PDA

View Full Version : Pro Photographers >>> Mac or PC?


Pages : [1] 2

amoergosum
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 16:53
This is a poll for everyone here who's a pro photographer.
What do you use and why...Mac or PC?

Jimmer411
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 18:18
Im not a pro, far from it.


PC all the way. There is just too much that the mac can not do that my pc can, and I get more for my money when it comes to hardware available.

Renι Damkot
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 18:22
Mac here. Both at home and at 4 photographers I assist.
Makes not much difference really. Biggest difference is the keyboard shortcuts in Photoshop ;)

Deckham
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 18:23
For the love of pete - Macs and non-Macs will do your job. Just consider specs and budget to suit, and weigh it up. This poll is as useless as all the other fanboi stuff that goes on...

MaxxuM
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 19:00
For the love of pete - Macs and non-Macs will do your job. Just consider specs and budget to suit, and weigh it up. This poll is as useless as all the other fanboi stuff that goes on...

I think it's a viable question... Any truck can haul cargo, but there are preferences for different jobs around the country. Most of the news paper and event photographers I know all use Mac's. However, of the two papers I work for I only see PCs in the accounting offices. I think there is a reason for that that doesn't have anything to do with elitism or fanboyism. I talk to a lot of photographers, including several nationally known wildlife photog's and none of them are techies - they just want something that is simple, has the tools they need, isn't flimsy and has an OS that isn't fickle. I have met several photographers that have tried PCs due to them being inexpensive and all of them got rid of them within 6 months due to all the hastles. And none of them know what a fanboy is. I also know a couple of film guys that don't use PCs or Macs and do extremely nice work.

Deckham
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 19:07
I think it's a viable question... Any truck can haul cargo, but there are preferences for different jobs around the country. Most of the news paper and event photographers I know all use Mac's. However, of the two papers I work for I only see PCs in the accounting offices. I think there is a reason for that that doesn't have anything to do with elitism or fanboyism. I talk to a lot of photographers, including several nationally known wildlife photog's and none of them are techies - they just want something that is simple, has the tools they need, isn't flimsy and has an OS that isn't fickle. I have met several photographers that have tried PCs due to them being inexpensive and all of them got rid of them within 6 months due to all the hastles. And none of them know what a fanboy is. I also know a couple of film guys that don't use PCs or Macs and do extremely nice work.

Regardless of what people will try and tell you, the difference is this:

If you like the Mac OS, get a Mac, and specify the hardware and software setup that suits your purpose.
If you like Microsoft OS, Linux, or anything else, then get a non-Mac with the hardware and software that suits your purpose. Or, get a Mac and run emulators.
Compare your needs and desires to your budget.

I repeat - the day of Mac vs PC is obsolete. The (brilliant) adds you see are just marketing crap. Macs use the same hardware as 'pc's'.

Mark1
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 19:17
Im am on PC. Had the chance to change this summer. The only real reason I did not was cost. I could spend $1300 and gat a Mac. Or $800 and get a PC that was faster than the mac. This was my only reason. I spent a lot of time in the Apple store and almost did buy Mac. But when it came down to it. I really was not getting anything worth the extra money.

MaxxuM
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 19:25
Regardless of what people will try and tell you, the difference is this:

If you like the Mac OS, get a Mac, and specify the hardware and software setup that suits your purpose.
If you like Microsoft OS, Linux, or anything else, then get a non-Mac with the hardware and software that suits your purpose. Or, get a Mac and run emulators.
Compare your needs and desires to your budget.

I repeat - the day of Mac vs PC is obsolete. The (brilliant) adds you see are just marketing crap. Macs use the same hardware as 'pc's'.

Totally agree... However, I urge people to try them both first. There are differences, subtle as they may be, and those subtleties may lead you to change your opinion on one or the other.

MaxxuM
16th of October 2008 (Thu), 19:46
Im am on PC. Had the chance to change this summer. The only real reason I did not was cost. I could spend $1300 and gat a Mac. Or $800 and gat a PC that was faster than the mac. This was my only reason. I spent a lot of time in the Apple store and almost did buy Mac. But when it came down to it. I really was not getting anything worth the extra money.

Yea, never buy directly from Apple. They over-charge! Buy from MacMall or Amazon. There is a misconception about price. There is only about a 10% premium on Apple products. For instance, I just went over to dell and priced out a 15.4" XPS laptops with the same CPU, memory, LED screen and Windows Ultimate and the Dell cost more than the Apple MacBook Pro 15.4" 2.5Ghz. The trick is to buy from Amazon and get 1) A $150 rebate, 2) Free 2 Day shipping (if you have a Prime account like myself :) ) and 3) Buy 4Gb of memory from Newegg for cheap. That makes a BIG difference. As an added bonus, the Apple is lighter, thinner and has better support (according to Consumer Magazine). Yes, you can get a Dell, HP or other laptop but you will get a cheaper parts, Windows Home or Premium, no LED screen, often no blue tooth or built in camera and spotty support (depending on vendor and the added bucks you put in on the warranty). Also, if you go with Apple Aperture 2 vs LR you'll save another $120 (Amazon). You have to look at the whole picture.

I build and work on PCs too and have to explane to some ppl why somone would want a $150 motherboard vs a $50 motherboard with identical features but different capacitors on them. ;)

naqs
19th of October 2008 (Sun), 02:19
No vote for both? I have a PC and I have a new Macbook, but in saying that the PC doesn't get used all to often now, I like leopard more so than the new vista, it just works!

neil_g
19th of October 2008 (Sun), 12:25
on no not another mac or pc thread..

amoergosum
19th of October 2008 (Sun), 12:32
on no not another mac or pc thread..

It's not supposed to be a mac versus pc thread. I would just like to see
what forum members here (who are pro photographers) are using.
That's all...

seanv
19th of October 2008 (Sun), 17:49
I use a Mac at the studio and a PC at home. Both do the job.

Halliday
19th of October 2008 (Sun), 19:19
I use a iMac for photo editing and the family gets Win XP.

stillresonance
22nd of October 2008 (Wed), 19:31
Yea, never buy directly from Apple. They over-charge! Buy from MacMall or Amazon. There is a misconception about price. There is only about a 10% premium on Apple products. For instance, I just went over to dell and priced out a 15.4" XPS laptops with the same CPU, memory, LED screen and Windows Ultimate and the Dell cost more than the Apple MacBook Pro 15.4" 2.5Ghz. The trick is to buy from Amazon and get 1) A $150 rebate, 2) Free 2 Day shipping (if you have a Prime account like myself :) ) and 3) Buy 4Gb of memory from Newegg for cheap. That makes a BIG difference. As an added bonus, the Apple is lighter, thinner and has better support (according to Consumer Magazine). Yes, you can get a Dell, HP or other laptop but you will get a cheaper parts, Windows Home or Premium, no LED screen, often no blue tooth or built in camera and spotty support (depending on vendor and the added bucks you put in on the warranty). Also, if you go with Apple Aperture 2 vs LR you'll save another $120 (Amazon). You have to look at the whole picture.

I build and work on PCs too and have to explane to some ppl why somone would want a $150 motherboard vs a $50 motherboard with identical features but different capacitors on them. ;)

I really despise doing this as I'm sure I'll be accused of fanboyism, but...

I have to take issue with the example you gave as I just recently got an XPS 15.4" laptop myself.

For $1840 total (including tax and shipping) I got and XPS with a T9300 2.5Ghz processor, 4GB ram, LED backlit screen, Nvidia 8600m GT DDR3 video card, 250GB 7200rpm hard drive, built in Blutooth 2.0, Intel next gen wireless N card and Verizon wireless broadband card. 4yr premium warranty with accidental damage coverage. Oh and it's a pretty blue color :p (the new MBP is super sweet looking though)

I did price out a MBP (before they announced the new ones) and couldn't even touch anything with comparable specs for less than $3000.

I'm not a pro but I could see where it might make sense for a pro to go with Macs, especially in a situation where one might be employing a staff and thus have a need for multiple desktops for editing, multiple laptops for on the road and tethered shooting. OSX does seem to be better set up for just loading your software and going.

MaxxuM
22nd of October 2008 (Wed), 22:30
I really despise doing this as I'm sure I'll be accused of fanboyism, but...

I have to take issue with the example you gave as I just recently got an XPS 15.4" laptop myself.

For $1840 total (including tax and shipping) I got and XPS with a T9300 2.5Ghz processor, 4GB ram, LED backlit screen, Nvidia 8600m GT DDR3 video card, 250GB 7200rpm hard drive, built in Blutooth 2.0, Intel next gen wireless N card and Verizon wireless broadband card. 4yr premium warranty with accidental damage coverage. Oh and it's a pretty blue color :p (the new MBP is super sweet looking though)

I did price out a MBP (before they announced the new ones) and couldn't even touch anything with comparable specs for less than $3000.

I'm not a pro but I could see where it might make sense for a pro to go with Macs, especially in a situation where one might be employing a staff and thus have a need for multiple desktops for editing, multiple laptops for on the road and tethered shooting. OSX does seem to be better set up for just loading your software and going.

Not at all. I welcome honest comparisons and I almost always buy Dell laptops for certain situations (just purchased 22 Latitudes for work a month ago).

I'm guessing you ordered an XPS M1530... let me go to Dell and price it out (Did you order Vista Ultimate? I think it only fair to price out OS to OS and not a cut down Home or Premium OEM. I also will add Adobe Lightroom 2 ($280 at Amazon) because I got my MacBook Pro specifically for photography and use Aperture 2 ($150).)

Ok, just priced it out... I came to $1,979, but that is probably because I picked Vista Ultimate vs Premium (I only think it fair). Add Lightroom 2 and that comes out to $2,259 before shipping. Shiping is free for 3-5 day, but build time is 12 days away. Again, to make it fair since I got 2 day free shipping I'll tack on $39 bucks, but that still puts an Apple in my lap in 2-3 days and a Dell in about 2 weeks. That is a grand total of $2,298.

My setup:
Apple MacBook Pro MB134LL/A 15.4-inch Laptop (2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Processor, 2 GB RAM, 250 GB Hard Drive, DVD/CD SuperDrive) Price After Rebate: $1,643.99
Kingston - Memory - 4 GB $74.99
Aperture 2 - $150.00
Apple Care (extention) - $299.88
Free 2 day shipping

Total: $2,168.98

Now this is MY MacBook Pro from earlyer this year and can still be purchased at Amazon.com or MacMall. The NEW MacBook Pro with all the sexyness going on are $2,394.00 @ MacMall. All together with above is around $2,850.

So yes, I agree that Apple is overcharging for thier newest laptop - but I wouldn't get a 4 year warrantee on either system either. I would get the base model and Aperture for around $2,500 - but I agree, there is a big premium with the newest sytems.

My slightly older system can still be purchased and comes out less than your example. And my older Apple still holds up againt the Dell you quoted very nicely; the MBP is lighter, thinner, has a better track pad and is pretty sexy still.

You have to total the total-cost-of-ownership and most times Apple's do well. However, the new laptops have the full memory upgrade and Apple charges like 200-300% premium for memory - add the already 10% preium and you see what happens. The price will come down just like their other products did though by Christmas.

Not to say your Dell is not nice; it is! It just comes with too much bagage and too late. When I purchased my MacBook, Dell and the rest of them didn't have LED's in the mainstreme yet nor do they have the light weight aluminum or extreme ease of use. I work on PCs and Cisco equipment all day and when I come home to my MacBook Pro... well, it's so effortless and snappy. I have had only one small problem with my Mac and it was solved in 5 minutes wherease my PCs always seem to glitch with one thing or another.

Are the new MacBook Pro's worth $350 more (siteing example above) for thinner, lighter, aluminum unibody, better build, smooth multitouch glass track-pad, dual-video cards (promis of OpenCL GPU/CPU processing), EPA Gold Rating, illuminated keyboard, magnetic power adapter (already saved my laptop twice), iLife, highest costomer satisfaction (Comsumer Reports) and best customer care rating among computer vendors (Consumer Reports). Going Apple will also allow you the oportunity to use Final Cut Studio - the #1 video editing software currently used as well as the choice computer for photographers and the media (paper and television). (Watch Video (http://www.apple.com/macbook/the-new-macbook/watch.html#large) - broadband)

That's up to the end user.

stillresonance
22nd of October 2008 (Wed), 23:52
Is that 250GB HD a 7200rpm drive? That was one of the options that added to the cost of my build. Does the MBP support more than 4GB of memory yet? I know right now I could put 6GB in my laptop and hopefully if dell revises the BIOS it should support the full 8GB the chipset is capable of. With OSX being 64bit natively it would be a shame if Apple missed the boat on that.

True there are many different ways to slice it, I did look long and hard at the MBP but with the config I was looking at it was going to be more expensive, plus I already own PS CS3 and Lightroom for my desktop so I didn't have to buy any additional software when I got my XPS. I wouldn't have gotten a 4yr warranty either except Dell was giving a $70 gift card with it that negated the cost of the upgrade.

Believe me I work with PCs as well, and have thought long and hard about switching to Mac at home but at the time being it is too expensive for me since I would have to do both desktop and laptop at the same time, or purchase another license for photoshop. I don't think Adobe would let you run one license on two different platforms simultaneously.

stillresonance
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 00:00
Oh and just to keep on topic of the thread, I do think there is an advantage for Pros with Apple. The ability to just unbox it, load photoshop, and go is something I'm sure a lot of pros appreciate. If I was setting up a business right now, where I wouldn't have to worry about already being entrenched in one particular system, I would go straight with Macs.

MaxxuM
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 00:03
Is that 250GB HD a 7200rpm drive? That was one of the options that added to the cost of my build. Does the MBP support more than 4GB of memory yet? I know right now I could put 6GB in my laptop and hopefully if dell revises the BIOS it should support the full 8GB the chipset is capable of. With OSX being 64bit natively it would be a shame if Apple missed the boat on that.

True there are many different ways to slice it, I did look long and hard at the MBP but with the config I was looking at it was going to be more expensive, plus I already own PS CS3 and Lightroom for my desktop so I didn't have to buy any additional software when I got my XPS. I wouldn't have gotten a 4yr warranty either except Dell was giving a $70 gift card with it that negated the cost of the upgrade.

Believe me I work with PCs as well, and have thought long and hard about switching to Mac at home but at the time being it is too expensive for me since I would have to do both desktop and laptop at the same time, or purchase another license for photoshop. I don't think Adobe would let you run one license on two different platforms simultaneously.

Yep, it depends on many factors. It was the 5200RPM drive. Apple charges a premium for innovation and beauty. Apple also forces you to buy all in one solutions whereas PC's you can buy over time (and upgrade). Cost is negligible when priced machine vs machine & software vs software. But since you already own PC software the price factor weighs into the PC side. Whereas I have the fortune of having corporate licenses of Adobe products, Mac and PC.

You used to be able to run two licenses (PC and Mac) as long as you didn't use them at the same time. Now however, they don't bundle them that way anymore :(

Colorblinded
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 00:08
Regardless of what people will try and tell you, the difference is this:

If you like the Mac OS, get a Mac, and specify the hardware and software setup that suits your purpose.
If you like Microsoft OS, Linux, or anything else, then get a non-Mac with the hardware and software that suits your purpose. Or, get a Mac and run emulators.
Compare your needs and desires to your budget.

I repeat - the day of Mac vs PC is obsolete. The (brilliant) adds you see are just marketing crap. Macs use the same hardware as 'pc's'.
these threads could end right here. The days of any appreciable difference that favored one over the other are long long over. I've been using both for more than a decade and can't recall a time where I cared particularly much which I used because there wasn't a whole hell of a lot of difference. Apple was wise to switch to Intel hardware though, I remember how painful the later generations of their previous hardware would get as you watched it struggle to keep up while mainstream AMD and Intel CPUs marched on briskly. I didn't miss the G4 or the G5 at the end of their lifespans.

Even stability was similar. Pre Win2k and pre OSX days I just remember the pain of constant crashing for one reason or another. There were some kinks to work out with OSX initially and with subsequent versions but it's been good. Same goes for Windows 2k, XP and Vista.

TheHoff
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 10:25
Does the MBP support more than 4GB of memory yet? I know right now I could put 6GB in my laptop and hopefully if dell revises the BIOS it should support the full 8GB the chipset is capable of. With OSX being 64bit natively it would be a shame if Apple missed the boat on that.

6 GB is confirmed working and stable in the new MBP with one 4-gig stick and one 2-gig. They say 8 GB is possible but not nearly stable without some sort of update from Apple.


