conversion PC to Mac

[Dean Humphrey]

I hope this hasn't been over ask.

If I converted from my PC to a Mac, I know I would have to get the Mac version of CS3 or 4 but will Mac recognise and accept all my photo files I have now, and my Music files?

Also I have an HP laptop can it and the make share files on my home network or do HAVE to get the MacBook to?

Thanks

[HankScorpio]

As far as file formats go, Macs can read everything that PCs can except for some DRM encryption of WMV video files. If you have any non-DRM windows specific .WMA music files then iTunes will play them (using a mac version of Windows Media player) or for a better solution look up EasyWMA which will rip them to MP3.

Adobe will also allow you to convert any Windows licence for PS to a Mac one.

Macs and PCs play well together on networks.

Why would you convert to Mac though? This isn't a PCs are better than Macs remark, it's just that there is pretty much no difference between the two except for the OS and in that respect, neither has the edge over the other. I couldn't think of any reason to switch from either to either. Well except for CS4 under Windows supporting 64bit.

[DunnoWhen]

I hope this hasn't been over ask.

If I converted from my PC to a Mac, I know I would have to get the Mac version of CS3 or 4 but will Mac recognise and accept all my photo files I have now, and my Music files?

Also I have an HP laptop can it and the make share files on my home network or do HAVE to get the MacBook to?

Thanks

I have my HP Compaq NX6100 and my MacBookPro connected wirelessly. I am frequently moving and/or referencing my .cr2, .jpg, .psd and mp3s files across the network without problem.

[Dean Humphrey]

As far as file formats go, Macs can read everything that PCs can except for some DRM encryption of WMV video files. If you have any non-DRM windows specific .WMA music files then iTunes will play them (using a mac version of Windows Media player) or for a better solution look up EasyWMA which will rip them to MP3.

Adobe will also allow you to convert any Windows licence for PS to a Mac one.

Macs and PCs play well together on networks.

Why would you convert to Mac though? This isn't a PCs are better than Macs remark, it's just that there is pretty much no difference between the two except for the OS and in that respect, neither has the edge over the other. I couldn't think of any reason to switch from either to either. Well except for CS4 under Windows supporting 64bit.
Obviouly I've never owned a Mac so I do not know all the little quirks they may have, but I do know I prefer the old XP over the Windows Vista I have on my laptop. I like the way files and folders are handled better in XP. The higher price of the Mac's is a definite sticking point for me however. For the price of a PM with 1 TB of storage and QUAD processor and 8 Gigs of ram, the Mac will have 250 gig HD 2 gigs of ram and as I recall a 2 core processor. So there is a lot to consider.

[HankScorpio]

........, but I do know I prefer the old XP over the Windows Vista I have on my laptop. I like the way files and folders are handled better in XP..........
Really? I don't miss XP at all. Vista had a few problems to start with, mostly due to harware manufacturers dragging their feet with drivers but now I'm running 64bit Vista with SP1, I'd never go back.

We use Macs at work (I have for my entire career) but there has been talk of switching to PCs because of the price and ease of upgrading/repairing and I can honestly say that it wouldn't bother me either way, they both do the same thing.

[Dean Humphrey]

Really? I don't miss XP at all. Vista had a few problems to start with, mostly due to harware manufacturers dragging their feet with drivers but now I'm running 64bit Vista with SP1, I'd never go back.

We use Macs at work (I have for my entire career) but there has been talk of switching to PCs because of the price and ease of upgrading/repairing and I can honestly say that it wouldn't bother me either way, they both do the same thing.
Good points, I appreciate you answers, especially since you work with both. Is it true the Mac operating system takes up much less HD space than Windows?

[Tony-S]

My MBP's OS takes up 4.33 gb of hard drive space.

[HankScorpio]

Is it true the Mac operating system takes up much less HD space than Windows?
With the default installations, yes but if you configure both to install exactly the same set of tools and applications then they are very close. Windows tends to dump everything on you whether you want it or not whereas OS X defaults to the things you're most likely to need but you can also set it to dump everything onto your HD and it gets pretty big.

OS X seems to be able to do more with less RAM than windows but then I've noticed that when you do have lots of RAM (work Macs have 8GB and my home PC has 12GB) then Windows seems to manage allocating it between several running applications better than the Mac. At work, Illustrator often whines that it's running low on memory despite PS sitting idle and not needing all the RAM it's had given to it.

[MaxxuM]

Why would you convert to Mac though? This isn't a PCs are better than Macs remark, it's just that there is pretty much no difference between the two except for the OS and in that respect, neither has the edge over the other. I couldn't think of any reason to switch from either to either. Well except for CS4 under Windows supporting 64bit.

Since you asked and it is relavent to this thread, I'll toss in some reasons why.

