're doing to run a problem free PC. So as long as I know how to handle it, why not save some cash and stick with the cheaper and more powerful alternative?
PC aren't for everyone. I say stick with what you know. If you know Macs stick with that, if you know PCs stay with it.
Message edited by author 2006-08-13 23:19:51. |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 12:36:21 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
On top of that, if you configure a PC with all the things that come standard on a Mac these days, the Mac is often cheaper than a PC. :-/ |
Hardly. I just bought a machine from Dell. On their website, I was able to customize everything about it. I got a really nice system (1 gig ram, pent. 4, 160 gb HD, flat-panel monitor, free printer) for only $640 including tax (shipping was free).
As far as software goes, I can use open-source or freeware software for nearly everything I need to do. I can use OpenOffice in place of Microsoft Office, GIMP for photo-editing (much more capable than iPhoto or even PS elements), Inkscape in place of Illustrator, etc. All without a single dollar out of my pocket. Granted, most of the software isn't quite as capable as the commercial counter-parts, but I hardly ever run into anything I can't do.
So I'll have a system than can do everything I need for only $640. Looking at apple's website, an iMac starts at $1299. Not to mention the fact that a lot of decent software isn't Mac OSX compatible. So if I bought a Mac I'd probably just end up running Windows on a really expensive piece of hardware.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2006 12:37:04 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by ionyou:
I just haven't run into anything I couldn't handle. |
Good for you, although that's not quite the same as not having anything to run into in the first place.
Originally posted by ionyou:
why not save some cash and stick with the cheaper and more powerful alternative? |
Cheaper? Nope. You can make similar price comparisons with Macbooks and the new Pro desktops. More powerful? Nuh, uh. Those claims might have been true a decade ago, but current Macs are more than competitive if you compare equal offerings. |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 02:14:22 AM · #134 |
.
Message edited by author 2006-08-14 02:27:06.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2006 04:11:44 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Good for you, although that's not quite the same as not having anything to run into in the first place.
|
Not quite nothing. Sorry I couldn't find a more up to date reference, but Mac viruses do exist, they are just rarer than those for Windows OS. (Probably because of sheer numbers, a victim of its own popularity, somewhat) Of course, a PC wouldn't have to run windows, but let's save that for a while, whilst we look at the power comparisons..
Originally posted by scalvert:
More powerful? Nuh, uh. Those claims might have been true a decade ago, but current Macs are more than competitive if you compare equal offerings. |
The thing is though, if you look at those graphs, the ones where the Mac are meeting the speeds of the other boxes are where the Mac is running Windows XP :o The Mac tests using Mac OS are all much, much slower at achieving the objectives. Yes, you could run XP on your Mac, but then bang goes many of the other pro-Mac arguments. It's also apparent that, where the tasks are more intensive, they take much longer under the Mac OS, and in general on the lesser-specced systems, which suggests that the tests are slanted towards operations which wouldn't really try the quad-proc boxes.
Anyway, before I go off and get massively involved into an argument that I don't really enjoy having (since OS advocacy is a massively no-win situation), I'll say that everyone should just pick whatever they like.
If you think a Mac will suit you, then go for it. There's enough happy Mac users out there. Just as the Mac works for you folk, the PC (and windows, at the moment) works for me. |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 09:13:35 AM · #136 |
i think the arguements that justify PC for me are
- If i want an upgrade, with a PC i can choose the part in the price range I want, from the supplier I want.
- I can get more power per $$ with a PC
- I allready own photoshop for PC, and it wouldn't be worth the $$ to buy it again for MAC
- I am used to a PC
|
|
|
|
08/14/2006 10:49:43 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by mist:
Mac viruses do exist, they are just rarer than those for Windows OS. |
They don't exist in the wild where you can "catch" one. To date, the only OS X viruses are demonstrations created by computer security firms (and subsequently patched by Apple).
Originally posted by mist:
if you look at those graphs, the ones where the Mac are meeting the speeds of the other boxes are where the Mac is running Windows XP :o |
Duh. Adobe hasn't made its apps OS X-Intel native yet. Mac-native software outruns PC equivalents (when they exist). Perhaps more telling is that a Core Duo Mac runs Windows apps faster than a Core Duo Dell with the same processor, though I don't have the article handy. That DOESN'T mean you have to run Windows on a Mac to take advantage of that speed either... Crossover software (due this month) will allow you to open and run Windows applications at full speed directly in OS X without rebooting and without installing Windows itself.