----

btw, to the OP, I was a PC for 24 years -- now I'm a Mac. The build is impressive, sublime and the operating system really is better under the hood.

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 10:51
Oh and just to keep on topic of the thread, I do think there is an advantage for Pros with Apple. The ability to just unbox it, load photoshop, and go is something I'm sure a lot of pros appreciate. If I was setting up a business right now, where I wouldn't have to worry about already being entrenched in one particular system, I would go straight with Macs.

You can unbox a PC, load photoshop, and go just as easily as you can with a Mac.

Bias much?

TheHoff
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 10:58
You can unbox a PC, load photoshop, and go just as easily as you can with a Mac.

There is something to be said for buying a system that has absolutely no bloatware, advertisements, trial versions, or any other crap on it like you get from a major PC manufacture. Sure if you build your own PC you don't get that but then that isn't a simple unboxing.

I was Windows biased for a long, long, long time but OS X is quite nice. Vista feels clunky and sluggish given the same hardware level. Using the new MBP with extra GPU support, I can go back and forth filtering full size TIFFs in LR and PS in what feels like half the time.

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 11:18
I use a PC. Why?

1 - Less expensive. Period. Okay in the laptop arena things are closer, but not in the desktop arena. But I rarely use a laptop anyway. I have an old Dell 600m which has a Pentium-M 1.5, 2GB RAM. It runs just fine. I mainly use it for presentations or travel. The only time I use Photoshop on it is when I'm doing a presentation on how to use Photoshop or whatever. It runs CS3 and Lightroom just fine.

2 - Customizable. I can configure my PC however I want and put whatever components in it that I want. Which means I can pick each component out and get the best, most reliable components/brands. Mac's are blown away in this area. Sure you can upgrade somewhat, but options are vastly limited compared to a PC.

3 - Upgradeability. Again, Mac's are blown away. When I upgrade my system in the future, I can pop a new motherboard and CPU in, new RAM if needed (DDR3 probably be more standard by then), and I can be on my way. My CD/DVD drives will still work, as will my hard drives and video card and power supply, etc.

4 - OS. I prefer Windows. I have used both, and I don't like Mac OS at all. Also, all of this crap I hear about Windows crashing and Mac OS "just working" is ridiculous fanboy stuff. When I was using Win95 and Win98, they were just as or more stable on my systems than the Mac OS at the time that I used. I didn't get many crashes at all. And from Win2K and onward everything has been rock-solid stable. I haven't seen a blue screen in years. Right now I'm using Vista (64-bit Ultimate). Again people say it has a ton of problems and issues....well what are they? I don't have any. Sure it's different and a lot of things have been moved around, but that isn't a fault - it works like it should.

5 - Software availability. PC/Windows blows Mac away here too. There is sooo much more software available, and the open source community is larger - granted open source is growing for Mac with it's newer *nix based OS.

6 - Usability. For me, the PC is easier to work with. I don't feel limited as I do when using Macs. Now if I used Macs a lot more, this would probably even out.

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 11:30
There is something to be said for buying a system that has absolutely no bloatware, advertisements, trial versions, or any other crap on it like you get from a major PC manufacture. Sure if you build your own PC you don't get that but then that isn't a simple unboxing.

I was Windows biased for a long, long, long time but OS X is quite nice. Vista feels clunky and sluggish given the same hardware level. Using the new MBP with extra GPU support, I can go back and forth filtering full size TIFFs in LR and PS in what feels like half the time.

You can buy PC's with no bloatware. The reason that you get that stuff is because companies give those manufacturers money to put it on. So why wouldn't they? And to the vast majority of users, the free apps seem like a good thing. But there are custom PC shops you can purchase a PC at who will build something to your exact specifications.

I used to manage a PC repair shop and we also did custom systems. We could have a system built and ready for pickup in 2 days from when it was ordered, bloatware free and configured for the best performance. You'd pay more than you would for a Dell/HP/whatever, but it would still be cheaper than a Mac. And that user could go home, unbox it, load photoshop, and go.

Vista runs great for me. I don't have any issues and it runs PS and LR very smoothly. I'm not saying OS X is a bad OS - it certainly is not and it is a very good OS. I just don't like the way they do things. The interface is rather ridiculous at times. I don't want some stupid icon jumping around at the bottom of the screen. I like having an eject button on my DVD drive that actually works, rather than having to drag an icon to a trashcan to get a piece of hardware on the computer to open. I like two buttons on my mouse, TYVM....or more accurately 8 if you count the scroll wheel down/left/right buttons....and the ability to map those buttons to whatever function I want. I think Apple is finally getting better about some of those things after so many years.

TheHoff
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 11:40
I use a PC. Why?

I was right with you on all of those points for many years. Moving to laptops changed my mind about many of the points -- good laptops don't differ that much in price when you go with similar build qualities. In fact I think it is impossible to find a build quality similar to a Macbook Pro on the PC side right now as the case is a work of aluminum art.

I agreed with you on the upgrading except that everything is moving at such a pace now that there is hardly a component you'd want to keep. Hard drives used to be the main thing you'd move from system to system (besides case, floppy, CD) but even now it is better to replace the hard drive for the speed or storage. Soon we'll all be switching to SSDs anyway. And Apple is getting better on the upgrading front -- have you seen the inside of a Apple Pro desktop? Beautifully laid out and accessible. And with the new Macbook Pro, they put the HD right out in front; I swapped it in 5 minutes.

re: O/S -- like you, I was running Vista-64 Ultimate. I defended it. It never crashed. It was much more stable for me than XP SP 2. It seemed fast... but what a hog compared to OS X. 4 gigs of RAM goes much further. Swapping between Adobe applications is twice as fast. Moving 200 gigs of files in 10 batches, all at the same time, hardly slowed the machine whereas that sort of movement on Vista causes headaches.

I started with MS DOS... I'm old school, too, but I like OS X now. I didn't think I could make the switch either, but I'm glad I did.

TheHoff
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 11:52
You can buy PC's with no bloatware. The reason that you get that stuff is because companies give those manufacturers money to put it on. So why wouldn't they?

Right, and besides build quality, that is why they can be so much cheaper than an Apple -- subsidies from advertisers.

>>The interface is rather ridiculous at times. I don't want some stupid icon jumping around at the bottom of the screen.

The jumping around is silly but the dock is quite customizeable. Maybe there is something that stops the bouncing but it is no more distracting than the windows blinking taskbar alerts.

>>I like having an eject button on my DVD drive that actually works, rather than having to drag an icon to a trashcan to get a piece of hardware on the computer to open.

Yup that takes a bit of getting used to but I'd counter that with the simplicity of installing applications. There is no registry to bloat and corrupt. Drag the app to your folder and you're done.

>>I like two buttons on my mouse, TYVM....or more accurately 8 if you count the scroll wheel down/left/right buttons....and the ability to map those buttons to whatever function I want.

C'mon, are you bringing in these arguments from 1999? :D Logitech, Microsoft, and many other makers have mice, keyboards, and drivers that work seamlessly with OS X. The trackpads on the new books have excellent tactile feel and multiple swipe commands and multiple finger gestures that do as much as an 8-buttoned mouse, and more intuitively I'd say.

And I don't mean to turn this into Mac v. PC but I find it interesting that we were in a very similar place in regards to PCs and Vista... either a PC or Mac will get the job done, but now I feel like I was being stubborn sticking with Microsoft (for 24 years!) when something better is available.

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 11:58
I was right with you on all of those points for many years. Moving to laptops changed my mind about many of the points -- good laptops don't differ that much in price when you go with similar build qualities. In fact I think it is impossible to find a build quality similar to a Macbook Pro on the PC side right now as the case is a work of aluminum art.

I agreed with you on the upgrading except that everything is moving at such a pace now that there is hardly a component you'd want to keep. Hard drives used to be the main thing you'd move from system to system (besides case, floppy, CD) but even now it is better to replace the hard drive for the speed or storage. Soon we'll all be switching to SSDs anyway. And Apple is getting better on the upgrading front -- have you seen the inside of a Apple Pro desktop? Beautifully laid out and accessible. And with the new Macbook Pro, they put the HD right out in front; I swapped it in 5 minutes.

re: O/S -- like you, I was running Vista-64 Ultimate. I defended it. It never crashed. It was much more stable for me than XP SP 2. It seemed fast... but what a hog compared to OS X. 4 gigs of RAM goes much further. Swapping between Adobe applications is twice as fast. Moving 200 gigs of files in 10 batches, all at the same time, hardly slowed the machine whereas that sort of movement on Vista causes headaches.

I started with MS DOS... I'm old school, too, but I like OS X now. I didn't think I could make the switch either, but I'm glad I did.

Yeah I started with DOS as well. Actually my first computer was an Apple ][ Plus.

IBM/Lenovo Thinkpads are easily built as well as the Macs.

I have done repairs on Macs, and unless they have changed drastically in the last two years, they are much harder to replace stuff in.

I replaced a DVD drive in a Mac Book once. I had to completely disassemble the entire laptop, including removing the motherboard, to get access to the screws and such required to remove the drive and put a new one in. On virtually ANY PC laptop at the time, you just take maybe one screw out, release the drive, pull it out and put a new one in. Or a second battery. Or a floppy drive if you needed it for some reason. The build quality wasn't much different than many PC laptops honestly. The external casing has a bit better finish, but that's about it.

And don't even get me started on the iMacs....but then any integrated computer like those are hard to work on.

For upgrading - there are things that I would easily keep. My video card isn't going to need replacing. It runs my 30" display, plus a 20". It could run two 30" displays. I've had the same power supply for probably 5 years now. I've got plenty of hard drive space, no need to upgrade that. DVD burner is fine. Case is fine, had that for 3-4 years.

I don't see how switching between Adobe apps can be twice as fast....switching on my Vista system is pretty much instantaneous. Can't get faster than that. I have moved large amounts of files on Vista and I haven't had any issues at all.

MaxxuM
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 12:02
You can unbox a PC, load photoshop, and go just as easily as you can with a Mac.

Bias much?

There is something to be said for buying a system that has absolutely no bloatware, advertisements, trial versions, or any other crap on it like you get from a major PC manufacture. Sure if you build your own PC you don't get that but then that isn't a simple unboxing.

I was Windows biased for a long, long, long time but OS X is quite nice. Vista feels clunky and sluggish given the same hardware level. Using the new MBP with extra GPU support, I can go back and forth filtering full size TIFFs in LR and PS in what feels like half the time.

Oh yea, I'm Norton Ghosting 18 laptops from Dell right now... 28 background startup processes are being loaded at boot up!!!! The Sidebar is sucking down 2-8% CPU time, taskman another 3-5%, Anti-Virus 2-5% and the rest combined another 4-8%. Open up IE and then Google loads thier little 'helpers'... Geezzzeee. Oh, then theirs Apple's nifty little programs, PowerDVD helper, Adobe Updater... man, the list just goes on and on; compatablity software, fax software, trial ware, free ware, tease ware... Then there are all thos mystory programs that are installed by the OEM that are hidden (but can be seen with programs like CClean) - what do they do????

How many did my Mac's come loaded with.... yep, zero. I added one startup item though, my monitor color calibration software.

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 12:05
Yup that takes a bit of getting used to but I'd counter that with the simplicity of installing applications. There is no registry to bloat and corrupt. Drag the app to your folder and you're done.

And I don't mean to turn this into Mac v. PC but I find it interesting that we were in a very similar place in regards to PCs and Vista... either a PC or Mac will get the job done, but now I feel like I was being stubborn sticking with Microsoft (for 24 years!) when something better is available.

I don't see how installing is any easier. What if you want a custom install on a Mac? I honestly don't know what you do then because I know you usually just drag stuff over. When I install MS Office, I customize it to install just the features I want. Basically that means I disable that stupid office assistant crap - it doesn't get installed at all. Not sure what you do on Mac for that. But typically installing on a PC means opening the setup program and clicking "next" and "finish" buttons....not difficult.

I agree that PC or Mac will work equally as well for most any task. IMO, I'm sticking with what is better by not switching ;) I have used OS X quite a bit, and just don't like it.

DavidPhoto
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 12:11
Oh yea, I'm Norton Ghosting 18 laptops from Dell right now... 28 background startup processes are being loaded at boot up!!!! The Sidebar is sucking down 2-8% CPU time, taskman another 3-5%, Anti-Virus 2-5% and the rest combined another 4-8%. Open up IE and then Google loads thier little 'helpers'... Geezzzeee. Oh, then theirs Apple's nifty little programs, PowerDVD helper, Adobe Updater... man, the list just goes on and on; compatablity software, fax software, trial ware, free ware, tease ware... Then there are all thos mystory programs that are installed by the OEM that are hidden (but can be seen with programs like CClean) - what do they do????

How many did my Mac's come loaded with.... yep, zero. I added one startup item though, my monitor color calibration software.


umm so the mac has no Adobe updater? How does it do auto updates? etc etc etc. As far as processes running, you just aren't looking. The point is, to provide the same functionality, similar services will be run. Period.

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 12:15
Oh yea, I'm Norton Ghosting 18 laptops from Dell right now... 28 background startup processes are being loaded at boot up!!!! The Sidebar is sucking down 2-8% CPU time, taskman another 3-5%, Anti-Virus 2-5% and the rest combined another 4-8%. Open up IE and then Google loads thier little 'helpers'... Geezzzeee. Oh, then theirs Apple's nifty little programs, PowerDVD helper, Adobe Updater... man, the list just goes on and on; compatablity software, fax software, trial ware, free ware, tease ware... Then there are all thos mystory programs that are installed by the OEM that are hidden (but can be seen with programs like CClean) - what do they do????

How many did my Mac's come loaded with.... yep, zero. I added one startup item though, my monitor color calibration software.

That's why I always recommend a custom PC for anyone buying.

I do have a Dell, but it's a laptop. When I got it I just formatted it and loaded from scratch so I didn't have to worry about it. I agree that the OEM's are putting too much crap on. But that isn't Microsoft's fault or Windows' fault. The blame is purely on the OEM's, but then also some on the end users because they demand their $399, all-inclusive desktop system. And honestly, with a $399 system that has a monitor and a printer....the quality is just NOT going to be there. I would say that is the downfall of the PC model (very open hardware design), vs. Apple's (very closed). Apple dictates what goes in the systems, which makes them more expensive. PC's open things up for any OEM to do whatever, which makes them less expensive because of competition, but then you also get the super cheap systems, which are just that - cheap. There are ups and downs to each business model. But I prefer an open design because then you can go to a custom builder, get exactly what you want, nothing you don't, and not get any crapware installed.

TheHoff
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 12:59
I don't see how installing is any easier. What if you want a custom install on a Mac? I honestly don't know what you do then because I know you usually just drag stuff over. When I install MS Office, I customize it to install just the features I want. Basically that means I disable that stupid office assistant crap - it doesn't get installed at all. Not sure what you do on Mac for that. But typically installing on a PC means opening the setup program and clicking "next" and "finish" buttons....not difficult.

Larger programs, like Lightroom or PS, do have install routines to give you a few options but there is still no central registry. It feels liberating to be free of it and the install / uninstall / remnants and speed sucking size.

Oh and I dumped Office. As long as I can open files from clients in OpenOffice or something else, I don't need it.


I agree that PC or Mac will work equally as well for most any task. IMO, I'm sticking with what is better by not switching ;) I have used OS X quite a bit, and just don't like it.

No worries, I'm not here to convince anyone. I'd used OS X before I bought by own but it was always on outdated machines and I never gave it a fair chance. It feels smoother when used on equal hardware on everyday tasks. I think you know I'm no fanboy either way; I liked Vista, defended it, and used it daily since it was first released.


I don't see how switching between Adobe apps can be twice as fast....switching on my Vista system is pretty much instantaneous. Can't get faster than that. I have moved large amounts of files on Vista and I haven't had any issues at all.

I never had issues with them either, I'm just describing where OS X is noticeably faster and more responsive. I didn't mean task switching between Adobe apps but the act of passing 5D 16-bit TIFFs from Lightroom 2 into CS 4, running filters, saving the file, and closing back to Lightroom... that is certainly faster than Vista. Maybe that is OS X or maybe it is the Macbook Pro's use of the GPU for filters but it certainly feels like better memory management. Using the exact same hard drive and 4 gigs of RAM in each, Vista seems to occupy more RAM, swap more, and take up more processes. IOW, with the things I do many times per day this seems to make my day quicker... win: Apple.