1 - Simple and eloquent. OS X is just so easy to use.
2 - Simple - yet extremely powerful. Mac OS X Leopard is based on UNIX, an OS that dominates global professional applications (Leopard is now an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product).
3 - Stable - OS X is considered more stable than Windows of any type due to how it is programed. Though crashes do occur, they are rare and seldom take down the entire computer.
4 - Customer satisfaction and support are highest among computer companies. People are more satisfied with Mac's in general and Apple Care is rated highest among all computer manufactures (source Consumer Reports).
5 - Top choice of Video Professionals - Final Cut Studio is at the top of the heap. Final Cut is only on Mac.
6 - Mac's traditionally have dominated the photography and graphics markets.
7 - Far fewer Viruses, Trojans, Malware, and general badness on OS X.
8 - OS X does not require defraging - OS X does it by design.
9 - Out of the box and ready to go! OS X has everything you'll need to get started.
10 - A Mac can do everything a PC can now with BootCamp or VMWare, but the opposite is not true (Windows cannot run OS X).
11 - Mac's retain their value far better than PCs.
12 - Often imitated but never outdone. HP, Dell, Sony, Gateway and Microsoft often imitate Apple yet never quite get it right. All said companies have increased their anti-Apple marketing due to Apple's growing market share.
13 - Did I mention, they're gorgeous, inside and out?

If you didn't care, why even mention it? A change now and again isn't a bad thing - in fact, it works your brain and makes ya smarter :)

Think different. :)

[Dean Humphrey]

Since you asked and it is relavent to this thread, I'll toss in some reasons why.

1 - Simple and eloquent. OS X is just so easy to use.
2 - Simple - yet extremely powerful. Mac OS X Leopard is based on UNIX, an OS that dominates global professional applications (Leopard is now an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product).
3 - Stable - OS X is considered more stable than Windows of any type due to how it is programed. Though crashes do occur, they are rare and seldom take down the entire computer.
4 - Customer satisfaction and support are highest among computer companies. People are more satisfied with Mac's in general and Apple Care is rated highest among all computer manufactures (source Consumer Reports).
5 - Top choice of Video Professionals - Final Cut Studio is at the top of the heap. Final Cut is only on Mac.
6 - Mac's traditionally have dominated the photography and graphics markets.
7 - Far fewer Viruses, Trojans, Malware, and general badness on OS X.
8 - OS X does not require defraging - OS X does it by design.
9 - Out of the box and ready to go! OS X has everything you'll need to get started.
10 - A Mac can do everything a PC can now with BootCamp or VMWare, but the opposite is not true (Windows cannot run OS X).
11 - Mac's retain their value far better than PCs.
12 - Often imitated but never outdone. HP, Dell, Sony, Gateway and Microsoft often imitate Apple yet never quite get it right. All said companies have increased their anti-Apple marketing due to Apple's growing market share.
13 - Did I mention, they're gorgeous, inside and out?

If you didn't care, why even mention it? A change now and again isn't a bad thing - in fact, it works your brain and makes ya smarter :)

Think different. :)

All good points that some had already been contimplated but not state. I appreciate you breaking it down.
Thanks

[Dean Humphrey]

I think it fair to tell you all that my attitide is a little squed right now. I just bought a new DELL Sunday and a HD crashed on Tuesday. It was everything I wanted, 1.2 Gigs of storage QUAD Intel processors, 8 gigs of ram, and Vista 64. Plus my laptop with Vista that I'm less than excited about.

[HankScorpio]

OK, I really don't want a Mac v PC debate because there is never a winner but some of your points are purely a personal opinion with no factual basis.

1 - Simple and eloquent. OS X is just so easy to use.
As is Windows or Linux or any modern OS.

3 - Stable - OS X is considered more stable than Windows of any type due to how it is programed. Though crashes do occur, they are rare and seldom take down the entire computer.
One of the main reason we are looking at switching to PC at work is that recent versions of OS X, especially on Intel Hardware have become more unstable than they used to be. Vista and OS X are about even now.

4 - Customer satisfaction and support are highest among computer companies. People are more satisfied with Mac's in general and Apple Care is rated highest among all computer manufactures (source Consumer Reports).
Having worked with and owned Macs, I can say that Apple can be as good or as bad as any company, they certainly are no angels and are often very slow to recognise faults in their systems.

6 - Mac's traditionally have dominated the photography and graphics markets.
Only because they got there first. I work for one of the biggest repro houses in the UK and if they are not only thinking about going PC but actually have some in the building for testing then the Mac may lose it's crown soon.
7 - Far fewer Viruses, Trojans, Malware, and general badness on OS X.
I'll give you that one but as Windows gets ever more secure and Macs get more users, virus writing scumbags will eventually target Macs and as most Mac fanboys believe in their security so much, they'll probably not have any protection and get caught with their pants down when it happens.
8 - OS X does not require defraging - OS X does it by design.
Yes it does, not a lot but all file systems become fragmented, it's impossible to avoid. Windows running NTFS file systems hardly get fragmented at all either and Windows defrags on the fly too.
9 - Out of the box and ready to go! OS X has everything you'll need to get started.
No, OS X comes with nothing but Apple ship iLife with it. MS tried to include things with Windows and everybody sued claiming they were harming competition. How come Apple gets away with it?

10 ..........(Windows cannot run OS X).
Yes they can (http://uneasysilence.com/os-x-proven-hacked-and-running-on-an-ordinary-pc/) but Apple make it hard to do because if it were simple, nobody would pay over the odds for what is just a PC in an aluminium box.
11 - Mac's retain their value far better than PCs.Not really, we sell off our old Macs and old office PCs at work and they both drop about the same. Old tech is old tech, with brand new cutting edge stuff coming out every few months, nobody pays good money for old things.

12 - Often imitated but never outdone. HP, Dell, Sony, Gateway and Microsoft often imitate Apple yet never quite get it right. All said companies have increased their anti-Apple marketing due to Apple's growing market share.
OK, now you're just being silly.