Leaf- that means you DON'T have to buy a Mac version of Photoshop, and you can upgrade hard drives, RAM etc. with PC standard parts from your favorite retailer. |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 10:55:08 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by mist:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Good for you, although that's not quite the same as not having anything to run into in the first place.
|
Not quite nothing. Sorry I couldn't find a more up to date reference, but Mac viruses do exist, they are just rarer than those for Windows OS. (Probably because of sheer numbers, a victim of its own popularity, somewhat) Of course, a PC wouldn't have to run windows, but let's save that for a while, whilst we look at the power comparisons..
Originally posted by scalvert:
More powerful? Nuh, uh. Those claims might have been true a decade ago, but current Macs are more than competitive if you compare equal offerings. |
The thing is though, if you look at those graphs, the ones where the Mac are meeting the speeds of the other boxes are where the Mac is running Windows XP :o The Mac tests using Mac OS are all much, much slower at achieving the objectives. Yes, you could run XP on your Mac, but then bang goes many of the other pro-Mac arguments. It's also apparent that, where the tasks are more intensive, they take much longer under the Mac OS, and in general on the lesser-specced systems, which suggests that the tests are slanted towards operations which wouldn't really try the quad-proc boxes.
Anyway, before I go off and get massively involved into an argument that I don't really enjoy having (since OS advocacy is a massively no-win situation), I'll say that everyone should just pick whatever they like.
If you think a Mac will suit you, then go for it. There's enough happy Mac users out there. Just as the Mac works for you folk, the PC (and windows, at the moment) works for me. |
The fact remains that while there are Mac viruses out there, they are out numbered 1000 to 1 by PC viruses.
The problem with the Adobe apps mentioned is inside the apps themselves, they make the Mac emulate a PC within the app. That is what bogs the Mac down. If the situation were reversed the PC would fare just as bad, if not worse. For raw computing power the Mac architecture is more efficient per GHz of chip speed.
Besides, what other system can run 3 OS's (OSX, WinXP and Unix, via X11) at the same time and switch back and forth with just a keystroke or two and no rebooting? |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 11:16:42 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Besides, what other system can run 3 OS's (OSX, WinXP and Unix, via X11) at the same time and switch back and forth with just a keystroke or two and no rebooting? |
OK, rhetorical question, I admit, but still has an answer -- IBM OS/2.
It ran OS/2, Windows 3.1 in a virtual machine, and MS-DOS (any version) in virtual machines. And this was nearly 15 years ago!
|
|
|
|
08/14/2006 11:28:13 AM · #140 |
I tried to configure similar similar Macs and PCs to prove the pricing thing, but it's a little tough. True, you can get a PC for $400, but it's bare-bones obsolete technology. An old used Mac could smoke it for the same price.
A new Apple Mini is $576 including a choice of several free printers. I can get a 19" LCD monitor, mouse and keyboard for about $160- a total of $736. Dell's cheapest Intel Core-based desktop is the Dimension E-510, currently priced 19% off at $649, and includes a free upgrade to a 17" LCD monitor. The processor is a Core Duo (vs. Core Solo on the Mini), but RAM, HD and Combo drive are the same. Want the full pro-version OS on a CD? Oh, that's another $129. Want a Printer, Speaker, WiFi, Bluetooth, Remote? All standard on the Mac and optional on the PC. What about iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, iWeb, GarageBand... dive right in on the Mac, happy shopping on the PC. Let's not forget the anti-virus software- another PC expense that's moot on the Mac. What about service? Apple's customer support is rated at the top, Dell's is at or near the bottom.
So that's $736 for the Mac and $778 for the Dell, which has a dual core processor, BUT a smaller monitor, no printer, no wireless, no bluetooth, no speaker, no remote, no sophisticated media apps, and much more security risks. Such a deal. :-/
Compare similar hardware and software across the board, and Apple comes out competitive or cheaper... sometimes MUCH cheaper (compare a high-end Woodcrest-based desktop system). |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 11:50:22 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by talmy:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Besides, what other system can run 3 OS's (OSX, WinXP and Unix, via X11) at the same time and switch back and forth with just a keystroke or two and no rebooting? |
OK, rhetorical question, I admit, but still has an answer -- IBM OS/2.
It ran OS/2, Windows 3.1 in a virtual machine, and MS-DOS (any version) in virtual machines. And this was nearly 15 years ago! |
The Mac will run all 3 OS's without emulation or virtual machines.