MaxxuM
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:00
I don't see how installing is any easier. What if you want a custom install on a Mac? I honestly don't know what you do then because I know you usually just drag stuff over. When I install MS Office, I customize it to install just the features I want. Basically that means I disable that stupid office assistant crap - it doesn't get installed at all. Not sure what you do on Mac for that. But typically installing on a PC means opening the setup program and clicking "next" and "finish" buttons....not difficult.

I agree that PC or Mac will work equally as well for most any task. IMO, I'm sticking with what is better by not switching ;) I have used OS X quite a bit, and just don't like it.

Mac installs & uninstalls are the easiest of any OS and without a registry there is nothing to get 'bloated'. Unistalling in windows (since the advent of the registry) is notoriously 'dirty' as there are all manner of trash left over in Windows that over time will slow your machine down. Installing and uninstalling in Windows will lead to corruption, an overlarge registry and fragmentation. The only way to avoid these problems is to install/uninstall/update nothing. Thus the montra of Windows users, 'reinstalling is a desirable thing from time to time.'

As far as 'custom' installs - there is little need with Mac's. Just go into options and turn what you don't use off. There is nothing gained or lost by doing so except maybe a little hard drive space.

MaxxuM
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:04
umm so the mac has no Adobe updater? How does it do auto updates? etc etc etc. As far as processes running, you just aren't looking. The point is, to provide the same functionality, similar services will be run. Period.

Yes, there is an updater for Adobe products. However, there is no background process that is always running - I have the choice to do so however. When I open PS3 I can have it automatically or manually update if I so please. There are programs that will check for all updates on your computer and of course Apple has its own updater.

And how often are programs updated? Once every few months?

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:04
Larger programs, like Lightroom or PS, do have install routines to give you a few options but there is still no central registry. It feels liberating to be free of it and the install / uninstall / remnants and speed sucking size.

Speed sucking size? I just checked on the size on my work system, which has a ton more software installed than my system at home. The registry is about 30MB. Hardly large. How much space do all your preference files take up? Because it's pretty much the same thing.

TheHoff
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:06
PCs have background processes, Macs have background processes... the difference is the bloat of the operating system and how much is it sucking out the responsiveness given equal hardware levels on each. Now that the platforms are using identical hardware, a fair comparison is more appropriate. I'm sure benchmarks have been run out the wazoo by other people but for me, OS X feels light and snappy compared to slugging around Vista. I never thought I'd say that as Vista never felt sluggish before I had a day-to-day comparison with OS X.

TheHoff
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:08
Speed sucking size? I just checked on the size on my work system, which has a ton more software installed than my system at home. The registry is about 30MB. Hardly large. How much space do all your preference files take up? Because it's pretty much the same thing.

Well the difference being that every program has to use that 30 mb so reading it, changing it, querying it, all have to access that 30 mb set of data. When each app has its own preferences space, they only have to access that space and not fuss around with all the other data.


*** this is my low-level understanding as I have no experience in OS or registry design but that is what I would guess it is like under the hood having programmed many database-powered applications

adam8080
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:10
PC. I'm just used to it. I know the ins and outs of the entire system from hardware through software. I know what to upgrade if I need something better, or how to tweak programs and the OS. If I was starting out though with no knowledge, Mac would probably get my vote. I'd have to look into how compatible MAc is with keyboards, mice, hdds, etc. Also, make sure you can get the programs you want/need to use in the system that you want.

TheHoff
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:10
I feel this is getting to be like the Nikon pro AF vs Canon pro AF debate... Nikon D3 users say it just works well out of the box while Canon 1D3 users are forced to fiddle with custom functions (like turning off Vista's constant drive indexing or UAC) before it runs like it should.



I'd have to look into how compatible MAc is with keyboards, mice, hdds, etc. Also, make sure you can get the programs you want/need to use in the system that you want.

I thought that too... in the 90's. Things have really changed... the same RAM, the same hard drives, the same mice and keyboards--- they all work as well with the Mac. I took my new hard drive that I just put in my Vista laptop, re-partitioned, and swapped it to my Macbook Pro so I wouldn't waste the purchase. Both of my wireless Logitech key/mice sets work but I do want a new one with the proper Mac keys.

And software seems just as available nowadays; at least for what I do. That, of course, is a case-by-case basis for each person.

DavidPhoto
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:15
Well the difference being that every program has to use that 30 mb so reading it, changing it, querying it, all have to access that 30 mb set of data. When each app has its own preferences space, they only have to access that space and not fuss around with all the other data.


*** this is my low-level understanding as I have no experience in OS or registry design but that is what I would guess it is like under the hood having programmed many database-powered applications


In older version of Windows you may remember INI files? Basically they were private [simple] registry's and you may remember some of the problems with them. One day someone decided a central registry would be an improvement. While it does improve on some things, there are certainly well established trade-offs. Hardly anything for the average user to concern themselves with or to make a decision based-on.

I agree with the earlier post, buy what you are most comfortable with. -unsubscribing now-

MaxxuM
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:22
That's why I always recommend a custom PC for anyone buying.

I do have a Dell, but it's a laptop. When I got it I just formatted it and loaded from scratch so I didn't have to worry about it. I agree that the OEM's are putting too much crap on. But that isn't Microsoft's fault or Windows' fault. The blame is purely on the OEM's, but then also some on the end users because they demand their $399, all-inclusive desktop system. And honestly, with a $399 system that has a monitor and a printer....the quality is just NOT going to be there. I would say that is the downfall of the PC model (very open hardware design), vs. Apple's (very closed). Apple dictates what goes in the systems, which makes them more expensive. PC's open things up for any OEM to do whatever, which makes them less expensive because of competition, but then you also get the super cheap systems, which are just that - cheap. There are ups and downs to each business model. But I prefer an open design because then you can go to a custom builder, get exactly what you want, nothing you don't, and not get any crapware installed.

I'm Ghosting as I type this... I made a clean install and placed CA and Lightspeed on the laptops. They run much smoother now, but still, Vista Business is still making these laptops run so slow. Laptops just don't have the umf of desktops yet and Vista is a heavy OS.

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:23
Well the difference being that every program has to use that 30 mb so reading it, changing it, querying it, all have to access that 30 mb set of data. When each app has its own preferences space, they only have to access that space and not fuss around with all the other data.


*** this is my low-level understanding as I have no experience in OS or registry design but that is what I would guess it is like under the hood having programmed many database-powered applications

It's much more complex than that. You don't load that data for every program. Programs have specific keys and it's quite quick to modify the section they need. It's loaded once. Pros/cons to each method, but I don't think one is necessarily "better".

As to Vista being sluggish...it's not. It's very snappy. It boots quicker on identical hardware than XP did on my machine. Programs open faster. It's more responsive than XP was. I've used OS X and I don't see it being any faster. It's not a slouch, but I haven't seen anything that makes it any faster that it would be worth putting up with it to switch.

davidcrebelxt
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:34
well... guess this did turn into a mac pc debate, huh?

For my part, I'm a windows user... but still admire, follow and respect the mac. In the end, use what you like the best. I like and use a lot of open source software. Workmates come and ask whether there are free programs to do this or that, and I have a much harder time pointing the to mac apps than pc apps. Even though I keep eying a mac, with the economy the way it is, I'm likely sticking with windows for some time.

I use Vista... I too have no problems with it. (By the way, I don't turn off UAC, either, and its not a hindrance.) Only one BSD I can recall in over a year now. Initially had sound card issues (but this was due to the fact that creative was slow in updating.) I can openly recommend Vista for new PC purchases.

Not to be overly critical, but a couple things turning me off to Apple recently (remember I like mac's... I'm not bashing):

1)Those apple switcher ads which are insulting, untrue in many cases, and poke fun at "features" which Apple itself counts as "features" in their own promotional materials.

2) Itunes. My Itunes database apparently got corrupted yesterday. Followed some lame instructions from their website to restore an automatic backup from a few days ago, but you end up having to re import all your music anyway... take a lesson from Lightroom, with those backups, you can just open it and everything works.

3) Itunes again. The laggiest, crashiest, application on my computer (and I use a lot of open source stuff, mind you.)

4) Safari. Let's not even go there.

5) Ipod touch... have had to completely wipe it 3 times over past 6 months... crashed at least 10 times. Once was about to ship to Apple for repairs because even a hard-reset they tried to have me do wouldn't work. Before sending it back, found instructions on the net that apparently Apple doesn't know about or document... that trick did it.

Point of this all is not bashing Apple just pointing out that from my experiences with Apple, its not the EASY-PEASY, no crash - no trash utopia that some like to claim. (Were it not for my years of troubleshooting experience with Windows I'd likely have been at a loss of how to resolve any of these issues. ;) ) Apple produces OS and software... its a company... and just like Microsoft they have their problems, along with great successes. In the end pick the one that suits you and they way you work.

canonnoob
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:35
I work for photography services at Missouri State University and we have one mac and a couple pcs.. honestly it doesnt matter....

MaxxuM
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:49
Sitting here watching Norton Ghosting laptops... come on, honestly, which one would you pick. OK, not fair, Latitude's are business class laptops :)

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:54
I would pick the Dell in that case.

The keyboard layout is better. The arrow keys are seperated like the should be, and Apple just jams them up with everything else. I will NOT buy a laptop with a bad keyboard layout.

Also I could probably upgrade the Dell easier.

stillresonance
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 13:56
You can unbox a PC, load photoshop, and go just as easily as you can with a Mac.

Bias much?

Actually I'm not biased at all, it just seems like you can treat Mac more like an appliance that you just use than you can with a PC. I don't own a Mac at all, and I will probably be building my next desktop soon. Let's be honest bloatware is a real problem, I'm going to be wiping my laptop hard drive so I can do a fresh install of Vista I'm changing it to 64 bit, but even if I was staying with 32 bit I would still do a clean install. But that doesn't really bother me because I'm a tweaker by nature and comfortable with technical stuff. Dealing with the same issue could be a problem for many of the creative types who typically buy Macs. If you have work worked in the IT field you are typically surrounded with people who are good with technical things and that then becomes your perception of how everyone should be with regards to technical ability and computers.

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:00
Actually I'm not biased at all, it just seems like you can treat Mac more like an appliance that you just use than you can with a PC. I don't own a Mac at all, and I will probably be building my next desktop soon. Let's be honest bloatware is a real problem, I'm going to be wiping my laptop hard drive so I can do a fresh install of Vista I'm changing it to 64 bit, but even if I was staying with 32 bit I would still do a clean install. But that doesn't really bother me because I'm a tweaker by nature and comfortable with technical stuff. Dealing with the same issue could be a problem for many of the creative types who typically buy Macs. If you work of have worked in the IT field you are typically surrounded with people who are good with technical things and that then becomes your perception of how everyone should be with regards to technical ability and computers.

I want a computer, not an appliance.

As I have said previously - if you don't want the crapware, go to a custom PC builder.

MaxxuM
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:03
well... guess this did turn into a mac pc debate, huh?

For my part, I'm a windows user... but still admire, follow and respect the mac. In the end, use what you like the best. I like and use a lot of open source software. Workmates come and ask whether there are free programs to do this or that, and I have a much harder time pointing the to mac apps than pc apps. Even though I keep eying a mac, with the economy the way it is, I'm likely sticking with windows for some time.

I use Vista... I too have no problems with it. (By the way, I don't turn off UAC, either, and its not a hindrance.) Only one BSD I can recall in over a year now. Initially had sound card issues (but this was due to the fact that creative was slow in updating.) I can openly recommend Vista for new PC purchases.

Not to be overly critical, but a couple things turning me off to Apple recently (remember I like mac's... I'm not bashing):

1)Those apple switcher ads which are insulting, untrue in many cases, and poke fun at "features" which Apple itself counts as "features" in their own promotional materials.

2) Itunes. My Itunes database apparently got corrupted yesterday. Followed some lame instructions from their website to restore an automatic backup from a few days ago, but you end up having to re import all your music anyway... take a lesson from Lightroom, with those backups, you can just open it and everything works.

3) Itunes again. The laggiest, crashiest, application on my computer (and I use a lot of open source stuff, mind you.)

4) Safari. Let's not even go there.

5) Ipod touch... have had to completely wipe it 3 times over past 6 months... crashed at least 10 times. Once was about to ship to Apple for repairs because even a hard-reset they tried to have me do wouldn't work. Before sending it back, found instructions on the net that apparently Apple doesn't know about or document... that trick did it.

Point of this all is not bashing Apple just pointing out that from my experiences with Apple, its not the EASY-PEASY, no crash - no trash utopia that some like to claim. (Were it not for my years of troubleshooting experience with Windows I'd likely have been at a loss of how to resolve any of these issues. ;) ) Apple produces OS and software... its a company... and just like Microsoft they have their problems, along with great successes. In the end pick the one that suits you and they way you work.

Fair enough - one small sticking point however, except for #1 (which I agree with) the rest could be for a number of reasons besides Apple. iTunes for instance has never crashed, never gotten corrupted or given me any problems on my PC's or Mac's and I have multiple Libraries and move them from computer to computer (a Library for Sound Effects & one for music for example). Now, I'm assuming you are saying iTunes on Vista and not Mac.

Mac users are also more satisfied with their purchase too, have fewer problems and give Apple the highest ratings (according to Consumer Reports). PC OEM's all get pretty sad scores and have far more problems after 1yr than Apple's too. For those with paid Consumer Reports accounts you should take a look into their findings. Apple pretty much wins across the board. So saying they are the 'same' and 'work just as well' is really not true according to studies. Sure, you can find anyting on the net, but that doesn't make it the standard. Since buying my Mom a MacBook Pro, she hasn't called me once! When she had the PC I got a call about once a week with some type of problem. The down side is that she would take me out to lunch to 'pay' me for fixing her PC. :(

I don't like fanboyisum either and am not trying to convice people that Mac's are faultless, just keep'en it honest.

MaxxuM
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:05
I would pick the Dell in that case.

The keyboard layout is better. The arrow keys are seperated like the should be, and Apple just jams them up with everything else. I will NOT buy a laptop with a bad keyboard layout.

Also I could probably upgrade the Dell easier.

But the keys fall ALL the time. They are just held in by two tiny plastic anchors. I've ordered 15 last year. They also feel cheap as does the whole thing. Dell's used to be more substantial, now they feel like they are skimping on quality to bring down the price.

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:19
I built a PC for my dad 3 years ago and haven't heard a word about any problems.

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:21
But the keys fall ALL the time. They are just held in by two tiny plastic anchors. I've ordered 15 last year. They also feel cheap as does the whole thing. Dell's used to be more substantial, now they feel like they are skimping on quality to bring down the price.

Are you kidding me? The keys are fine. If they are coming off, then someone is abusing their laptop. I've never had any come off of my Dells. I have a bunch of Dell laptops out here on the floor and none of the employees have managed to bust a key off.

Colorblinded
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:26
Sitting here watching Norton Ghosting laptops... come on, honestly, which one would you pick. OK, not fair, Latitude's are business class laptops :)
I'd pick the business class laptop. Usually withstand more abuse, and as someone else pointed out, improved keyboard layout.

There's a reason I've still been happy with buying Thinkpads though. Once they screw up the formula or someone else does it better or for less I'll look elsewhere.

rooeey
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:26
Ok i am no pro but i had to vote to see the results...

canonnoob
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:32
I'd pick the business class laptop. Usually withstand more abuse, and as someone else pointed out, improved keyboard layout.

There's a reason I've still been happy with buying Thinkpads though. Once they screw up the formula or someone else does it better or for less I'll look elsewhere.
Becareful with the thinkpads... I hope you know that they are not made by IBM anymore... IBM sold that to a company called limovia (spelling sucks) but they dont make them anymore (IBM that is..)

TheHoff
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:35
While these are by no means conclusive results, and they only apply to laptops, this article shows that OS X extends battery life as much as 2x over Vista. Even comparing native machines running their appropriate operating systems, OS X or Apple's Macbooks show appreciable battery life advantages.

http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3435&p=13

And I've not owned a Dell or Lenovo, but the new MBP is whisper quiet and hardly warm.

MaxxuM
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:43
Are you kidding me? The keys are fine. If they are coming off, then someone is abusing their laptop. I've never had any come off of my Dells. I have a bunch of Dell laptops out here on the floor and none of the employees have managed to bust a key off.

I'd pick the business class laptop. Usually withstand more abuse, and as someone else pointed out, improved keyboard layout.

There's a reason I've still been happy with buying Thinkpads though. Once they screw up the formula or someone else does it better or for less I'll look elsewhere.