13 - Did I mention, they're gorgeous, inside and out?The old Blue and White G3s and Graphite G4s were pretty, the new Aluminium ones are boring and most PC manufacturers make nicer looking boxes.

If you didn't care, why even mention it? A change now and again isn't a bad thing - in fact, it works your brain and makes ya smarter :)

Think different. :)
Because sometimes people get talked into crossing over to the greener grass only to find that it's exactly the same shade of green but the journey cost them money and as I use and actually love both, I thought I'd share the fact that ultimately, despite a few minor fluffy things around the edges, there is no difference.

[kini]

pretty much no difference between the two except for the OS and in that respect, neither has the edge over the other.

Hmmmmm, I guess that's true other than the fact the Vista just plain SUCKS! Buggy beyond belief, holes bigger than the one in the ozone layer, a UAC scheme that can't be fully shut down, a registry with more lines of code than there are people on earth, some of the code is actually older than anyone on earth as well.

I know about an equal number of peeps using both Vista and OSX- everyone using Vista has had at least on serious issue, most more than one. None of the OSX users has had a single issue, not even a minor one.

Sure super small sample, but I think, based on internet reports it's par for the course.

Snow Leopard will make the difference even greater. OSX is getting faster, Vista is just getting bigger and more bloated and slower (if that's even possible).

I'm currently using a 4yo PC with Xp. Now that M$ has screwed my system with it's last round of updates I will be going Mac sooner than I expected. I'll gladly pay the extra.

Gene

[TheHoff]

Adobe will also allow you to convert any Windows licence for PS to a Mac one.

I believe this is only true if you own the current version. I had CS3 for PC but was told to buy an upgrade to CS4 for OSX since it was now current (they sent me a full Mac version for the price of the upgrade).

[HankScorpio]

Hmmmmm, I guess that's true other than the fact the Vista just plain SUCKS! Buggy beyond belief, holes bigger than the one in the ozone layer, a UAC scheme that can't be fully shut down, a registry with more lines of code than there are people on earth, some of the code is actually older than anyone on earth as well.

I know about an equal number of peeps using both Vista and OSX- everyone using Vista has had at least on serious issue, most more than one. None of the OSX users has had a single issue, not even a minor one.

Sure super small sample, but I think, based on internet reports it's par for the course.

Snow Leopard will make the difference even greater. OSX is getting faster, Vista is just getting bigger and more bloated and slower (if that's even possible).

I'm currently using a 4yo PC with Xp. Now that M$ has screwed my system with it's last round of updates I will be going Mac sooner than I expected. I'll gladly pay the extra.

Gene
Okaaaaaaay

*steps away from the angry man*

[MaxxuM]

OK, I really don't want a Mac v PC debate because there is never a winner but some of your points are purely a personal opinion with no factual basis.

Oh, yes you do. Just posting that long post proves it – no shame in it either :) And, everything I stated was absolutely true, proven and can all be proven either by common sense or a reliable source.

1 - As is Windows or Linux or any modern OS.

I said ‘simple and eloquent’. There is nothing simple or eloquent to Windows or Linux. How many people here know what an RPM is? Or knows how to compile a program for that matter? What is a TTY and is it important? Or mounting or unmounting a drive in the Terminal if the GUI hiccups? Linux is a monster just like UNIX – with great power comes great complexity :) lol. Windows isn’t as bad, but it isn’t easy. Though good looking, Windows Vista and Linux are seldom if ever considered ‘simple or eloquent’ and I would really like some respectable sources on that.

3 - One of the main reason we are looking at switching to PC at work is that recent versions of OS X, especially on Intel Hardware have become more unstable than they used to be. Vista and OS X are about even now.

Sorry to year that, but you are in the minority. Apple has the top customer rating out there according to Consumer Reports. The top recommended laptops are Apple and the most reliable again, are Apple’s (see below if you do not have a Consumer Reports account).

4 - Having worked with and owned Macs, I can say that Apple can be as good or as bad as any company, they certainly are no angels and are often very slow to recognise faults in their systems.

Sorry, that is incorrect. See above (and below). Yes, Apple plays the PR game just like any other corporation – but they come out better than most.

6 - Only because they got there first. I work for one of the biggest repro houses in the UK and if they are not only thinking about going PC but actually have some in the building for testing then the Mac may lose it's crown soon.

If they were there first, doesn’t that make them the winners :) j/k Again, they are there because they are simple to use and are stable. Professionals don’t want to ‘tweak’ their tool – they actually want to work. Apple’s are by tradition very user friendly. Pair that with being stable and reliable and you have a computer for pros.

7 - I'll give you that one but as Windows gets ever more secure and Macs get more users, virus writing scumbags will eventually target Macs and as most Mac fanboys believe in their security so much, they'll probably not have any protection and get caught with their pants down when it happens.

OS X is written different and executed different than Windows and is not entirely backwards compatible. This makes viruses less likely to ‘stick’ to OS X. I do not want to get into all the technical jargon, but OS X by design is not virus friendly. That is not to say that it is 100% safe, but it is by design safer than Windows.

8 - Yes it does, not a lot but all file systems become fragmented, it's impossible to avoid. Windows running NTFS file systems hardly get fragmented at all either and Windows defrags on the fly too.