Message edited by author 2006-08-14 11:54:03. |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 12:08:44 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by talmy:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Besides, what other system can run 3 OS's (OSX, WinXP and Unix, via X11) at the same time and switch back and forth with just a keystroke or two and no rebooting? |
OK, rhetorical question, I admit, but still has an answer -- IBM OS/2.
It ran OS/2, Windows 3.1 in a virtual machine, and MS-DOS (any version) in virtual machines. And this was nearly 15 years ago! |
The Mac will run all 3 OS's without emulation or virtual machines. |
Assuming you are refering to Parallels, from their site:
Run any OS at the Same Time as Mac OS X
Use any full version of Windows (3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, Me, 2000, NT, XP, 2003), any Linux distribution, FreeBSD, Solaris, OS/2, eComStation, or MS-DOS in secure virtual machines running alongside – not instead of - Mac OS X.
While touted as something new, Intel microprocessors have had virtualization capabilities since the 80386 (virtual 8086 mode) back in the late 1980's. I understand that the feature is also common in mainframe computers, but am not familiar with them.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2006 12:56:20 PM · #143 |
My two cents:
Pros for Mac:
-Amazing video/music editing capabilities out of the box.
-Awesome Look
-Things do \"just work\", unless you\'re talking about Epson...but don\'t get me started
-Great customer support and brick/mortar stores you can actually visit if you have a problem
-Laptops = second to none
-Lots of cool new features (spotlight, expose, etc)
Cons for Mac:
-Highly overrated with photography (in my opinion, PCs can do the same things)
-EXPENSIVE
-Lots of cool new features that cost a lot
-Software/compatibilities issues (less and less here every day)
Pros for PC
-Everyone has one=lots of software/support (especially on line)
-(Opinion warning) Easier and more initiative file structure then macs
-Vastly cheaper then Macs
-Vastly overrated virus issues. Don\'t give me virus this or spyware that. I have virus software, a firewall and the Microsoft spyware killer. I\'ve never (knock on wood) had a problem. If you don\'t open emails you\'re not suppose to, you\'re fine.
-Right click (not control + click)
Cons for PC
-You still can get a virus
-You are the whim of Microsoft
-Cheaper hardware in some cases
It is such a personal preference; it’s hard for me to say you should definitely use one over the other. I personally HATE post-processing photographs on my Mac. For video, the Mac is second to none.
Hope this helps....
|
|
|
|
08/14/2006 01:01:21 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by talmy:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by talmy:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Besides, what other system can run 3 OS's (OSX, WinXP and Unix, via X11) at the same time and switch back and forth with just a keystroke or two and no rebooting? |
OK, rhetorical question, I admit, but still has an answer -- IBM OS/2.
It ran OS/2, Windows 3.1 in a virtual machine, and MS-DOS (any version) in virtual machines. And this was nearly 15 years ago! |
The Mac will run all 3 OS's without emulation or virtual machines. |
Assuming you are refering to Parallels, from their site:
Run any OS at the Same Time as Mac OS X
Use any full version of Windows (3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, Me, 2000, NT, XP, 2003), any Linux distribution, FreeBSD, Solaris, OS/2, eComStation, or MS-DOS in secure virtual machines running alongside – not instead of - Mac OS X.
While touted as something new, Intel microprocessors have had virtualization capabilities since the 80386 (virtual 8086 mode) back in the late 1980's. I understand that the feature is also common in mainframe computers, but am not familiar with them. |
Actually, you can run unix (BSD/Darwin) without Parallels. I do that all the time on my G4. Command line with Terminal or using X-windows.
While the capabilty at the chip level may not be new, giving consumers a system that can use it (and do so quite well) is new.
Message edited by author 2006-08-14 13:08:43. |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 01:03:48 PM · #145 |
Great job Shannon. That's the best item-for-item comparison I've seen in a loooong time! Add to that the intangibles of time and annoyance created by hardware conflicts, windows attack-ware, and the sheer joy of being a Mac user and NOT HAVING to deal with Microsoft software, and the case is made.
Originally posted by scalvert:
I tried to configure similar similar Macs and PCs to prove the pricing thing, but it's a little tough. True, you can get a PC for $400, but it's bare-bones obsolete technology. An old used Mac could smoke it for the same price.