You guys haven't been around hundreds of kids using laptops you support have ya :lol: I have a key flying off a laptop at least once a week that I have to coax bad on. Yes, they abuse the equipment, that's the point. Dell's usually have screws on the monitor too... Well, I don't know how they do it, but the kids manage to unscrew them. However, by far the BIGGEST problem I have with PC laptops is that stupid nub-mouse thing. It seems enevitable that it will fail and take the pointer with it. Latitude's are not built anywhere near as sturdy as MacBook Pro's by a long shot. Of the 20 Mac laptops here, every single one of them is running smoothly, has all its keys and has not needed a part replaced.

MaxxuM
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:43
Ok i am no pro but i had to vote to see the results...

You know, there is a "View Results" under the poll right?

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:51
You guys haven't been around hundreds of kids using laptops you support have ya :lol: I have a key flying off a laptop at least once a week that I have to coax bad on. Yes, they abuse the equipment, that's the point. Dell's usually have screws on the monitor too... Well, I don't know how they do it, but the kids manage to unscrew them. However, by far the BIGGEST problem I have with PC laptops is that stupid nub-mouse thing. It seems enevitable that it will fail and take the pointer with it. Latitude's are not built anywhere near as sturdy as MacBook Pro's by a long shot. Of the 20 Mac laptops here, every single one of them is running smoothly, has all its keys and has not needed a part replaced.

Sounds like you have a discipline problem, not a computer problem.

stillresonance
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 14:58
I want a computer, not an appliance.

As I have said previously - if you don't want the crapware, go to a custom PC builder.

But that is exactly my point, to many people a computer is an appliance. You cannot argue that going to a custom builder is the same for most people as just being able to pop into the Apple store and buy a computer. For people like us who work in the tech field though it's not a problem because we will probably just build what we want from the start, or wipe a store bought PC and reload the OS.

Sitting around talking to other tech types is not representative of the computer buying market, I'm just trying to bring the perspective of non techy types.

OdiN1701
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 15:01
But that is exactly my point, to many people a computer is an appliance. You cannot argue that going to a custom builder is the same for most people as just being able to pop into the Apple store and buy a computer. For people like us who work in the tech field though it's not a problem because we will probably just build what we want from the start, or wipe a store bought PC and reload the OS.

Sitting around talking to other tech types is not representative of the computer buying market, I'm just trying to bring the perspective of non techy types.

If PC's had the same model as Apple, then they would be just as expensive, and I don't want that either.

If someone wants to just go out and buy something without doing proper research first, that's their problem.

Colorblinded
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 15:03
Becareful with the thinkpads... I hope you know that they are not made by IBM anymore... IBM sold that to a company called limovia (spelling sucks) but they dont make them anymore (IBM that is..)
That sale occurred several years ago, to a company called Lenovo. At that time I bought a T43p, which was basically still of IBM design and build. I also own an X31 which dates well back in to the IBM days.

I recently acquired a T400 and it is just as good as the older ones in my opinion. Lenovo has made some changes but not enough to concern me... yet.

While these are by no means conclusive results, and they only apply to laptops, this article shows that OS X extends battery life as much as 2x over Vista. Even comparing native machines running their appropriate operating systems, OS X or Apple's Macbooks show appreciable battery life advantages.

http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3435&p=13

And I've not owned a Dell or Lenovo, but the new MBP is whisper quiet and hardly warm.
My T43p ran the fan a lot, and that was my biggest complaint about it. My T400 is whisper quiet and cool.

Also, as to battery life, that test is pretty poorly performed. There are numerous power configuration options and at least comparing similar Macbook to various Vista laptop configurations, with similar specced hardware the battery life is very similar among the many users here.

You guys haven't been around hundreds of kids using laptops you support have ya :lol: I have a key flying off a laptop at least once a week that I have to coax bad on. Yes, they abuse the equipment, that's the point. Dell's usually have screws on the monitor too... Well, I don't know how they do it, but the kids manage to unscrew them. However, by far the BIGGEST problem I have with PC laptops is that stupid nub-mouse thing. It seems enevitable that it will fail and take the pointer with it. Latitude's are not built anywhere near as sturdy as MacBook Pro's by a long shot. Of the 20 Mac laptops here, every single one of them is running smoothly, has all its keys and has not needed a part replaced.
I have no experience with the Latitudes but I do have experience with many Macbooks, Macbook Pros and Powerbooks and I don't consider them particularly durable. After having fixed many for friends and seeing how they wear and tear, I would not consider one for myself until some design changes were instituted.

The key design on many laptop keyboards, including the Dell's I've seen, owned and used would make it pretty easy to pop a key off if you shove something under them or have longer fingernails (which has happend to people I know). At the same time, kids will take anything apart. Easier to take apart is GOOD in my opinion, but not good if you're handing them to kids.

Dell has never used as good of an eraser nub mouse as a Thinkpad in my experience. I've used both and the difference is night and day.

Still, to the real/original question of this thread. Use whatever you like, as your comfort level will be the biggest decider in the ultimate performance of either system when using the same or similar hardware.

_aravena
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 15:03
I think it's a viable question... Any truck can haul cargo, but there are preferences for different jobs around the country. Most of the news paper and event photographers I know all use Mac's. However, of the two papers I work for I only see PCs in the accounting offices. I think there is a reason for that that doesn't have anything to do with elitism or fanboyism. I talk to a lot of photographers, including several nationally known wildlife photog's and none of them are techies - they just want something that is simple, has the tools they need, isn't flimsy and has an OS that isn't fickle. I have met several photographers that have tried PCs due to them being inexpensive and all of them got rid of them within 6 months due to all the hastles. And none of them know what a fanboy is. I also know a couple of film guys that don't use PCs or Macs and do extremely nice work.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean they can tell you why other than someone else said so. I've asked so many people why they have a Mac over a PC and no one can present a valid reason. Now go ask any computer techie why Macs suck and the list is longer than War & Peace.

Do Macs suck? No. For certain things? Most definitely. Do PCs suck? No. For certain things? No.

People that can't use a computer are those that have problems or thye just get a bad one, like lenses. There are those duds but I've never had a problem with my computers. Macs, I see no reason. Hardly any programs, back in the day they had a one button mouse (WTF!?!), and way more expensive than what I could get a PC with equal or better specs.

When it comes down to it, it's specs now of days since the cheap computer, save Emachines and Acers, have been bought out by the bigger better companies.

That's it. As for Photography, I remember someone showing me that you can browse photos easier in a window. That was why Macs are WAY better photo computers. :rolleyes:

The only reason this is a debate is because one side has facts and others don't. Between reasonable and knowledgeable people this debate does not exist.

ayman86
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 15:13
i just broke the tie!

after owning a mbp for a year (and then selling it), i prefer PC. while i like using the mbp, for my needs it doesnt cut it. there are many software that has no or sucky counterpart for the mac.

TheHoff
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 15:31
I spend my day in pretty much 6 applications: mail, browser, PS, LR, text editor, FTP. I had to find a replacement text editor (not sure if I'm satisfied yet) and a replacement FTP... so it is more about choosing one than a lack of, for me. And I bought Parallels so I have a Vista VM available, plus there is Bootcamp...

What is missing in OS X applications for you? (honest question, I'm curious what is still lagging for software availability)

Colorblinded
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 15:33
I'll admit one thing I've yet to find an alternative that I really like for is iTunes. I have tried a number of other alternatives for playing music but none have really been that great.

My experience with video playback was similar. VLC is popular but I didn't find it to be as good with handling a variety of formats.

MaxxuM
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 15:36
Sounds like you have a discipline problem, not a computer problem.

And it sounds like you don't have any kids :p

Joking aside young children do not have as wide peripheral vision, cannot concentrate on more than one thing at a time, some are bullies, some are shy, some just have accidents. With 1000 kids ALL things are possible. Kids are not adults by any stretch of the imagination. And, with over 100 teachers, some good, some bad, some neglectful, some overbearing predicting what will happen to equipment becomes a crap shoot. And the point, Mac's have fared much better against the trials and tribulations of life with children.

MaxxuM
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 15:57
YI've asked so many people why they have a Mac over a PC and no one can present a valid reason. Now go ask any computer techie why Macs suck and the list is longer than War & Peace.

Really, I'm a tech person and know dozens of tech people who like me have a load of acronyms under their names and not one of them has said more than four things they disliked. #1. Too expensive, #2 Too hard to upgrade, #3 Not great with games and #4 Not enough software... Besides that, I haven't heard much complaining about Mac's at all.


Do Macs suck? No. For certain things? Most definitely. Do PCs suck? No. For certain things? No.


So you're saying that PC's are better? Is this a typo?

People that can't use a computer are those that have problems

That statement just makes me laugh :) My mom, with a Phd mind you, has problems with PC's but not with Mac's.

There are those duds but I've never had a problem with my computers. Macs, I see no reason. Hardly any programs, back in the day they had a one button mouse (WTF!?!), and way more expensive than what I could get a PC with equal or better specs.

To each their own; I personally would rather have a BMW 5 series than a Ford sedan, but that's just me. I'll pay a little more for quality, be it a PC or a Mac.

The only reason this is a debate is because one side has facts and others don't. Between reasonable and knowledgeable people this debate does not exist.

I guess that makes us unreasonable an unknowledgeable then. :)

Renι Damkot
23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 17:45
Okay guys... Back to the OP's question please...
What do you use, and why?

Not "Why is mine better then yours" ;)

xhack
24th of October 2008 (Fri), 05:54
I have an old Mac G5 2.5Gh dual processor with 4Gb of RAM as my main machine at home, and use a G4 1.67 17" PowerBook with 1.5 Gb out on the road (freelancing weddings and kiddie portraits to supplement my meagre income as a charity coordinator). At work, I do some mild imaging stuff for promotion and presentation work using a pitifully under-powered Dell-something which, admittedly, is not designed or set-up for that purpose (it's primarily used for my Access database).

I incline slightly towards Mac since every media outfit I worked for in my previous life as a journalist had them from 1984. I'm comfortable with the GUI and now know all the wrinkles. Photoshop works equally well on both platforms, but I confess it does present better on a Mac - particularly the dialogues. But that's no deal-breaker . . .

I do detest Vista, however, and have remained faithful to XP on the PC.

Mac v PC? Pfft. It's a machine. But I always (ALWAYS) feel the need for more HD space whatever the platform!

naqs
26th of October 2008 (Sun), 23:45
I think someone should vote mac and then close this poll

Colorblinded
27th of October 2008 (Mon), 08:39
I think someone should vote linux and then close this poll
That would be more fitting.

neil_g
27th of October 2008 (Mon), 09:19
oh lordy, i must be psychic.. lol

Originally Posted by MaxxuM View Post
You guys haven't been around hundreds of kids using laptops you support have ya I have a key flying off a laptop at least once a week that I have to coax bad on. Yes, they abuse the equipment, that's the point. Dell's usually have screws on the monitor too... Well, I don't know how they do it, but the kids manage to unscrew them. However, by far the BIGGEST problem I have with PC laptops is that stupid nub-mouse thing. It seems enevitable that it will fail and take the pointer with it. Latitude's are not built anywhere near as sturdy as MacBook Pro's by a long shot. Of the 20 Mac laptops here, every single one of them is running smoothly, has all its keys and has not needed a part replaced.

disable the snub mouse by default that removes any issues.

we've had more macbooks lose keys than any of our latitudes by the way.

remember the new E series latitudes kids, yum...

Faolan
28th of October 2008 (Tue), 13:06
I use a PC for several reasons:

1) I have a customised install for Vista/XP which includes all drivers and tweaks for my systems. Something you can't do with Mac OS X, if you don't want the feature tough you have to install it regardless.

2) Expansion and upgrades. I have yet to see a decent SAS solution from a Apple system. This said it does support third party SAS drives... Sometimes.

3) Memory costs. Mac Pro's use FB-DIMMS which are expensive both in power and price. You can get a decent PC workstation that uses DDR2/DDR 3 RAM even ECC versions.

4) My background in telecomms, InfoSec and IT/printer engineering. I stick with a system that I know. I don't want to re-learn a system because it's better, OS X has just as many problems when I did graphics work on it than I did with XP at the time. Admittedly it was a first gen Mac Pro...

5) Support. Tonnes of it on the web easy to find,

6) Reliability. XP just works, if it doesn't then it's likely to be a driver issue. Same with Vista admittedly not out of the box it does take a bit of tweaking to get it to work properly.

7) 64Bit. I can use 16Gb of RAM and all apps (64Bit aware) see it unlike Mac's who restrict apps to 8Gb. This is important not just for Photoshop now but also video editing and other memory intensive applications.

This may seem like Mac bashing it's not I've just never got along with Apple's attitude to computing and forcing Apple's mantras and hardware down your throats. Plus zealots irritate the hell out of me!

MaxxuM
28th of October 2008 (Tue), 16:07
I use a PC for several reasons:
1) I have a customised install for Vista/XP which includes all drivers and tweaks for my systems. Something you can't do with Mac OS X, if you don't want the feature tough you have to install it regardless.


Unlike Windows, Mac OS X is not based on a registry and dll's. The only thing you suffer for installing unwanted 'features' is the loss of a little hard drive space. If 'tweaking' is your thing however, Windows won't let you down – you'll be doing it pretty often to clean up unwanted junk that clutters up the registry, temp directories and leftover folders/files/registry-entries of uninstalled programs. Surprisingly, Mac's can and do have many little tweak's that aid them as well. Mac's programs leave behind stuff too, but far less than on Windows.

I use a PC for several reasons:
2) Expansion and upgrades. I have yet to see a decent SAS solution from a Apple system. This said it does support third party SAS drives... Sometimes.


Admittedly, Apple is sometimes a little behind the curve when it comes to new devices – but not by much. This is usually because they 1) Want the product to mature a little to gain support and 2) Since Apple makes their own drivers they can fall behind innovation. Typically, things 'just work' on Mac's though and when they do there is seldom a glitch whereas on Windows updates are constantly necessary to gain speed, stability and compatibility.

I use a PC for several reasons:
3) Memory costs. Mac Pro's use FB-DIMMS which are expensive both in power and price. You can get a decent PC workstation that uses DDR2/DDR 3 RAM even ECC versions.


The Mac Pro does use more expensive memory and far more than 16GB. It uses enterprise quality equipment – not home/small business standard. If you raise the quality of a PC workstation to the quality of the Mac Pro, cost's isn't so different.

I use a PC for several reasons:
4) My background in telecomms, InfoSec and IT/printer engineering. I stick with a system that I know. I don't want to re-learn a system because it's better, OS X has just as many problems when I did graphics work on it than I did with XP at the time. Admittedly it was a first gen Mac Pro...


I have a dozen or so certification's/degree's and I don't think they have a barring on the topic.

I use a PC for several reasons:
5) Support. Tonnes of it on the web easy to find,


Apple keeps getting 'the' top marks from customers and from consumer watchdog groups whereas PC vendors typically get poor ratings. I don't think online support is an issue with Mac or PC's

I use a PC for several reasons:
6) Reliability. XP just works, if it doesn't then it's likely to be a driver issue. Same with Vista admittedly not out of the box it does take a bit of tweaking to get it to work properly.


Anecdotal, but Mac's have a better track record from what I read. See #1 about tweaking.

I use a PC for several reasons:
7) 64Bit. I can use 16Gb of RAM and all apps (64Bit aware) see it unlike Mac's who restrict apps to 8Gb. This is important not just for Photoshop now but also video editing and other memory intensive applications.


Sorta right, sorta wrong and sorta doesn't matter.

OK, Sorta right and sorta wrong – yes, OS X is limited to 8GB per process (not application), but then again, it isn't. A background 64-bit process can be started for any program, 32 or 64 bit and that process can theoretically be as large as 16TB (for big number crunching). The limitations are set by the software vendors, not OS X. This has been true since Tiger. Leopard improved on this further and Snow Leopard will optimize and streamline the process. Windows by contrast has put themselves in a big rut by having to run 32 bit processes in a compatibility mode which still have the limitations of a 32 bit OS plus the added complications of being within another OS. Mac has one OS and it runs both 64 and 32 bit processes – in other words, programs 'just work'. Windows 64bit has also been plagued with driver problems, flaky software and upgrade issues (companies refusing to fully support XP with new products or not making stable drivers for older products in Vista e.g. Creative Labs).

Why does it not matter? Well, it matters of course, but not to the average Photoshop user. Most users will stay 32 bit (Windows 7 is reported as also having two versions 32 & 64), leaving 64 bit to professionals, techies and early-adopters.

Most of your points are personal preference or based on misconceptions.

Just keeping it honest....