OS X actually defrags on its own, preempts fragmentation by delaying writes and avoids writing to just freed zones on the HDD. Windows Vista is messy compared to OS X – so much so that Microsoft actually includes and by default activates a defrag on all it’s Vista builds. Apple didn’t bother including one because it was not needed and third parties do not make them because there isn’t a market for them. (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1375)

9 - No, OS X comes with nothing but Apple ship iLife with it. MS tried to include things with Windows and everybody sued claiming they were harming competition. How come Apple gets away with it?

iLife is fine for 90% of users – what else do you need? Windows Ultimate comes very close to Apple’s shipping package, but at double the price. Apple is an OEM computer manufacture where Microsoft is only a software company. Windows is forced on consumers because they have dominated the market. It is preinstalled on all PCs and the Linux users are peeved about that. BTW, you can get a partial refund on any PC preloaded with Windows if you remove it from the system – takes forever but it has been done.

10 - Yes they can but Apple make it hard to do because if it were simple, nobody would pay over the odds for what is just a PC in an aluminium box.

That is against the end user agreement. Apple will likely go the way of the automobile with this one. Users will be able to do it but Apple will refuse to support, update or in any way aid users of Hackintoshes. You can put a BMW engine in a Ford Focus, but that doesn’t deliver the BMW experience.

11 - Not really, we sell off our old Macs and old office PCs at work and they both drop about the same. Old tech is old tech, with brand new cutting edge stuff coming out every few months, nobody pays good money for old things.

According to Amazon, EBay and Craig’s List – Apple’s hold their value far longer than any PC. I just looked at the going used MacBook Pro’s and they are only selling about 10-20% below market cost. PCs don’t do so well.

12 - OK, now you're just being silly.

Silly yes… :) But still true. Apple has been putting out eye-candy like no ones business. Their simple designs are now some of the most imitated out there. Just look at the iPod and the iPhone – revolutionary, top of the market and yet very simple; OS X was the catalyst for them. Aqua pushed Microsoft to Aero and so on. To deny Apple’s very large contributions to computer design, simplicity and looks is silly.

13 - The old Blue and White G3s and Graphite G4s were pretty, the new Aluminium ones are boring and most PC manufacturers make nicer looking boxes.

To each their own, but many agree with me that going aluminum was brilliant. The Mac Pro is sleek, is server grade, is extremely easy to work with, tough and I personally think one of the best cases on the market. I have worked on IBM AIX systems with cases costing in the range of $10,000 and I can honestly say Apple has made a better case! Some people like plastic and neon – all the power to them. However, I’m into minimalism meets sophistication. I look at most PCs and see a pimped up Ford Focus and then I look at a Mac and I think Audi or BMW.

Because sometimes people get talked into crossing over to the greener grass only to find that it's exactly the same shade of green but the journey cost them money and as I use and actually love both, I thought I'd share the fact that ultimately, despite a few minor fluffy things around the edges, there is no difference.

And sometimes they get talked into moving into something they genuinely love. Money is money – it is a means to and ends and you should spend it on what makes you happy. If try out a Mac at the store and you like it more than a PC, then buy it. They aren’t perfect, but they are ‘different’.

And, you pointed out that I was just stating opinions – not true, I was stating fact. Yet, every point you made seem to come from your own experience and not a source. That’s fine and personal observations are important – but please be honest.

PS I wrote this in Microsoft Word 2003 on a PC while watching a movie on my MacBook Pro beside me.

[HankScorpio]

Oh, yes you do.
Nope:cool:

[OdiN1701]

1 - Simple and eloquent. OS X is just so easy to use.

And? Windows is easy to use. I found OS X worse becaue they tried to make it so simple. I've used many of the different Mac OS versions and there was never anything about them which made them inherently easier than Windows. Things are in different places which makes people used to one more frustrated when they try to use the other. Works both ways.

2 - Simple - yet extremely powerful. Mac OS X Leopard is based on UNIX, an OS that dominates global professional applications (Leopard is now an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product).

And this matters why? They registered it with some program...so? Again it's no more simple or powerful than Windows. You can do the same things in pretty much the same time on each.

3 - Stable - OS X is considered more stable than Windows of any type due to how it is programed. Though crashes do occur, they are rare and seldom take down the entire computer.

Really? Then why has Windows been more stable on all my systems than any of the Mac's I've used over the years?

4 - Customer satisfaction and support are highest among computer companies. People are more satisfied with Mac's in general and Apple Care is rated highest among all computer manufactures (source Consumer Reports).

I'll give you that in some cases - but not all. Though it's not Windows fault or a "PC" in general - but whatever company manufactured it. And there are plenty out there which offer excellent support. When I was making PC's at my store, we had hardly any come back in. Because they were properly built. Maybe 5% came back in, and out of those many were back out the same day fixed. Usually something simple - bad power supply or something. Pretty good customer service IMO.

5 - Top choice of Video Professionals - Final Cut Studio is at the top of the heap. Final Cut is only on Mac.

I will give you that they are excellent video editing systems - mainly because of the software. But there are plenty of people using systems far higher end than Final Cut, and they aren't running Macs.

6 - Mac's traditionally have dominated the photography and graphics markets.

That's odd - the poll we had here had PC's beating Macs. Perhaps in the past they had more of a foothold, but it's far gone now.

7 - Far fewer Viruses, Trojans, Malware, and general badness on OS X.

Well you can't have less than 0% and that's what I've had on my PC.

8 - OS X does not require defraging - OS X does it by design.