A new Apple Mini is $576 including a choice of several free printers. I can get a 19" LCD monitor, mouse and keyboard for about $160- a total of $736. Dell's cheapest Intel Core-based desktop is the Dimension E-510, currently priced 19% off at $649, and includes a free upgrade to a 17" LCD monitor. The processor is a Core Duo (vs. Core Solo on the Mini), but RAM, HD and Combo drive are the same. Want the full pro-version OS on a CD? Oh, that's another $129. Want a Printer, Speaker, WiFi, Bluetooth, Remote? All standard on the Mac and optional on the PC. What about iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, iWeb, GarageBand... dive right in on the Mac, happy shopping on the PC. Let's not forget the anti-virus software- another PC expense that's moot on the Mac. What about service? Apple's customer support is rated at the top, Dell's is at or near the bottom.
So that's $736 for the Mac and $778 for the Dell, which has a dual core processor, BUT a smaller monitor, no printer, no wireless, no bluetooth, no speaker, no remote, no sophisticated media apps, and much more security risks. Such a deal. :-/
Compare similar hardware and software across the board, and Apple comes out competitive or cheaper... sometimes MUCH cheaper (compare a high-end Woodcrest-based desktop system). |
|
|
|
|
08/14/2006 01:04:50 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by mosall:
...
Pros for PC
...
-Right click (not control + click)...
|
I right click with my Mac G4. It supports 2 and 3 button mice and the scroll wheel as well. |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 01:20:01 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by mosall:
Pros for PC
-Everyone has one=lots of software/support (especially on line)
-Vastly cheaper then Macs
-I have virus software, a firewall and the Microsoft spyware killer....
-Right click (not control + click) |
1) With Crossover, Windows software can now run directly in OS X at full speed without Windows. This means Mac users can take advantage of ANY software. Not so with Windows.
2) Myth. Configure both with the same processors and features, and Macs are often cheaper.
3) That's like suggesting Beirut is just as safe as Boise because you live in a bomb shelter. P.S.- was all that software free?
4) The standard Apple mouse these days not only has two buttons, but a scroll ball that can go in any direction, not just up/down or left/right.
Message edited by author 2006-08-14 13:28:20. |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 01:43:28 PM · #148 |
Mac customer service is awesome. I don't even know where you would begin if you had a problem with a pc.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2006 05:55:59 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mosall:
Pros for PC
-Everyone has one=lots of software/support (especially on line)
-Vastly cheaper then Macs
-I have virus software, a firewall and the Microsoft spyware killer....
-Right click (not control + click) |
1) With Crossover, Windows software can now run directly in OS X at full speed without Windows. This means Mac users can take advantage of ANY software. Not so with Windows.
2) Myth. Configure both with the same processors and features, and Macs are often cheaper.
3) That's like suggesting Beirut is just as safe as Boise because you live in a bomb shelter. P.S.- was all that software free?
4) The standard Apple mouse these days not only has two buttons, but a scroll ball that can go in any direction, not just up/down or left/right. |
Scalvert, please keep in mind that I love my Powerbook but I think you're dead wrong about a few things.
1) Mac users can not run hundreds of applications (if not thousands) that PC users can. Boot Camp is Beta, at best. Boot Camp is awesome, but I won't be convinced I can "just buy a mac to run windows" until I can run both platforms at once without Virtual PC.
2) Macs are not cheaper. You can wave all the numbers in my face that you want. Numbers can be made to show just about anything. Bottomline: I could configure a basic PC for a few hundrend dollars with monitor and keyboard. Try to do the same with a Mac. Macs ignore a huge percentage of the market share. Most computer users want to word process, email, and surf the web. The arguement about "similar features" is not relavant. Most users do not have the needs that the majority of the readers of this forum do. Try to upgrade your memory in your Mac on the cheap. It doesnt happen. It does with PCs.
3) I stand by my statement about viruses. I do not have problems becuase I update my protection software. Its not even an issue. Mac users should be very careful with the virus stones they throw. Welcome to the world of Intel. It's only a matter of time Mac users. Apple would be better off leaving this argument in the 20th century since they use the same hardware.
4) The Mighty Mouse is terrible.
As I said in my first post, these are only the opinions of one man who uses both platforms on a daily basis.
Message edited by author 2006-08-14 18:01:42. |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 06:06:25 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by mosall:
4) The Mighty Mouse is terrible.
|
Who's using the Mighty Mouse? Isn't Mighty Mouse a Cartoon Character?
Anyway, I use a Standard PC mouse with 2 way scrollwheel. It plays nicely with my Mac so I can use the best computer and have a good mouse. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 09:50:24 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 09:50:24 PM EDT.
|