OdiN1701
28th of October 2008 (Tue), 16:23
Admittedly, Apple is sometimes a little behind the curve when it comes to new devices – but not by much. This is usually because they 1) Want the product to mature a little to gain support and 2) Since Apple makes their own drivers they can fall behind innovation. Typically, things 'just work' on Mac's though and when they do there is seldom a glitch whereas on Windows updates are constantly necessary to gain speed, stability and compatibility.

Just keeping it honest....

Really? I installed Vista a year ago and I don't bother with updates. Everything still works just fine. It's perfectly stable, and there are no compatability issues with anything I have.

I always hear the "just work" thing about Macs. In practice, the Macs that I've used don't "just work".

If they did, then the ones I used in graphics design would have worked properly with the Wacom graphics tablets instead of having comm problems and then there was the fun part where you would draw something and sometimes it would draw just fine while others it would sit there for a minute before anything appeared on the screen from your stroke.

Oh and that spinning rainbow wheel was lots of fun too.

A lot of what you, and most Mac users, say is personal preference or based on misconceptions.

MaxxuM
28th of October 2008 (Tue), 16:56
Really? I installed Vista a year ago and I don't bother with updates. Everything still works just fine. It's perfectly stable, and there are no compatability issues with anything I have.

I always hear the "just work" thing about Macs. In practice, the Macs that I've used don't "just work".

If they did, then the ones I used in graphics design would have worked properly with the Wacom graphics tablets instead of having comm problems and then there was the fun part where you would draw something and sometimes it would draw just fine while others it would sit there for a minute before anything appeared on the screen from your stroke.

Oh and that spinning rainbow wheel was lots of fun too.

A lot of what you, and most Mac users, say is personal preference or based on misconceptions.

Odin, please know that I do not mean to offend. I know you take a lot of pride in the machine(s) you have built and may take it personal when people take shots at PC's. Understand that I too use PCs – heck, I'm even a Microsoft Developer and have a few other Microsoft Certification's. I'm also sorry that you are one of the rare Mac users that have had a bad experience.

Everything I have stated can be substantiated and is typically not my personal feelings unless I state so. If you can point me to better information I would really appreciated it.

I'm glad you have a Vista machine that has works so well for you, even without updates.

OdiN1701
28th of October 2008 (Tue), 17:13
Odin, please know that I do not mean to offend. I know you take a lot of pride in the machine(s) you have built and may take it personal when people take shots at PC's. Understand that I too use PCs – heck, I'm even a Microsoft Developer and have a few other Microsoft Certification's. I'm also sorry that you are one of the rare Mac users that have had a bad experience.

Everything I have stated can be substantiated and is typically not my personal feelings unless I state so. If you can point me to better information I would really appreciated it.

I'm glad you have a Vista machine that has works so well for you, even without updates.

I'm not taking offense at all!

I understand that you can have issues with both, and with PC's. A lot of issues arise because of cutting corners of big name manufacturers. This is why I recommend to everyone to have a custom PC built - even if it costs more than that $399 special down at Walmart. There's a reason a $399 system with monitor and printer is going to have issues.

When I compare prices (or anything really) for PC's to Mac's - I'm not going to say here's a whole system for $399. I compare realistically equal PC's.

Each system has their issues when it comes to OS. They are there. Is one OS better than the other? No, not intrinsically, it depends on the person, what the use is for, etc. Some people just prefer one over the other out of personal preference, and there's nothing wrong with that. That doeesn't make one better and the other crap.

What bugs me the most about the PC vs. Mac thing is all the "oh Macs just work" type stuff, or trying to act as if there are never any problems with Macs and that ALL PC's are riddled with issues and blue screens and such. It simply is not the case.

You take a well built PC from a company that isn't cutting corners by using crap like ECS motherboards, etc. and compare it to a Mac and you're pretty much going to be equal.

The biggest advantage Apple has over PC's is that it is a closed hardware system. It is also the biggest disadvantage in that upgrades are harder, and hardware is more expensive because of it. On the plus side, reliability and stability are far more under control because of the closed system. So you have a perceived quality difference between the Mac and PC.

The problem is, that these quality differences are comparing these cheap cookie cutter PC systems that sell for $399 on special or whatever. If you buy something that's that cheap, then expect something that performs at that level. Basically, buy crap, get crap.

If someone doesn't listen to advice by people who are in the know, then that's their fault - not a PC's.

The biggest problem with PC's (which causes the perception that Windows has all these problems, etc.) is that there are so many 2-bit companies producing crap hardware. The hardware causes issues which the people who are not familiar with how everything works just assume must be the OS's fault - blame Microsoft! I've seen blue screens and crashes caused by cheap capacitors used on cheap motherboards that started leaking and expanding. Good, reliable capacitors cost money! So the boards with them cost more money too! Has nothing to do with software at all. But the less tech-savvy don't understand that.

I guarantee that if you purchase the quality hardware and make quality your goal isntead of quantity (cheap price) that your PC will be just as good and just as reliable as a Mac.

Hopefully that clears up my point of view! :P

tripsis
28th of October 2008 (Tue), 17:27
I'm definitely a Mac person. My family has had Macs my whole life and I've never had any significant problems with them. I use PCs at school and have Boot Camp installed on my Mac, which allows me to restart my computer as a PC. So I get the benefit of a Mac computer, which I prefer, but if I come across any software that is not compatible with Macs, I can always restart my computer to use the application.

That's the only thing I've ever been concerned about, as a Mac user - the lack of compatible software. For example, when I wanted to play Lord of the Rings Online, it was not available for Macs. But I was able to install Boot Camp and now I just have to restart my computer and then I can play the game.

But either way, I really don't feel like there is a valid argument for why Macs or PCs are significantly better than the other. They both have their advantages and disadvantages and each person has his or her own personal preference.. but I don't feel like one completely dominates the other.

MaxxuM
28th of October 2008 (Tue), 17:27
I'm not taking offense at all!

I understand that you can have issues with both, and with PC's. A lot of issues arise because of cutting corners of big name manufacturers. This is why I recommend to everyone to have a custom PC built - even if it costs more than that $399 special down at Walmart. There's a reason a $399 system with monitor and printer is going to have issues.

When I compare prices (or anything really) for PC's to Mac's - I'm not going to say here's a whole system for $399. I compare realistically equal PC's.

Each system has their issues when it comes to OS. They are there. Is one OS better than the other? No, not intrinsically, it depends on the person, what the use is for, etc. Some people just prefer one over the other out of personal preference, and there's nothing wrong with that. That doeesn't make one better and the other crap.

What bugs me the most about the PC vs. Mac thing is all the "oh Macs just work" type stuff, or trying to act as if there are never any problems with Macs and that ALL PC's are riddled with issues and blue screens and such. It simply is not the case.

You take a well built PC from a company that isn't cutting corners by using crap like ECS motherboards, etc. and compare it to a Mac and you're pretty much going to be equal.

The biggest advantage Apple has over PC's is that it is a closed hardware system. It is also the biggest disadvantage in that upgrades are harder, and hardware is more expensive because of it. On the plus side, reliability and stability are far more under control because of the closed system. So you have a perceived quality difference between the Mac and PC.

The problem is, that these quality differences are comparing these cheap cookie cutter PC systems that sell for $399 on special or whatever. If you buy something that's that cheap, then expect something that performs at that level. Basically, buy crap, get crap.

If someone doesn't listen to advice by people who are in the know, then that's their fault - not a PC's.

The biggest problem with PC's (which causes the perception that Windows has all these problems, etc.) is that there are so many 2-bit companies producing crap hardware. The hardware causes issues which the people who are not familiar with how everything works just assume must be the OS's fault - blame Microsoft! I've seen blue screens and crashes caused by cheap capacitors used on cheap motherboards that started leaking and expanding. Good, reliable capacitors cost money! So the boards with them cost more money too! Has nothing to do with software at all. But the less tech-savvy don't understand that.

I guarantee that if you purchase the quality hardware and make quality your goal isntead of quantity (cheap price) that your PC will be just as good and just as reliable as a Mac.

Hopefully that clears up my point of view! :P

All granted and thanks for clearing that up for me. Both systems have issues, no doubt there. Mac's are almost proprietary and proprietary more often than not 'just work'. IBM is notorious for proprietary solutions as are HP - they 'just work' too.

For me, Mac's are art meets functionality - smooth on the surface and sharpened at the core. PCs are the opposite for me - functionality looking for form - rough and edgy.

OdiN1701
28th of October 2008 (Tue), 17:30
All granted and thanks for clearing that up for me. Both systems have issues, no doubt there. Mac's are almost proprietary and proprietary more often than not 'just work'. IBM is notorious for proprietary solutions as are HP - they 'just work' too.

For me, Mac's are art meets functionality - smooth on the surface and sharpened at the core. PCs are the opposite for me - functionality looking for form - rough and edgy.

I'm not hanging my PC case up on the wall anytime soon :P

But then function has always been more important to me than form....at least when it comes to tools.


Also I tend to have a different mindset when I purchase something.

Many people will look at price and price alone. If I'm buying something, I look for quality. Will something last and be a good investment, or will I have to buy another one in a year? I would rather spend $200 on something that will last me 5 years than $50 on something I have to replace every year. A lot of people don't do this and just want cheap cheap cheap!

MaxxuM
28th of October 2008 (Tue), 18:20
I'm not hanging my PC case up on the wall anytime soon :P

But then function has always been more important to me than form....at least when it comes to tools.


Also I tend to have a different mindset when I purchase something.

Many people will look at price and price alone. If I'm buying something, I look for quality. Will something last and be a good investment, or will I have to buy another one in a year? I would rather spend $200 on something that will last me 5 years than $50 on something I have to replace every year. A lot of people don't do this and just want cheap cheap cheap!

No one can accuse me of looking at price alone owning two of the most expensive Mac's out atm. I can upgrade almost at will on the PC side and have a new PC laptop every year if I so chose - but I rather use a Mac and that says something ;)

naqs
29th of October 2008 (Wed), 07:44
That would be more fitting.

lol but if someone actually did what I said it would have been at 50/50 and then maybe this argument would stop

Colorblinded
29th of October 2008 (Wed), 08:18
lol but if someone actually did what I said it would have been at 50/50 and then maybe this argument would stop
It was balanced when I saw your comment. 50/50/1 would have been good for a giggle.

form
29th of October 2008 (Wed), 13:57
My primary basis for computer purchasing now is price vs. performance that I see in real world use. My opinion is, if I don't have any delay in making changes and seeing them show up on the screen (like in lightroom or photoshop), it's fast enough for me.

I am not looking for performance levels that reach the limitations of the operating system, 32-bit, 64-bit, etc. I'm not looking for which OS handles 16gb of ram better or has to use an altered 32-bit functionality to use hardware properly. I don't think what I want in a computer requires me to care about those limitations.

I also don't feel that things like minor software inclusions are a huge detraction from the overall experience in using a computer. Many software programs can be removed, and registry stuff is beyond my current knowledge level and I can probably remove it with spybot or some other app anyway.

I've been a mac user since I started using computers about 14 years ago, and though OS X is nice and pretty, I am not finding any significant improvement over Win XP in functions that I NEED. Please note that I do not need anything fancy; I only want it to run lightroom, photoshop, an ftp program, a web browser, and a media player. That's all I need. I used to game, I don't anymore. It's now workstation only. I don't see significant differences between mac and pc in available applications that suit MY purposes.

Based on what I've read, a single core 2 duo or core 2 quad processor system would be more than adequate for my purposes, and 4gb of ram would be as much as I expect I'd need for a long time to come. A desktop pc can offer this level of performance for about $300-$500 depending on duo or quad processor system: Can I get the same level of performance from a mac for the same cost?

Mustard Chops
29th of October 2008 (Wed), 19:48
5) Support. Tonnes of it on the web easy to find,

6) Reliability. XP just works, if it doesn't then it's likely to be a driver issue. Same with Vista admittedly not out of the box it does take a bit of tweaking to get it to work properly.



WOW. If it's reliable why do you need support?

Oh, its not working, better get on the net and start wasting time sorting out driver issues instead of getting on with my work...

Bobster
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 11:22
i was a Mac user for 18 years before i made the switch to 100% PC, why? Bang for Buck, i was on a Dual 1GHz CPU machine with more RAM than i could shake a stick at (2GB) for less money than it cost for a G4 450MHz with 128MB RAM!

i used to believe PC's were the spawn of the devil (well they were before NT4, NT3.5.1 just sucked for user friendly).

oh, and ive just installed Vista 64U with SP1 (last week ready for CS4) and i didn't need a single driver download to be up and running..

MaxxuM
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 12:07
lol but if someone actually did what I said it would have been at 50/50 and then maybe this argument would stop

It was balanced when I saw your comment. 50/50/1 would have been good for a giggle.

Yes, but what you guys are not thinking of is the percentage of Mac's vs Pc's being sold or on the net. Mac's account for just under 7% of computers on the internet at the moment; therefore statistically the vast majority of people on this web site use PCs. Statistics was never my forte in college, but I do believe that means Mac's have a commanding lead still.

Colorblinded
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 12:20
There has long been a favorable bias towards Macs in parts of the media world, photography included. Although that bias may have long lost any significance, it still continues to this day.

OdiN1701
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 12:24
Yes, but what you guys are not thinking of is the percentage of Mac's vs Pc's being sold or on the net. Mac's account for just under 7% of computers on the internet at the moment; therefore statistically the vast majority of people on this web site use PCs. Statistics was never my forte in college, but I do believe that means Mac's have a commanding lead still.

You should take another stats class ;). What does that matter? Your target group is pro photographers. If they are the only ones that answer - it doesn't matter what percentage of anything is on the net. What matters is what those people own and that they meet the criteria. I bet there are not many pro photogs who aren't online with whatever computer they own - so that shouldn't affect the data.

Now - the issue here is this data is pretty much invalid. I would bet you that there are some Mac zealots who come in here who are NOT pro photographers, see Mac, vote Mac.

Same on the PC side.

So there is no actual way to validate who is voting and whether or not they meet the criteria for a valid vote (being a pro photog).

Therefore, the whole vote is worthless and invalid - it means nothing and is not a true representation of what actually exists.

Colorblinded
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 12:26
I think the distinction of "pro" in this pole was really unnecessary and probably mostly ignored. I've seen a lot of "pros" use both systems, as with "amateurs." How one defines themselves as a pro seems to be a topic of discussion on this forum from time to time anyway.

MaxxuM
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 12:33
You should take another stats class ;). What does that matter? Your target group is pro photographers. If they are the only ones that answer - it doesn't matter what percentage of anything is on the net. What matters is what those people own.

Now - the issue here is this data is pretty much invalid. I would bet you that there are some Mac zealots who come in here who are NOT pro photographers, see Mac, vote Mac.

Same on the PC side.

So there is no actual way to validate who is voting and whether or not they meet the criteria for a valid vote (being a pro photog).

Therefore, the whole vote is worthless and invalid - it means nothing and is not a true representation of what actually exists.

Hummm.... So why post in this thread?

And it is valid mathematically, even with a +/- 40% for error Mac still comes out on top. And I suspected the same thing with the voting. When the topic started getting more heated the voting jumped up 'very' fast. Do they have a minimum post number to vote in polls? I would like to know how many duplicate IPs there were and how many people voted with new accounts.

It is still telling that of photographers on this site, a very large portion (maybe 50%) use Mac's which is in contrast to the Internet. That in itself makes Mac a winner.

OdiN1701
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 12:42
Hummm.... So why post in this thread?

And it is valid mathematically, even with a +/- 40% for error Mac still comes out on top. And I suspected the same thing with the voting. When the topic started getting more heated the voting jumped up 'very' fast. Do they have a minimum post number to vote in polls? I would like to know how many duplicate IPs there were and how many people voted with new accounts.

It is still telling that of photographers on this site, a very large portion (maybe 50%) use Mac's which is in contrast to the Internet. That in itself makes Mac a winner.

Why post in this thread? Why does any zealot/fanboy type post anywhere or intentionally try to skew poll results anywhere else on the internet?

Did you even read what I said? You can't claim PC's or Macs as a winner. There is no way to validate the data, therefore the entire poll is inaccurate and to use the data to make any sort of statement about what is more popular is ridiculous.

If the poll data was valid and you looked at the results as they are right now - you still couldn't call the Mac a winner. It doesn't matter about in contrast to the internets general population. This poll has nothing whatsoever to do with that. The data would be for photographers, period. If more photographers use PC's than Mac's, that's all that matters. Not anything about general internet population.

How you can claim mathematical validity, then say +/- 40% error and still claim that Mac comes out on top while at the same time questioning the polls results is astounding to me.