Really? If it did, then it would be slower by design. It may do things in the background, but so can Windows. I haven't defragged my system for over a year and it's running great.

9 - Out of the box and ready to go! OS X has everything you'll need to get started.

Really? So it comes with Photoshop and Lightroom and all the other programs I need pre-installed? How can it know what I need? It's no more ready to go than Windows is.

10 - A Mac can do everything a PC can now with BootCamp or VMWare, but the opposite is not true (Windows cannot run OS X).

Why would you want to run OS X through Windows? If you wanted to run OS X on a PC, you could. I don't see why you would want to though. And just because you can use WINE or whatever...it's not quite the same. Let's see a Mac play the latest and greatest game at 2560x1600 with high settings.

Regardless, there is nothing you can do on your Mac that I can't do on my PC.

11 - Mac's retain their value far better than PCs.

Is that how they justify their high cost? I don't see how it's true though. If I bought a 3 year old Mac, I might offer you $200 for it. Maybe. If you can get an inordinate amount of money for a used system from some sucker out there, that's not my problem.

12 - Often imitated but never outdone. HP, Dell, Sony, Gateway and Microsoft often imitate Apple yet never quite get it right. All said companies have increased their anti-Apple marketing due to Apple's growing market share.

I haven't seen any anti-apple marketing. But I have seen plenty of anti-windows marketing from Apple. If there was a PC that actually imitated Apple, you can be sure I wouldn't ever buy one.

13 - Did I mention, they're gorgeous, inside and out?

My PC looks better, IMO.


Think different. :)

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/images_working/AppleMecca/ThinkDifferent_HeadinAss.jpg

[HankScorpio]

(The following sentence is for the British or anyone familiar with Harry Hill's Saturday night TV show)

There's only one way to settle this...... FIGHT!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uLbJ8YPHwXM

:D

[OdiN1701]

This is the only way:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Mac&word2=PC

[DrunkenGarbageCan]

Buy the Mac, because everyone needs to see what the big deal is.

After several towers and powerbooks, I learned that it is mostly marketing. Apple seems to give you about 80 percent (smaller RAM,HD,slower video card) of a windows machine for about 120 percent of the price.

I have had batteries go bad, cracks in motherboards, cpu's work loose, video card issues, etc on every Mac I have owned. Windows machines will do the same but the machines do not cost as much and to me, seem a little more durable.

OSX is very nice, but coming from a business (beancounter) type background, I really think the GUI is kind of kiddish and tooty fruity at times.

Windows XP was killer and very close to OSX in my opinion. Windows Vista is spawn from hell.

Once you start loading more and more programs into OSX, it will slow down, just like Windows. Except with windows, your laptop usually had enough memory, but the Mac always seemed to short change you in that department and you had to spend an extra $100 or more to upgrade. Usually it was more, because, Apple always seemed to use two smaller ram modules vs 1 big one and you had to dump all your chips.

One of the things I hated about OSX was stuff that was freeware for windows was always some 3rd party app that cost an extra$35 or $50.

Back in the day, Apple laptops were the bomb, honestly. I think things have changed and the company just wants to sell phones and tunes. You can probably get the same or better from the windows camp for lesser money.

Both machines will probably run just the same running CS3 or CS4. It has been a year or two since I had Mac CS3, not sure how many more plug ins Mac now has over windows.

I am not knocking Apple/Mac nor cheering Bill and Windows. Honestly, I do not think most people would know (or care) what machine or os they were using once they were in an application (ie CS3 will be the same in OSX or windows).

[MaxxuM]

This is the only way:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Mac&word2=PC

Odin, all I saw was your personal opinion or exception(s) to the rule. That is fine for you, but I was stating facts (except 13). If you have some facts to debate each point with then toss them up for scrutiny. Don't be a basher - be a debater.

[MaxxuM]

(The following sentence is for the British or anyone familiar with Harry Hill's Saturday night TV show)

There's only one way to settle this...... FIGHT!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uLbJ8YPHwXM

:D

Yep, and he uses Mac's to create the videos he produces - though he has experience with PCs too :)

[OdiN1701]

Odin, all I saw was your personal opinion or exception(s) to the rule. That is fine for you, but I was stating facts (except 13). If you have some facts to debate each point with then toss them up for scrutiny. Don't be a basher - be a debater.

So your personal opinion is fine, but mine isn't? Figures.

[René Damkot]

This is the only way:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Mac&word2=PC

Yeah, but what does it find? I get similar results if I add the word "problem", or type in this:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=OSX+problem&word2=Vista+problem

All that it tells us, is that there are a lot more PC users out there, so there are more people googleing on PC (or PC problems) then goes for Mac.

Either OS is fine, provided you know it. I've seen people who know windows fumble for half an hour to figure out how to set an external displays resolution on a Mac, and I'm sure it would take me a bit longer then on my Mac too when I were to use Vista.

I prefer OSX over Windows. So? Both work, if set up right. I cannot get XP set up right, so it won't work for me. Apparently you couldn't get OSX set up right, so it won't work for you.

Let's not get into this "my system is better then yours" crap again, okay?
PC vs. Mac treads tend to crash faster then either platform...

[jft158]

I made the switch this Xmas after using Windows since its inception. Wasn't planning on switching but when I was looking for a new 24 inch monitor, I found last year's 24 inch iMac for only $500 more so what the heck I thought I would give it a shot. So far been using Aperature 2 and find it very easy to use. As for the rest of the system it's slick but not worth the 2x premium over a PC. Don't think I would have paid full price for the system. Apple's marketing campaign is nothing short of brilliant. I still have my 6 month old PC so I won't give up PC's all together. Also chicks dig it...:-)

[Bobster]

OS X is written different and executed different than Windows and is not entirely backwards compatible. This makes viruses less likely to ‘stick’ to OS X. I do not want to get into all the technical jargon, but OS X by design is not virus friendly. That is not to say that it is 100% safe, but it is by design safer than Windows.
hacked (http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Mac-OS-X-hacked-under-30-minutes/0,130061744,139241748,00.htm)..

i've been running Vista64 for over 2 months now without a hickup..

[thisdorkagain]

you should be fine getting a Mac. i'm glad i did. and it can do everything i'm sure you want to do. and plus, you can always install windows on the boot camp partition

[OdiN1701]

Yeah, but what does it find? I get similar results if I add the word "problem", or type in this:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=OSX+problem&word2=Vista+problem

.......


It was a joke, not meant to be taken seriously...

[BottomBracket]

you should be fine getting a Mac. i'm glad i did. and it can do everything i'm sure you want to do. and plus, you can always install windows on the boot camp partition

Actually,these can be done on a PC as well ;)

For what it's worth, I have been running Vista32 for nearly 2 years, Vista64 for 3 months XP for even longer, no problems.

[MaxxuM]

hacked (http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Mac-OS-X-hacked-under-30-minutes/0,130061744,139241748,00.htm)..

i've been running Vista64 for over 2 months now without a hickup..

Lesson - don't open your firewall, give access to strangers & user privileges all on a non-server which has not been hardened. LoL:D

And I've been running Vista since before RC1 (I'm a developer) and current releases on hundreds of machines and I've been through hell ;). Vista has come a long way since then though (thank goodness) and rarely gives me any 'serious' problems. 64-bit Vista is still a pain in many respects. For instance, Creative Lab's refuses to write a full driver from my Audigy sound card (it's actually still in BETA!!!) and said it would 'not' do so because they want ppl to buy their newest cards. There are several security measures that cause problems in Vista (wont get into the tech stuff) - one major issue has been with Lightspeed (http://www.lightspeedsystems.com/). If you want to run 32-bit stuff on Vista 64-bit you'll have to do it in emlulation mode and you'll still be limited to 4GB. 64-bit Vista also requires more memory per process, application and do on because memory addresses are larger.

My point is for buisnesses and organizations computer, hardware and software choices are not so cut-and-dry. Personal users don't see the vast majority of issues and typically do not run their computers in open environments. Of the more than 6,000 computers on our network only 400-500 are Vista systems atm, but that number will increase. They are a test bed for future purchase and so far we have tallied more than 70 serious issues in three months ranging from compatability with anti-virus software (networked issue), Lightspeed permissions/security issues, Norton Ghost imaging problems, optical microsope compatablity, dropping wireless RADIUS connections, printing issues (with the control panel patch this now is fixed)... the list goes on and on.

I think it's great that personal end users are having good Vista experiences - I like to see photo's on this forum :D. But buisneses and organizations are avoiding it and staying with Windows 2000 and XP hoping that Windows 7 will much easyer on thier IT staff and thier pocketbooks. ;)

[clipper_from_oz]

I gave windows the flick and went across to Apple Mac when they could run windows as well. I have windows vista loading under bootcamp and it runs faster on my macbook pro than it does on my windows desktop machine!!

[OdiN1701]

I gave windows the flick and went across to Apple Mac when they could run windows as well. I have windows vista loading under bootcamp and it runs faster on my macbook pro than it does on my windows desktop machine!!

That statement is pretty much worthless without knowing the configuration of each system.

[Dean Humphrey]

you should be fine getting a Mac. i'm glad i did. and it can do everything i'm sure you want to do. and plus, you can always install windows on the boot camp partition

If I do go with a Mac, Windows would never see the light of day on the Mac, especially Vista. One more thing that bugs me is Microsoft's answer to the ipod, the Zune which I own 2 of, they seriously suck as well. The software is a memory hog and therefore very slow to load. I've had several calls to their tech hot line for syncing problems, not to mention one had to be replaced. I'm just really bummed right now with Windows anything.

[BottomBracket]

I gave windows the flick and went across to Apple Mac when they could run windows as well. I have windows vista loading under bootcamp and it runs faster on my macbook pro than it does on my windows desktop machine!!

Almost anything is faster than a Pentium 3 ;)

If I do go with a Mac, Windows would never see the light of day on the Mac, especially Vista. One more thing that bugs me is Microsoft's answer to the ipod, the Zune which I own 2 of, they seriously suck as well. The software is a memory hog and therefore very slow to load. I've had several calls to their tech hot line for syncing problems, not to mention one had to be replaced. I'm just really bummed right now with Windows anything.

I have a zune, a zen and an iPod touch. The zune has the best sound of the three, followed by the zen and the iPod brings up the rear. Though the sound sucks I bring the touch along because of the wifi capability.

[MaxxuM]

I have a zune, a zen and an iPod touch. The zune has the best sound of the three, followed by the zen and the iPod brings up the rear. Though the sound sucks I bring the touch along because of the wifi capability.