MaxxuM
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 13:41
Why post in this thread? Why does any zealot/fanboy type post anywhere or intentionally try to skew poll results anywhere else on the internet?

Are you admitting to being a fanboy?

Did you even read what I said? You can't claim PC's or Macs as a winner. There is no way to validate the data, therefore the entire poll is inaccurate and to use the data to make any sort of statement about what is more popular is ridiculous.

I'm reading because I'm very interested in what people have to say Odin and I like honesty. I read yours because I administer thousands of computers, users and net objects and have a vested interest in Apple and Microsoft (have stocks - however worthless now).

I tell you what, I'll post ten things I hate about Apple and you do the same for Vista and then I'll know you're being fair minded. Real, known and irritating flaws/bugs though, that need fixing/replacing in a Windows 7. I know at least ten for each - they aren't hard to miss.

OdiN1701
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 14:11
Are you admitting to being a fanboy?

Where did I say that? I was merely commenting on how the poll data cannot be considered accurate or true.

I'm reading because I'm very interested in what people have to say Odin and I like honesty. I read yours because I administer thousands of computers, users and net objects and have a vested interest in Apple and Microsoft (have stocks - however worthless now).

I tell you what, I'll post ten things I hate about Apple and you do the same for Vista and then I'll know you're being fair minded. Real, known and irritating flaws/bugs though, that need fixing/replacing in a Windows 7. I know at least ten for each - they aren't hard to miss.

What does this have to do with the poll? You're commenting on how Mac is a winner based on a poll with unverified and more than likely invalid data. Claiming Mac is a winner even when the poll currently shows PC's ahead by comparing the data to some statistic about how many Mac's are in the general population of the internet, and you have the audacity to even state the word mathematics in that post. That's what I was commenting on, and you seem to be ignoring that.

Also this is a Canon forum, which attracts mainly Canon users. There are plenty of Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc. users out there which I bet also use computers. For the purpose of saying which is a "winner" this poll is completely worthless. Attempting to draw conclusions from it is equally worthless.


Now a list of ten things I don't like about Vista? I'm not sure I could come up with that many, but I'll try.

1 - UAC. Extremely annoying, nanny-like crap. If I run a program, it should run, not ask me if I want to run it, or even worse make me put in a password to run it. I have disabled this though so it is a non-issue now.

2 - Networking - It's been changed up, and it's harder to navigate to get to some of the options I like. Also I have had it drop the net connection once and awhile which requires a reboot or rooting around a command prompt. I don't mind the command prompt, but I bet most would.

3 - Ctrl-Alt-Delete behavior - Instead of just bringing up the windows security dialog quickly, as in XP, it switches away from the desktop to a menu - it takes longer and is unnecessary. I just right click on the taksbar and click task manager now, or window key + type taskmgr.

4 - When right clicking in folders to sort the contents - I prefer to sort by type a lot of the time. Depending on the type of files in a folder, the sort by type option isn't there by default and I have to go add it. The only upside is that there are a ton more options for sorting files.

And that's all of the issues that I've run into that I recall. If there was anything else, it must have been too minor to remember.

MaxxuM
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 14:59
Where did I say that? I was merely commenting on how the poll data cannot be considered accurate or true.


That's how I read it. So what then is your answer to my original question?

What does this have to do with the poll? You're commenting on how Mac is a winner based on a poll with unverified and more than likely invalid data. Claiming Mac is a winner even when the poll currently shows PC's ahead by comparing the data to some statistic about how many Mac's are in the general population of the internet, and you have the audacity to even state the word mathematics in that post. That's what I was commenting on, and you seem to be ignoring that.

Also this is a Canon forum, which attracts mainly Canon users. There are plenty of Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc. users out there which I bet also use computers. For the purpose of saying which is a "winner" this poll is completely worthless. Attempting to draw conclusions from it is equally worthless.

Now a list of ten things I don't like about Vista? I'm not sure I could come up with that many, but I'll try.

1 - UAC. Extremely annoying, nanny-like crap. If I run a program, it should run, not ask me if I want to run it, or even worse make me put in a password to run it. I have disabled this though so it is a non-issue now.

2 - Networking - It's been changed up, and it's harder to navigate to get to some of the options I like. Also I have had it drop the net connection once and awhile which requires a reboot or rooting around a command prompt. I don't mind the command prompt, but I bet most would.

3 - Ctrl-Alt-Delete behavior - Instead of just bringing up the windows security dialog quickly, as in XP, it switches away from the desktop to a menu - it takes longer and is unnecessary. I just right click on the taksbar and click task manager now, or window key + type taskmgr.

4 - When right clicking in folders to sort the contents - I prefer to sort by type a lot of the time. Depending on the type of files in a folder, the sort by type option isn't there by default and I have to go add it. The only upside is that there are a ton more options for sorting files.

And that's all of the issues that I've run into that I recall. If there was anything else, it must have been too minor to remember.

That is actually only one real issue. 1, 3, and 4 are actually considered “features” by Microsoft. So, you have never had any of these issues:

I.Many of the options/settings are now 2-5 more steps than they were in XP. People were angry that everything became harder to accomplish in Vista.
II.Too many flavors and too expensive to boot. Gamers hated the licensing too because it limited how many times they could reinstall their OS.
III.People were upset that Aero took too much to run. The argument was why did Mac users have such a beautiful OS that could run on old computers and still not be resource intensive.
IV.Application support was spotty at best; there was a good chance that XP and earlier software would not work properly in Vista. For businesses this was a very big deal and they boycotted MS Vista for as long as they could.
V.My personal hate... the boot.ini is gone. It has become extremely complex to simple rearange boot options in Vista. It is well known that MS did this to hamper people from installing multiple OS's.
VI.Bloat. Vista is how many times larger than XP? The thing is so complex that even the programs don't know what's happening under the trunk anymore. That is why Vista was so hard to support – it had too many bugs!
VII. The OS had become so different that vendors took this opportunity to force people to upgrade their products. One of the most open about this was Creative Labs who stated they would intentionally not support all features of their older sound cards in Vista – to this day Creatives older sound card's still work with Beta drivers.

Oh, that's just the tip of a huge iceberg! Anyway, here are mine... but, I'll do what you did :)

1.OK Apple, what the hell is up with all those damn 'option' key combos? When did they come up with those hieroglyphics – those made it WAYYYY easier to figure out what key does what?
2.Networking: Far too complex for Apple machines to deal with Enterprise standard networks. Though admittedly, attaching an iPhone to a secure Enterprise (802.1X) is a bit harder.
3.No home or end keys... I love'em.
4.I want a defrag button in OS X. It may not help at all, but it would make my feel warm and fuzzy.

OdiN1701
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 15:17
That's how I read it. So what then is your answer to my original question?

What original question?

Colorblinded
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 15:25
I can come up with a long list of things I dislike about every OS I've used... but reading you two back and forth is hilarious.

MaxxuM
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 15:26
What original question?

Why do you post in threads you do not believe in (and are fervent about)? Also, as a side note while you thinking that one over, why not dispute or comment on all the points that I've made? I can only assume (and you know what they say about assuming) that I was either correct or you do not know the answer. Misdirection is a tool of politicians and should not be part of technology discussions.

MaxxuM
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 15:30
I can come up with a long list of things I dislike about every OS I've used... but reading you two back and forth is hilarious.

As can I... I've used UNIX, HP-UNIX, Windows, Mac OS, many flavors of Linux, all versions of MS's and I love/hate them all.

Truth is, this makes the day go by a little faster as I do my work. It is hard to argue with me on-topic because I love/hate both OS's being discussed here.

OdiN1701
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 15:55
Why do you post in threads you do not believe in (and are fervent about)? Also, as a side note while you thinking that one over, why not dispute or comment on all the points that I've made? I can only assume (and you know what they say about assuming) that I was either correct or you do not know the answer. Misdirection is a tool of politicians and should not be part of technology discussions.

Where did you ask that question, and why do you think I don't "believe" in a thread. There is nothing to "believe" in really - this is just a thread, not the second coming. Your question doesn't make sense. As far as I'm concerned I'm posting in a thread and offering my perspective, just as everyone else does that posts in a thread.

If you can't find where I've disputed your comments, you need to take an English class along with that stats class.

What you want me to comment on your comments about Vista? Sure thing.


I.Many of the options/settings are now 2-5 more steps than they were in XP. People were angry that everything became harder to accomplish in Vista.

I haven't noticed much harder to accomplish. Sure some things have moved around some, but I can get to the options/settings I need quickly enough now that I am familiar with the system. I did mention the networking is a bit lacking - organization of the pieces of it isn't great.

II.Too many flavors and too expensive to boot. Gamers hated the licensing too because it limited how many times they could reinstall their OS.

You're going to tell me that Vista is too expensive? Most people need only Vista Premium which starts at $99. Vista Ultimate is $180.

OS X is $110.

It's cheaper, but not tons. Also you have to pay a huge premium for the Apple hardware.

And you get to pay to purchase the service packs pretty much. Can you go from 10.5.1 to 10.5.4 for cheaper somehow? What is so much better in 10.5.4 over 10.5.1 that you have to pay for it again?

III.People were upset that Aero took too much to run. The argument was why did Mac users have such a beautiful OS that could run on old computers and still not be resource intensive.

I don't like the way Mac OS looks or operates so that's kinda moot. And Aero runs fine for me. But then again, I prefer the look of Windows 2000 and don't need extra graphical BS to work on a computer.

IV.Application support was spotty at best; there was a good chance that XP and earlier software would not work properly in Vista. For businesses this was a very big deal and they boycotted MS Vista for as long as they could.

All my software works. Even stuff that I've had since Win98. Your claim about XP-aged software not working in Vista is BS. Businesses still use Win2k. So what? Why should they spend the money if they don't need to? We use XP here. There is no reason to upgrade.

V.My personal hate... the boot.ini is gone. It has become extremely complex to simple rearange boot options in Vista. It is well known that MS did this to hamper people from installing multiple OS's.

I didn't even notice the boot.ini is gone. I have no use for multiple OS's, and if I did, I'd just virtualize it anyway.

VI.Bloat. Vista is how many times larger than XP? The thing is so complex that even the programs don't know what's happening under the trunk anymore. That is why Vista was so hard to support – it had too many bugs!

Software will always get larger. But I will agree they should look at paring things down. But hard to support? Too many bugs? Where are they? I haven't really run into much of anything.

VII. The OS had become so different that vendors took this opportunity to force people to upgrade their products. One of the most open about this was Creative Labs who stated they would intentionally not support all features of their older sound cards in Vista – to this day Creatives older sound card's still work with Beta drivers.

Vendors would jump at the excuse to do that anytime they could. More profits for them. Stating this about Creative is not going to help your case. Historically, Creative has been one of the most horrible companies when it comes to drivers and updating them, and actually having them available. They also do not make very good drivers when they do put them out.

Moppie
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 16:15
....... but reading you two back and forth is hilarious.


They are like an old married couple, they will be debating over who snores the loudest next. :lol::lol:

MaxxuM
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 16:15
You're too funny Odin - I don't mean to poke fun, but you should really go back read your and my posts and see all the points you posed, I countered then you ignored. Your modus operandi can be summed up by: Never happened to me, doesn't bother me, Vista is great.

I have some work to do now, I'll see ya later Odin.

MaxxuM
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 16:16
They are like an old married couple, they will be debating over who snores the loudest next. :lol::lol:

...:p...

OdiN1701
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 16:22
You're too funny Odin - I don't mean to poke fun, but you should really go back read your and my posts and see all the points you posed, I countered then you ignored. Your modus operandi can be summed up by: Never happened to me, doesn't bother me, Vista is great.

I have some work to do now, I'll see ya later Odin.

How should I be held responsible for your issues using Vista? It does work great for me :) If it doesn't for you, that has no relevance to how it works for me. If you are upset with it, don't use it. Works great for me, so I use it.

And I bet you do snore louder because I don't snore :p

And I'm still chuckling over your stats math ;)

Colorblinded
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 16:53
It is hard to argue with me on-topic because I love/hate both OS's being discussed here.
Basically the same for me. I'm relatively different although these days at the end of the day I am using Vista more and am perfectly happy with it.

One could go on endlessly about the faults, bugs and quirks of every OS because they all have them. That's why I always say it's far more important to use whichever you like most or are most comfortable with.

e.omega
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 21:29
I'm a PC (vaios) . :D This thread is going to last forever. It's all about personal preference.

MaxxuM
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 09:25
How should I be held responsible for your issues using Vista? It does work great for me :) If it doesn't for you, that has no relevance to how it works for me. If you are upset with it, don't use it. Works great for me, so I use it.

And I bet you do snore louder because I don't snore :p

And I'm still chuckling over your stats math ;)

It isn't that you do not have problems... It is that you wont admit that Vista has or had real and pervasive problems. If I didn' know better I would say you're on Microsoft's payroll ;)

Yes, I would definitely win in the snoring category then. :)

OdiN1701
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 10:15
It isn't that you do not have problems... It is that you wont admit that Vista has or had real and pervasive problems. If I didn' know better I would say you're on Microsoft's payroll ;)

So you want me to admit to having problems when I don't have problems? Hmmm...that makes sense.

MaxxuM
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 10:57
So you want me to admit to having problems when I don't have problems? Hmmm...that makes sense.

OK, let me go back and rewrite the post so there is no ambiguity in it. I know I now have to be extremely precise since you do not seem to possess the ability to read between the lines.

It isn't that you do not have problems (nope not talking about you am I)... It is that you wont admit that Vista (still not talking about you – just Vista as a whole – you know, the millions of other copies out there) has or had real and pervasive problems. If I didn't know better I would say you're on Microsoft's payroll (because you cannot admit Vista has or had any problems).

You just cannot find fault with Vista ([I]again, I will clarify so you cannot avoid the post by misdirecting attention from the real topic - you cannot even admit that 'other' people have problems with it) and to me that reeks of fanboyisum.

Just being honest.

OdiN1701
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 11:02
OK, let me go back and rewrite the post so there is no ambiguity in it. I know I now have to be extremely precise since you do not seem to possess the ability to read between the lines.

It isn't that you do not have problems (nope not talking about you am I)... It is that you wont admit that Vista (still not talking about you – just Vista as a whole – you know, the millions of other copies out there) has or had real and pervasive problems. If I didn't know better I would say you're on Microsoft's payroll (because you cannot admit Vista has or had any problems).

You just cannot find fault with Vista ([I]again, I will clarify so you cannot avoid the post by misdirecting attention from the real topic - you cannot even admit that 'other' people have problems with it) and to me that reeks of fanboyisum.

Just being honest.

Until I see real world evidence of an issue, then of course I'm not going to just accept it as fact.

I never said Vista doesn't have issues just as any other OS has issues. I am saying that it works well, and that any issues are minor and problems are blown out of proportion by either the press or people who don't understand what the actual issue is.

There is a difference between an OS having issues, but still being a good solid OS that works well and being a pile of crap. You seem to place it in the "pile of crap" category, which is what I don't agree with.

MaxxuM
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 12:22
Talking to you Odin is like talking to a wall. Here are some links (which you'll ignore), but maybe just maybe you'll see that Vista is not perfect. Here are some 'real world' issues for you.

Windows Vista Problems Still Deter Adoption
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289431,00.html
BadVista
http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista
Microsoft's Knowledge Base (more than a million problems and growing)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933305
Vista Drops Support for Hardware & Software
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/
They Criticized Vista. And They Should Know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/business/09digi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Windows Vista: Security Through Endless Warning Dialogs
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000571.html
Windows Vista no more secure than XP: report
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070530-windows-vista-no-more-secure-than-xp-report.html

I could go on and on and on.. I agree that there are little glitches and irritations in every OS, but COME ON, Vista is a nightmare of endless problems for millions of people out there!

Odin, I can see how a person that does not have to support thousands of Windows machines couldn't understand the daily chores and tribulations of dealing with Vista. I only have about 200 Vista machines to deal with an over 1000 XP's and guess what OS I have to deal with more often? Yep, Vista – dropping wireless certificates, corrupt profiles, security propagation problems, incompatibility with several critical education programs, extremely slow boot times on laptops, retraining staff...

Your 'real world' must be a nice place to live in Odin. Wish I lived there too, but I'm in the other world where Vista exists. As an MSDN member I see hundreds of posts a day (just in my area) about BSoD, security issues, patch problems, propagation problems, driver corruption...

OdiN1701
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 12:54
I missed the part where I said Vista was perfect.

Chris Pirillo is a tool, and a moron.

I like that second link....surely a site with "badvista" in the address isn't biased. Oh...yes it is, they are biased towards open source. Oh you don't "own" the OS, you just own a license to use it! Duh! That's how pretty much all software is sold. DRM? Uhm...there are no DRM issues really...yet. Could be a problem in the future. If you want to talk about DRM then look at iTunes - it's just as bad about it. Oh what's that? It's the recording industry that is pushing DRM on both Apple, Microsoft and others. They didn't start it. I haven't run into a program that I "wasn't allowed" to run. DRM is a typical thing that media outlets like to bring up and blow out of proportion and use to scare consumers.

MS's KB - well DUH there are issues in here. You want to take a look at Apple's support areas? Oh no! Problems there too! But the KB is not JUST issues - a lot of it is also how to do things that are more complex. That's why it's called a KNOWLEDGE base.

Support for hardware/software? It's fine if you don't have an ancient device that was introduced with Windows 98. And don't try to say you shouldn't have to buy new stuff because with Apple you don't upgrade you buy a whole new computer. Sure some things don't work - the most problems were with the initial release and due to hardware manufacturers not having drivers ready. Same thing happened with Win2k. The only reason it didn't with XP is because it was so similar to Win2k that it didn't take much to make drivers work under it, and if there weren't any XP drivers, a lot of times 2K drivers worked fine. There are plenty of stories out there (like your first link...from over a year ago) that complain about this. It's not really much of an issue these days. If you have old, proprietary hardware - make sure it works before you upgrade to a new OS. If the hardware vendor won't make drivers for it - that's not Microsofts nor Vistas fault.

Who even says you need to upgrade from XP? If your stuff works fine in XP, keep XP. But if you do an upgrade (any upgrade) you need to make sure what you have will work. Complaining that hardware/software doesn't work after an upgrade is like purchasing a new motherboard with a PCI Express slot and complaining your AGP video card didn't work in it. Of course it didn't work in it.

UAC/UAP - I already mentioned this is something I don't like. I turned it off. Now it's not an issue.

Did you even READ that last report on ARS? They aren't saying it's no better than XP - they are refuting an article by CRN that says it is. They list some of the conclusions and show why Vista is better over XP in some situations.

I don't see how Vista is such a "nightmare of endless problems" for people, yet I have no problems using it and it works well for me. My friend (who is not very tech savvy) has Vista on a laptop and he loves it. He hasn't asked me about any problems at all. Where's his endless issues?

I work in IT for a large financial services company. We have thousands of systems in branches all over the US and overseas. BUT no we do not use Vista. I agree it isn't ready for business use in a highly networked environment. Nor are most people familiar enough with it to use it for their daily jobs yet. I don't know why any IT department would install Vista on a business machine yet.

MaxxuM
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 13:15
I missed the part where I said Vista was perfect.

Chris Pirillo is a tool, and a moron.

I like that second link....surely a site with "badvista" in the address isn't biased. Oh...yes it is, they are biased towards open source. Oh you don't "own" the OS, you just own a license to use it! Duh! That's how pretty much all software is sold. DRM? Uhm...there are no DRM issues really...yet. Could be a problem in the future. If you want to talk about DRM then look at iTunes - it's just as bad about it. Oh what's that? It's the recording industry that is pushing DRM on both Apple, Microsoft and others. They didn't start it. I haven't run into a program that I "wasn't allowed" to run. DRM is a typical thing that media outlets like to bring up and blow out of proportion and use to scare consumers.

MS's KB - well DUH there are issues in here. You want to take a look at Apple's support areas? Oh no! Problems there too! But the KB is not JUST issues - a lot of it is also how to do things that are more complex. That's why it's called a KNOWLEDGE base.

Support for hardware/software? It's fine if you don't have an ancient device that was introduced with Windows 98. And don't try to say you shouldn't have to buy new stuff because with Apple you don't upgrade you buy a whole new computer. Sure some things don't work - the most problems were with the initial release and due to hardware manufacturers not having drivers ready. Same thing happened with Win2k. The only reason it didn't with XP is because it was so similar to Win2k that it didn't take much to make drivers work under it, and if there weren't any XP drivers, a lot of times 2K drivers worked fine. There are plenty of stories out there (like your first link...from over a year ago) that complain about this. It's not really much of an issue these days. If you have old, proprietary hardware - make sure it works before you upgrade to a new OS. If the hardware vendor won't make drivers for it - that's not Microsofts nor Vistas fault.

Who even says you need to upgrade from XP? If your stuff works fine in XP, keep XP. But if you do an upgrade (any upgrade) you need to make sure what you have will work. Complaining that hardware/software doesn't work after an upgrade is like purchasing a new motherboard with a PCI Express slot and complaining your AGP video card didn't work in it. Of course it didn't work in it.

UAC/UAP - I already mentioned this is something I don't like. I turned it off. Now it's not an issue.

Did you even READ that last report on ARS? They aren't saying it's no better than XP - they are refuting an article by CRN that says it is. They list some of the conclusions and show why Vista is better over XP in some situations.

I don't see how Vista is such a "nightmare of endless problems" for people, yet I have no problems using it and it works well for me. My friend (who is not very tech savvy) has Vista on a laptop and he loves it. He hasn't asked me about any problems at all. Where's his endless issues?

I work in IT for a large financial services company. We have thousands of systems in branches all over the US and overseas. BUT no we do not use Vista. I agree it isn't ready for business use in a highly networked environment. Nor are most people familiar enough with it to use it for their daily jobs yet. I don't know why any IT department would install Vista on a business machine yet.

Maybe because we have NO CHOICE. OK, maybe I should just use this thread to document all the issues I'm having. As I write this the Vista Sidebar just crashed on me while I was installing a patch (KB929637) that closes the Control Panel on a dozen or so of the Vista machines radndomly. Oh hey, we have one of those ancient programs from Lightspeed from three months before SP1 was released... Guess what, SP1 broke Lightspeed now I have to re-write the Logic script to uninstall it before the machine BSoD again.

Your talking like Vista is still in BETA. Sorry to say, but they had more than seven years to make it 'ready' and they failed. I would not wish Vista on any support group.

OdiN1701
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 13:29
How do you have no choice on what OS you put on your business systems?

MaxxuM
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 13:42
How do you have no choice on what OS you put on your business systems?

Ever here of E-Rate, Title I or FedFund? We have no choice - the State and Federal Government set the funding criteria. We get what we get and we get Vista from now on. I've tried to downgrade the computers and the state auditor's have said 'no'. Dozens of staff have asked for a downgrade to XP when Vista machines were BSoD all over the place 5-10 times a day before we found out Lightspeed was the reason the machines were crashing. Ghost didn't work with Vista either inically. Took Norton a year to come out with a stable product... but it still glitches; corrupting files on some of the images.

OdiN1701
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 13:59
Wonderful...yet another thing the Government screws up. They should be working WITH IT departments, not telling them "here deal with this". I can certainly understand your frustration.

I wish Norton's Ghost was better for Vista - I know with the new way Vista handles files it was very difficult initially to get any image to work properly. Have you tried the R-Tools version? http://www.drive-image.com/ Or True Image? http://www.acronis.com/

Lunajen
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 14:13
I use a PC but my hubby works for Dell..so PC only at our house. :)

I am not a pro but working on it...

MaxxuM
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 14:22
Wonderful...yet another thing the Government screws up. They should be working WITH IT departments, not telling them "here deal with this". I can certainly understand your frustration.

I wish Norton's Ghost was better for Vista - I know with the new way Vista handles files it was very difficult initially to get any image to work properly. Have you tried the R-Tools version? http://www.drive-image.com/ Or True Image? http://www.acronis.com/

No, I haven't tried either. Buying something new is a long tedious process of approvals, bids and so on. I fought going with CA for our 'turn key' network solutions but no one listened. Their bid was almost $50K less than everyone else... Two years later we dropped the contract due to 'issues' with their "Primer" style mobilization method.

Ghost is pretty stable now, but the problem is not the image's per say. Ghost uses byte-by-byte sector-by-sector imaging - the problem is Vista (though MS calls it a feature). Vista is far more sensitive to changes in its secure files. Any CRC/Hash differences can sometimes corrupt Vista because it either thinks it is being hacked or illegally duplicated. For instance, Norton recommends renaming a machine before you Ghost it so when the new machines have an image restored on them this new name will not interfere with Active Directory Security Audits. In short, machines that have been given an image can be mistaken as intruders on the network due to corrupted network ID's that appear similar to other machines. Sometimes you can just reattach a machine to the Domain other times every use on a machine is non-accessible because of the Domain security policy corruption. I have tried many tricks to get this to work more smoothly, with little luck.

Laptops are more sensitive to these issues because they have the added security of being wireless - security being Certificates which also become corrupt due to a machines unique net ID.

Put on top of these issues the normal day to day issues of Vista - which are many - and you have an OS that I both love and hate.

We used to operate Mac labs but they became too expensive for the goverment/state/city to pay for. And they, "Just Worked.". Sure, they had their share of failures, corruption, security issues... but imaging them was SO simple. One DVD and an image was on remote machines without me having to even go out and look at them. I could do an entire lab just sitting in my office and the next day the kids would wonder why all thier machies no longer had all thier music and videos on the desktops :)

MaxxuM
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 14:23
I use a PC but my hubby works for Dell..so PC only at our house. :)

I am not a pro but working on it...

Really? I have some friends at Round Rock. Which Dell site you at?

OdiN1701
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 14:30
I never had imaging issues with 2K/XP - I have deployed tons of server-to-workstation images for them.

Doesn't Vista have a way to get it ready for imaging like 2K/XP? Where you do the install, get everything how you want it, and then do sysprep? That would (on XP at least) re-do the ID's, etc. so that when put on a different system it wouldn't freak out - but it would have to do some extra post setup steps after the image, though those never took too long.

I suppose I should look into that because eventually I am sure I'll be doing Vista deployments. But probably not for a few more years. By then hopefully things will be settled for a business environment more.

Lunajen
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 14:34
Really? I have some friends at Round Rock. Which Dell site you at?

Nashville. He is on what used to the Gold Tech....

MaxxuM
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 14:51
I never had imaging issues with 2K/XP - I have deployed tons of server-to-workstation images for them.

Doesn't Vista have a way to get it ready for imaging like 2K/XP? Where you do the install, get everything how you want it, and then do sysprep? That would (on XP at least) re-do the ID's, etc. so that when put on a different system it wouldn't freak out - but it would have to do some extra post setup steps after the image, though those never took too long.

I suppose I should look into that because eventually I am sure I'll be doing Vista deployments. But probably not for a few more years. By then hopefully things will be settled for a business environment more.

Never had an issue with XP either. Very image has worked fine.

Yes, there are ways to prep Vista - most of them deal with deleting registry keys so when the new imaged machine first boots it will create a fresh key with a unique number, but it doesn't always work. Mind you, these issues are not game stoppers, just annoying. Like the Control Panel glitch. It was a total surprise and not in any errata at the time.

How about the issue with Vista and Cisco AP's not wanting to work together? Microsoft refused to give us a patch that would keep Vista laptops from dropping wireless connections with Cisco AP's. Eventually they made it available because Dell and Cisco came in on our side saying we just spent 6 million in equipment and actually wanted our laptops to 'work' wirelessly. Of course, our wireless doesn't work well. After the hoopla with Microsoft over the patch – they released it in SP1 for free.

Microsoft is no angle Odin, not by a long shot. Did you know that SP3 for XP contained many fixes that previously had to be purchased from them? If the problem did not have the potential to effect more than 100K users then they didn't release the patch for free – they made companies buy them.

Also, you know of all these new machines, laptops and desktops, every single one of them have booted up with critical errors on them already – at first boot! Dell packages all business machines with Google Taskbar and Google Desktop which implements their version of the Sidebar – it's trash. I don't even image them this way – start from scratch with a brand new install now. Businesses machines don't come with trialware like home computers do though – thank goodness for that.

I miss the days of XP.

OdiN1701
31st of October 2008 (Fri), 14:54
I would start from scratch with a home PC too. That's what I usually do when the time comes to buy a laptop. I get a Dell. Open it up, and format it.

I completely forgot about the sidebar in Vista. I don't like it and think it's worthless, so it doesn't run on my system. It's like those stupid addons for other MS OS's that add "widgets" and crap. Interesting for a bit, but really not useful to me.

incendy
1st of November 2008 (Sat), 11:32
PC for me. I tried to switch to Apple last year and was extremely dissapointed. It truly seems like you get much less for the same price while at the same time you lose so much compatibility in things as simple as surfing the web. For photography especially I would go with the PC and 64 bit Vista/Photoshop CS4 as you will want all the memory you can get. It will be cheaper and run faster. That is my two cents

MaxxuM
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 00:48
It truly seems like you get much less for the same price while at the same time you lose so much compatibility in things as simple as surfing the web.

What did you loose with the web? I use Firefox for Mac and haven't seen any difference besides the look of the browser.

For photography especially I would go with the PC and 64 bit Vista/Photoshop CS4 as you will want all the memory you can get. It will be cheaper and run faster. That is my two cents

64bit Windows Vista is about 10% faster than 32bit, but that is made up by 32bit's better management of memory (64bit requires more memory for the same tasks). CS4 64bit is slightly faster than CS4 32bit (8-10%) and then only in 'very large data files' - otherwise, little to no difference will be seen between them. The people most effected by this are professionals with $4,000+ Mac Pro's that will have to use Boot Camp if they want to work on very large files. How many people require more than 300,000 x 300,000 pixel (4GB TIFFs/2GB PSDs) images?

The largest PSD file I have ever worked with was 1GB - 305 layers and my CPU was struggling to render the image. My limiter was the CPU in this case (Q6600). To give you an example of a 1.7GB (flattened) image take a look at this link HERE (http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart_damen.htm). To get around the 2GB PSD limit, you can also make multiple files and then combine them - this also helps with consumer PC's which have trouble rendering very large files.

I'm willing to bet no one on this forum has ever been hampered by the 2GB PSD file size limit just editing photos! (Forum thread saying "I hit CS3's file size limit" are not exactly common) The people that would be are artists that are rendering thier own scene's or working with extremely large layers - and then, if so, they'll need to do it in multiple files because thier computers are going to become very bogged down.

Laptops will not be able to handle PSDs larger than 2GB unless you're willing to wait minutes between renders/filters and then only laptops with true non-moble CPUs. Continuos tone files can be very taxing and most laptops will strugle with such images over 500MB much less over 2GBs. Add to that the fact that most of us will not require images anywhere near CS3's limits because we have no way of printing such files to thier full size.

To put it in an analogy, it's nice to have a car that can go 200mph - but most of us will never go past 80mph and 90% of the time we will average only 45mph. Oh, but we love to 'say' we can go 200 when we want to (insert Tim Allen's bark hear) :cool:

(PS I know someone is going to say they constantly hit CS3's limits; and those are the people that CS4 was made for. For the other 99% of us, CS4 is only going to add a few tools to our pallet.)

Meaty0
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 01:10
I think it's a viable question... Any truck can haul cargo, but there are preferences for different jobs around the country. Most of the news paper and event photographers I know all use Mac's. However, of the two papers I work for I only see PCs in the accounting offices. I think there is a reason for that that doesn't have anything to do with elitism or fanboyism. .....

I just started reading this thread and came across this. Now I looked up my Scrabble dictionary and "fanboyism" isn't in it...but I like it so much, I wrote it in anyway! Gotta be worth at least 50 on a triple word score. I shall quote Maxxum as my source.bw!


It's not supposed to be a mac versus pc thread. I would just like to see
what forum members here (who are pro photographers) are using.
That's all...

I've met lots of photographers through the camera club now and it seems that professional photographers who regard their computer as a way of getting the job done, use a Mac. Those photographers who have an interest in computers as well, seem to use a PC. I don't see much difference in the end product though.

MaxxuM
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 01:20
I just started reading this thread and came across this. Now I looked up my Scrabble dictionary and "fanboyism" isn't in it...but I like it so much, I wrote it in anyway! Gotta be worth at least 50 on a triple word score. I shall quote Maxxum as my source.bw!

lol... that's a first for me. ;) I'm not sure I'm qualified as a good dictionary source.

Meaty0
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 01:40
lol... that's a first for me. ;) I'm not sure I'm qualified as a good dictionary source.

Shhhh! My opponents will never know.;)

Meaty0
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 01:42
....oh and just an off-topic question. Does anybody in this thread know which mainboard Apple use in the Mac Pro desktop?

Tony-S
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 09:59
Mac logic boards are engineered by Apple and the rumor is that Asus is the contractor that manufactures them. The Mac Pro is based on the Intel 5000x chipset.

incendy
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 13:43
What did you loose with the web? I use Firefox for Mac and haven't seen any difference besides the look of the browser.