On paper, the Touch has the best 'technical' sound, but you'd have to be extremely sharp (pro) listener to hear the difference. S/N ratio's are very similar between them as is THD and noise. The Zune definitely comes with superior headphones though and that is what you may be hearing. I use a pair of Sennheiser's on both (helping a friend with her Zune) and I placed a lossless songs to test it - I heard only slight variations in how the music was reproduced but nothing 'better' than my iPod's (nano, classic's and iPhone). The iPod(s) and Zune could not match the same songs on my computer coming out digitally to my Denon AVR however. If you would like to read up on a comparison head on over here (http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3204&p=1).

[BottomBracket]

Thanks, but i don't need to read a comparison. Did I mention that I have both? The Zune blows away the Touch in sound quality, even when using the same headphones, or connected to my car's audio system. That said, I love to bring my iPod touch everywhere because it is fun to use - I can read my email and surf the net when it sniffs a wifi signal. I just wish it had an FM tuner. And by the way, Itunes' DRM issues really suck.

[Tony-S]

On paper, the Touch has the best 'technical' sound, but you'd have to be extremely sharp (pro) listener to hear the difference. S/N ratio's are very similar between them as is THD and noise. The Zune definitely comes with superior headphones though and that is what you may be hearing.

Yes, Apple's "ear duds" are pretty lame. If you don't have the right ear shape they don't fit properly.

I use a pair of Sennheiser's on both (helping a friend with her Zune) and I placed a lossless songs to test it - I heard only slight variations in how the music was reproduced but nothing 'better' than my iPod's (nano, classic's and iPhone).

Sennheisers for me too - and I couldn't tell the difference between a Zune or my iPod. But my ears are in their mid-40s. I also have a pair of etyomic in-ear buds and they're pretty good, too.

The Zune blows away the Touch in sound quality, even when using the same headphones,

No meaningful differences for me, nor likely for most. But I'm sure that some people will hear the Zune better and vice versa, since we all have slightly different hearing to begin with.

And by the way, Itunes' DRM issues really suck.

That's not iTunes' DRM (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/) - that's the Labels' DRM. They mandate that Apple use it because Apple has 80% of the download market. They fear Apple - which is why others (e.g. Amazon) can sell you DRM-free; they want to suck away Apple's power for themselves. But they're coming around - many titles from iTS are now DRM-free (for an extra fee) and are encoded in higher bit-rate AAC, which is superior to MP3.

[MaxxuM]

Thanks, but i don't need to read a comparison. Did I mention that I have both? The Zune blows away the Touch in sound quality, even when using the same headphones, or connected to my car's audio system. That said, I love to bring my iPod touch everywhere because it is fun to use - I can read my email and surf the net when it sniffs a wifi signal. I just wish it had an FM tuner. And by the way, Itunes' DRM issues really suck.

Maybe you should look into getting the iPod serviced if it doesn't reproduce sound as well as the Zune - it really should be indistinguishable (maybe it's your actual recordings?). You can get an FM addon tuner - but i think they're a pain because they stick out. As far as DRM, the only thing that beats iTunen's DRM wise is DRM-Free. Did you know you can burn your purchased songs to CD then just rip them back to iTunes - DRM free? I usually get my music via Amazon these days though and only use iTunes when I get gift cards (I get them via Apple credit card like reward points).

[BottomBracket]

Maybe you should look into getting the iPod serviced if it doesn't reproduce sound as well as the Zune - it really should be indistinguishable (maybe it's your actual recordings?). You can get an FM addon tuner - but i think they're a pain because they stick out. As far as DRM, the only thing that beats iTunen's DRM wise is DRM-Free. Did you know you can burn your purchased songs to CD then just rip them back to iTunes - DRM free? I usually get my music via Amazon these days though and only use iTunes when I get gift cards (I get them via Apple credit card like reward points).

Hmmm perhaps I should. It sounds OK, but it doesn't measure up to the Zune's audio quality. I'll see if I can have it checked out. As for buying music, I'm still sticking to CD's and ripping them myself. CDs sound so much better.

[MaxxuM]

CDs sound so much better. Very true; Apple, Amazon and the others compromise with file size so they don't have to move/store large lossless files. Ripping CDs as lossless is definetly the way to go.

[Dan-o]

I have a Zune that just sits in my drawer. I don't know about sound quality as I use my Ipods usually while I'm riding my bike or running so sound quality isn't a real factor. The thing I hate about the Zune is the software. Horrible! I'm a Microsoft supporter on these forums but there is no way I'm defending that. I have 7 Ipods and never had a problem with any.

[OdiN1701]

I have a Zune that just sits in my drawer. I don't know about sound quality as I use my Ipods usually while I'm riding my bike or running so sound quality isn't a real factor. The thing I hate about the Zune is the software. Horrible! I'm a Microsoft supporter on these forums but there is no way I'm defending that. I have 7 Ipods and never had a problem with any.

iTunes is horrible as well.

I have a Creative MP3 player - I don't use it much...when biking or something but other than that my cars have either an MP3 CD player or a USB port that I plug a memory stick into with MP3's. Much cheaper than an iPod.

As for sound quality, I'm picky. Even Sennheiser earbuds aren't all that wonderful....but I can't carry a proper set of cans and an amplifier around with a "portable" MP3 player. So I listen to stuff at home more often than on the go.

As for software - I prefer no software with an MP3 player. Just have it show up as a new drive and I'll drag/drop and organize things myself.