64bit Windows Vista is about 10% faster than 32bit, but that is made up by 32bit's better management of memory (64bit requires more memory for the same tasks). CS4 64bit is slightly faster than CS4 32bit (8-10%) and then only in 'very large data files' - otherwise, little to no difference will be seen between them. The people most effected by this are professionals with $4,000+ Mac Pro's that will have to use Boot Camp if they want to work on very large files. How many people require more than 300,000 x 300,000 pixel (4GB TIFFs/2GB PSDs) images?

The largest PSD file I have ever worked with was 1GB - 305 layers and my CPU was struggling to render the image. My limiter was the CPU in this case (Q6600). To give you an example of a 1.7GB (flattened) image take a look at this link HERE (http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/text/fineart_damen.htm). To get around the 2GB PSD limit, you can also make multiple files and then combine them - this also helps with consumer PC's which have trouble rendering very large files.

I'm willing to bet no one on this forum has ever been hampered by the 2GB PSD file size limit just editing photos! (Forum thread saying "I hit CS3's file size limit" are not exactly common) The people that would be are artists that are rendering thier own scene's or working with extremely large layers - and then, if so, they'll need to do it in multiple files because thier computers are going to become very bogged down.

Laptops will not be able to handle PSDs larger than 2GB unless you're willing to wait minutes between renders/filters and then only laptops with true non-moble CPUs. Continuos tone files can be very taxing and most laptops will strugle with such images over 500MB much less over 2GBs. Add to that the fact that most of us will not require images anywhere near CS3's limits because we have no way of printing such files to thier full size.

To put it in an analogy, it's nice to have a car that can go 200mph - but most of us will never go past 80mph and 90% of the time we will average only 45mph. Oh, but we love to 'say' we can go 200 when we want to (insert Tim Allen's bark hear) :cool:

(PS I know someone is going to say they constantly hit CS3's limits; and those are the people that CS4 was made for. For the other 99% of us, CS4 is only going to add a few tools to our pallet.)


A lot of websites are built for IE, especially business specific web sites. In my line of work I see it a lot as I get some of the calls with complaints. I have never had someone call and say they had issues with IE7 but we get daily calls with issues with Firefox and Safari running on OSX.

As for 64bit, 10% is huge! I would upgrade any software for a 10% advantage. And I might not hit 2GB on a PSD file too often but very often I will have 40 or 50 files open at the same time spanned across many monitors. My work machine has 8GB of memory and I use it up often. Do I have to? No but it sure makes it more convenient to be able to.

incendy
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 13:58
Never had an issue with XP either. Very image has worked fine.

Yes, there are ways to prep Vista - most of them deal with deleting registry keys so when the new imaged machine first boots it will create a fresh key with a unique number, but it doesn't always work. Mind you, these issues are not game stoppers, just annoying. Like the Control Panel glitch. It was a total surprise and not in any errata at the time.

How about the issue with Vista and Cisco AP's not wanting to work together? Microsoft refused to give us a patch that would keep Vista laptops from dropping wireless connections with Cisco AP's. Eventually they made it available because Dell and Cisco came in on our side saying we just spent 6 million in equipment and actually wanted our laptops to 'work' wirelessly. Of course, our wireless doesn't work well. After the hoopla with Microsoft over the patch – they released it in SP1 for free.

Microsoft is no angle Odin, not by a long shot. Did you know that SP3 for XP contained many fixes that previously had to be purchased from them? If the problem did not have the potential to effect more than 100K users then they didn't release the patch for free – they made companies buy them.

Also, you know of all these new machines, laptops and desktops, every single one of them have booted up with critical errors on them already – at first boot! Dell packages all business machines with Google Taskbar and Google Desktop which implements their version of the Sidebar – it's trash. I don't even image them this way – start from scratch with a brand new install now. Businesses machines don't come with trialware like home computers do though – thank goodness for that.

I miss the days of XP.

Vista comes as a WIM image so any time you install it is from an image. As for modifying and distributing it you only need one image for all hardware where XP needs a seperate image for each hardware profile. I find the best way to Image Vista is to create a base image by dragging it from the Vista Disk and then inject it with all the drivers for every device as long as you don't have more than 15 or so unique hardware profiles and then deploy the applications through MSI's by putting them in OU's. This can all be done through one image on the network or a single usb drive which is awesome and requires not a single touch after you choose your boot device as network or USB.

As for the Cisco AP's I have never had an issue with them using Vista and in fact it is one of my favorite features. We use WPA2 with IAS and don't have to do anything besides push one profile to all of our users through a group policy which they get automatically

disorder
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 15:20
I am at a fork in the road. I have used PC's all of my life, and now I am debating the switch to a Mac (laptop is about 3 years old).

It'll be a tough call...

My question is... I know you can get more "bang" for your buck going the PC route, however, which platform uses that horespower more efficiently? Meaning, although you can buy a "faster" PC on paper, dollar for dollar, does it actually translate into faster performance?

Tony-S
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 15:21
A lot of websites are built for IE, especially business specific web sites. In my line of work I see it a lot as I get some of the calls with complaints. I have never had someone call and say they had issues with IE7 but we get daily calls with issues with Firefox and Safari running on OSX.

And in almost every instance it's because the web server software is not compliant with the standards. Don't blame FF or Safari - blame the use of inadequate web server software. With Safari, the only time I get errors is when Microsoft's web server is running. This last happened to me almost a year ago, when I tried to purchase an airline ticked from Kenyan Airways. Their contracted web host for billing used MS's web sever software. So the reality of it is, it's only a problem for me once a year or so. Not much of a problem.

Tony-S
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 15:30
Meaning, although you can buy a "faster" PC on paper, dollar for dollar, does it actually translate into faster performance?

Geekbench gave my MBP a scored a 3067 with OS X, but if I boot directly into Win XP SP2 (i.e., Boot Camp) it was 2703. Same machine, but substantially different scores. I don't know all the details on geekbench, but it's supposed to test your computer for a variety of tasks.

Colorblinded
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 15:41
I haven't had a chance to test geekbench myself, but on the same hardware or on basically similar specs between two different computers, I've not noticed differences in performance that geekbench claims to in the applications I use on operations I've timed.

incendy
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 17:10
And in almost every instance it's because the web server software is not compliant with the standards. Don't blame FF or Safari - blame the use of inadequate web server software. With Safari, the only time I get errors is when Microsoft's web server is running. This last happened to me almost a year ago, when I tried to purchase an airline ticked from Kenyan Airways. Their contracted web host for billing used MS's web sever software. So the reality of it is, it's only a problem for me once a year or so. Not much of a problem.

Web server software happens on the backend and is then rendered to the client so it having much of anything to do with your issues is almost none. It might be that the developer may have written a program that rendered content your browser could not interpret but that has nothing to do with the actual server software.

The biggest issue for Safari is companies like Adobe, Sun, Microsoft and others that create controls that are plugged into browsers all follow the same practice of making sure IE compatibility and performance is priority number 1. That isn't going to change any time soon because the market will not let it.

Client side script not server side is where you normally have issues with your browser because your browser is responsible for running the code on the page and not the server. Examples of this are Javascript and ActiveX plug ins like Flash, Silverlight, Authorware, JavaVM etc.

incendy
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 17:17
Geekbench gave my MBP a scored a 3067 with OS X, but if I boot directly into Win XP SP2 (i.e., Boot Camp) it was 2703. Same machine, but substantially different scores. I don't know all the details on geekbench, but it's supposed to test your computer for a variety of tasks.

This has more to do with bad drivers and not the actual hardware. Bootcamp's drivers are some of the worst you will ever find from a PC manufacturer not named Creative Labs.

PC's always get the newest and best hardware first, Apple finally made the move to the standard processor architecture so more hardware manufacturers would be able to support their OS but because of their propriatery makeup it still seems to always be a big step behind while still having a higher price tag.

This design also confines you when it come time to upgrade because on a PC you have thousands of options but on an Apple you are limited to a small number of options or none at all.

Bobster
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 18:05
I'm willing to bet no one on this forum has ever been hampered by the 2GB PSD file size limit just editing photos!
i get close with 1.5GB files - 30x20" @ 300ppi 16bit, the reason i went 64bit - 2GB of RAM just didn't cut it for me speed wise, if i wanted to run a filter and not run out of RAM, i'd have to restart the computer, close a load of utilities and drivers down, then give Photoshop all i could, then i was lucky to get a smart sharpen filter out of it without it telling me it had run out of RAM!

Colorblinded
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 18:11
I've hit the wall myself at 2GB before. Particularly when I've done panormas or other complex work. With the 5D2 files coming in at 120MB roughly (oh boy, back like when I scanned film) I know I will be hitting that wall much more often before long.

Tony-S
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 21:11
Web server software happens on the backend and is then rendered to the client so it having much of anything to do with your issues is almost none.

Despite all that, your assertion that you get daily "problem" calls from Mac users is pretty much irrelevant to the great majority of Mac users - as I said, it happens to me perhaps once a year.

This has more to do with bad drivers and not the actual hardware. Bootcamp's drivers are some of the worst you will ever find from a PC manufacturer not named Creative Labs.

You can search geekbench by processor (e.g., T9600) and you'll invariably see that Macs with those processors usually have a higher average score than PCs with the same processor. Again, I don't know the details of geekbench, but that's what it is.

In the end, as always, what matters most is which platform suits the user the best.

Colorblinded
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 21:16
You can search geekbench by processor (e.g., T9600) and you'll invariably see that Macs with those processors usually have a higher average score than PCs with the same processor. Again, I don't know the details of geekbench, but that's what it is.
That's the problem with relying on a benchmark like that. If you can't tell us what it is and if it's a reliable comparator of different platforms, than it's only reliable at most for comparing between systems running the same OS and even that might not be fair depending on the compatibility with drivers or hardware on that configuration.

The best way to test for us would be to take certain tasks we might perform and run them on each system and see how each performs. So for example if we chose a few programs that ran on each system (still not terribly fair depending on how well they built each program for each OS) we could compare a standard set of operations on each program. For instance we might use Photoshop filters, RAW conversion and some other things. Might try RAW conversion with other software like DPP or Capture One as well.

Posting the results from one benchmark alone IMO provides no real useful information. Maybe that's a good benchmark, I just don't know. I certainly don't know anyone who has ever used it personally.

MaxxuM
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 21:34
That's the problem with relying on a benchmark like that. If you can't tell us what it is and if it's a reliable comparator of different platforms, than it's only reliable at most for comparing between systems running the same OS and even that might not be fair depending on the compatibility with drivers or hardware on that configuration.

The best way to test for us would be to take certain tasks we might perform and run them on each system and see how each performs. So for example if we chose a few programs that ran on each system (still not terribly fair depending on how well they built each program for each OS) we could compare a standard set of operations on each program. For instance we might use Photoshop filters, RAW conversion and some other things. Might try RAW conversion with other software like DPP or Capture One as well.

Posting the results from one benchmark alone IMO provides no real useful information. Maybe that's a good benchmark, I just don't know. I certainly don't know anyone who has ever used it personally.

Add to that people that overclock/tweak their computers to perform better in benchmarks. In the sticky above where people post their benchmarks I didn't modify my software but did overclock my system (didn't mod Photoshop or OS) and I scored worse than people with slower CPUs.

I have been using CS4 now for a couple of days and though I like it, it isn't much of a leap forward (on Mac). And more importatnly, I haven't seen a speed increase, yet.

MaxxuM
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 21:55
A lot of websites are built for IE, especially business specific web sites. In my line of work I see it a lot as I get some of the calls with complaints. I have never had someone call and say they had issues with IE7 but we get daily calls with issues with Firefox and Safari running on OSX.

As for 64bit, 10% is huge! I would upgrade any software for a 10% advantage. And I might not hit 2GB on a PSD file too often but very often I will have 40 or 50 files open at the same time spanned across many monitors. My work machine has 8GB of memory and I use it up often. Do I have to? No but it sure makes it more convenient to be able to.

It used to be in the old days that sites were usually tuned to one browser over the other and IE usually were more prominent. It's rare these days though and usually it is because of some specific need usually based in VB (Visual Basic). Intranetworks based on Active Directory are also not friendly to Firefox either. It's true, IE is more favored, but only in specialized situations.

The time of the one browser to rule them all is a thing of the past though and sites are all trying to become more compliant with net standards. Sites that only fully work on IE are not complaint.

If there are sites that only work in IE for which you require, I guarantee they will be moving to a more compliant standard in the near future. A big holdout was Netflix and it was not due specifically to IE but their proprietary streaming app which was not Mac friendly. That is changing.

incendy
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 22:00
Despite all that, your assertion that you get daily "problem" calls from Mac users is pretty much irrelevant to the great majority of Mac users - as I said, it happens to me perhaps once a year.



You can search geekbench by processor (e.g., T9600) and you'll invariably see that Macs with those processors usually have a higher average score than PCs with the same processor. Again, I don't know the details of geekbench, but that's what it is.

In the end, as always, what matters most is which platform suits the user the best.

I agree with your last line, but I also believe that a user should be educated before they make that decision. Personally I feel people should be aware that there is far more compatible software whether on the web or stand alone applications and hardware for PC's than there is for Apple based computers. There is also more competion in the PC market which leads to much better prices.

As for benchmarks it is all dependant on your setup, you could build 5 different PC's with the same processor all of which the performance would greatly differ. If you look at the top 5 of the benchmarks on that site you will notice there are no macs with 3 Windows based PC's and 2 Solaris.

incendy
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 22:07
It used to be in the old days that sites were usually tuned to one browser over the other and IE usually were more prominent. It's rare these days though and usually it is because of some specific need usually based in VB (Visual Basic). Intranetworks based on Active Directory are also not friendly to Firefox either. It's true, IE is more favored, but only in specialized situations.

The time of the one browser to rule them all is a thing of the past though and sites are all trying to become more compliant with net standards. Sites that only fully work on IE are not complaint.

If there are sites that only work in IE for which you require, I guarantee they will be moving to a more compliant standard in the near future. A big holdout was Netflix and it was not due specifically to IE but their proprietary streaming app which was not Mac friendly. That is changing.

I agree it is getting there but it still isn't there yet and IE is still the platform used by most developers as their primary target because of the larger userbase. This will not change anytime soon, it is simply a matter of numbers.

MaxxuM
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 22:54
I agree with your last line, but I also believe that a user should be educated before they make that decision. Personally I feel people should be aware that there is far more compatible software whether on the web or stand alone applications and hardware for PC's than there is for Apple based computers. There is also more competion in the PC market which leads to much better prices.

As for benchmarks it is all dependant on your setup, you could build 5 different PC's with the same processor all of which the performance would greatly differ. If you look at the top 5 of the benchmarks on that site you will notice there are no macs with 3 Windows based PC's and 2 Solaris.

You'll also find that the top scorers were overclocking - Mac's are not designed to do so. That's like saying I have a Ford Focus and you have a Ford Focus that has specialized high performance equipment that voided the warranty and brag that it runs faster than my stock Ford. You may be fine with voiding warranty's, lapping cpu's/hs, water cooling, specialized motherboards and so on - but the vast majority of users are not.

And I disagree about the 'build 5 different PC's with the same processor..." statement. If you build 5 machines with the same equipment/OS and you're getting vastly different benchmarks you have some defective PCs. Sure, different memory speed and motherboards can change benchmarks, but very rarely over 1-3%. Tom's Hardware continuously tests different memory/motherboard combo's and there is usually only very tiny diffrences (akin to pixel peeping maybe?).

incendy
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 23:12
You'll also find that the top scorers were overclocking - Mac's are not designed to do so. That's like saying I have a Ford Focus and you have a Ford Focus that has specialized high performance equipment that voided the warranty and brag that it runs faster than my stock Ford. You may be fine with voiding warranty's, lapping cpu's/hs, water cooling, specialized motherboards and so on - but the vast majority of users are not.

And I disagree about the 'build 5 different PC's with the same processor..." statement. If you build 5 machines with the same equipment/OS and you're getting vastly different benchmarks you have some defective PCs. Sure, different memory speed and motherboards can change benchmarks, but very rarely over 1-3%. Tom's Hardware continuously tests different memory/motherboard combo's and there is usually only very tiny diffrences (akin to pixel peeping maybe?).

You can dissagree all you want but it is true. Motherboards, RAM, Video Cards, HDD's all have an impact on the computers speed and changes for each application based on how it is programmed. CPU is just one component in the Mix although granted a very important one but all those other components can be bottlenecks in any application.