[Dan-o]

As for software - I prefer no software with an MP3 player. Just have it show up as a new drive and I'll drag/drop and organize things myself.

Agree with you there.

[Damian75]

Ahhh the never ending debate. As an IT person who runs a mixed environment I can honestly say that they all have there plusses and minuses. I fully patched and updated version of XP on good hardware is very solid I can't say the same for vista it is just too much of a resource hog. My personal preference is for OSX though I am not a MS basher I understand the drawbacks of having to design an OS to run on a zillion hardware configs which is why I prefer the mac and OSX being able to right an OS for a strict set of hardware allows you to write much tighter code. I use a macbook pro at work for all my IT work as it is really a swish army knife from the one laptop I can run either native or through VM OSX, XP, or Linux. I have found the macs to have a much longer viable lifespan the comparable XP machines in terms of acceptable performance while being kept current with there OS though you can extend the life to PC hardware by switching it from windows to linux after a certain age. My suggestion to the original poster is to check out both and make up your own mind in the end it is personal preference.

[jbergdoll]

I just made the switch and am damn glad... OS X is great and Mac's attention to detail is exceptional.

[maxblack]

And the desktop MacPros should be coming with "Nehalem" processors
known as Core i7, in the first quarter of 2009.
Should be a noticeable speed bump.
_______________________________

[HankScorpio]

And the desktop MacPros should be coming with "Nehalem" processors
known as Core i7, in the first quarter of 2009.
Should be a noticeable speed bump.
Already got one:cool: and the speed bump is phenomenal.

[Evilfooker]

If you have a new Mac you have the option to partition and run windows OS on the book also. . but yes nearly all file types can crossplatforms even WMV. . all you do for the WMV's is download a version of the Windows Media Player that works w/ OS X (they make one!)

[Tony-S]

I have a zune.

I just came across this (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10129977-75.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0) and was wondering if you have the 30gb model and if so, have you experienced any problems? This seems really weird that on the same day there has been a surge of "failures" (which sounds more like a software/firmware glitch).

[MaxxuM]

And the desktop MacPros should be coming with "Nehalem" processors
known as Core i7, in the first quarter of 2009.
Should be a noticeable speed bump.
_______________________________

I doubt it, but it would be great if they did. Don't expect an iMac to come with an i7 nor a MacBook (Pro) either. The Mac Pro is traditionally server class and the i7 does not support ECC. Right now server motherboards like the Mac Pro's already cost around $600; a server grade MB would double that easily. As far as a moble version of the i7 (iMac style) won't be arround for a while yet. If Apple pulls it off I'll be very impressed! However, I wouldn't expect an i7 in a Mac until Q3.

[HankScorpio]

That's not what Macworld think

http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=23406

"Speculation is rife that the i7 chip will be used in the next generation of iMacs, which now seem set to appear at the Macworld Expo & Conference in January 2009."

[MaxxuM]

That's not what Macworld think

http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=23406

"Speculation is rife that the i7 chip will be used in the next generation of iMacs, which now seem set to appear at the Macworld Expo & Conference in January 2009."


Apple loves to surprise us and I REALLY hope they can pull it off because it would mean the iMac will no longer be a mobile class computer! Intel already said there will be no mobile or server i7 CPU until the second half of 09 :( . I would like to see how Apple priced an i7 iMac too since prices are pretty high at the moment. As far as a Mac Pro - the data is ever more bleak. I cannot se Apple removing ECC support from the Mac Pro either.

Add to this Jobs not being at this years Mac Expo - you'd think he would be around for the biggest annoucments ;)

[maxblack]

http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/13/mac-pro-suitable-nehalem-core-i7-processors-due-in-1st-quarter-2009/

This is quoted from MacRumors website dated in Nov. at the above link::D

Digitimes reports that Intel is planning on launching the Xeon 5500 and Xeon 3500 series of server CPUs in the first quarter of 2009. These new processors are based on the Nehalem architecture which has been officially branded as Core i7.

According to Digitimes, Intel will launch ten CPUs for the Xeon 5500 series with the high end topping out as a quad-core W5580 running at 3.2GHz. Processor speeds of the remaining 9 models range from 2GHz to 2.93Ghz.

Apple has traditionally used the Xeon server-class processors for their Mac Pro line. The current Mac Pro uses the Xeon ("Harpertown") 5400 series processors and is due for an update. Despite comparable clock speeds, the Nehalem-based processors have been shown to offer clock-for-clock performance improvements up to 29%.

I hope they can do it also.

[BottomBracket]

I just came across this (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10129977-75.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0) and was wondering if you have the 30gb model and if so, have you experienced any problems? This seems really weird that on the same day there has been a surge of "failures" (which sounds more like a software/firmware glitch).

Wow that is crazy. I am away from my house right now and can't check my Zune until Friday at least. Thanks for the heads up, here's hoping that it doesn;t become a paperweight :D

[Dean Humphrey]

I just came across this (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10129977-75.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0) and was wondering if you have the 30gb model and if so, have you experienced any problems? This seems really weird that on the same day there has been a surge of "failures" (which sounds more like a software/firmware glitch).

My Zune survived the leap year snafu. But, the pond out back of my house very nearly became the final resting place for my Zune this morning. The f*&-% would not sync. Spent several house searching for a solution. Finally found the fix on Zune's forums (that seems to be their tech support now) had to uninstall the driver, reboot the PC then plug Zune back in. Very frustraiting.