Desktop vs MAC

[DJCRAZYACE]

Hi Guys,

Im need of a new computer and new photography but have been interested for about 2 years know. I finally have gotten around to purchasing a new computer to be more compatible with image editing and regualer daily use. I have a price cap of lets say 1400.

These are my choices.

A Mac Book, not sure witch version. 1200 - 1500 CDN

Or

AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition Triple Core Processor AM3 2.8GHZ 7.5MB Cache 95W 45NM Retail Box

Gigabyte MA790GP-UD4H AMD790GX ATX AM2+/AM3 Sideport 2PCI-E Sound GBLAN HDMI CrossFireX Motherboard

Noctua NH-U12P LGA775 AM2 Heatsink Heatpipe Cooler W/ NF-P12 120MM Fan -12.6-19.8DBA

Western Digital WD1001FALS Caviar Black 1TB SATA2 7200RPM 4.2MS 32MB 3.5IN Dual Proc Hard Drive OEM x2

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Edition 64BIT DVD OEM

Corsair XMS3 DHX TW3X4G1600C9DHX 4GB 2X2GB PC3-12800 DDR3-1600 CL9-9-9-24 240PIN Memory Kit

Antec Three Hundred Mini Tower Gaming Case 300 ATX 3X5.25 6X3.5INT No PS Front USB & Audio

With no screen this is about 900.00 CDN

Know as you may come across im a complete nut job with computers, I have no idea how they work although when it comes to working with one im pretty smart. But a computer tech set this up for me *as above* and said this should be pretty sick and really fast and can easily operate Photoshop and camera soft ware. etc.

So my question is obvs poeple have experience here, so i want what you would choose and why.

Thank guys!

[toxic]

First, pick an OS. Then, pick a monitor. Then you know how much you have to work with to buy a desktop or laptop.

Photoediting is more CPU- and RAM-intensive than it is GPU-intensive...but I dunno how integrated GPUs perform, since I haven't had one in a while.

I would stick to a smaller hard drive. Larger ones generate more heat, and you lose more stuff when it fails.

[DStanic]

I think the real question is do you want a laptop (Macbook) or a desktop PC?

A Macbook such as This one (http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0665000FS10125862&catid=23016&logon=&langid=EN) is nice, but for $500 you can build a PC with a screen that will match those specs. I just built a new quad-core PC from scratch (I used to be in the computer repair business) with a 2.66ghz processor and 4gb of RAM for $600. A Macbook or iMac with the similar specs as my PC would cost 2 or 3x the cost, or more.

Also keep in mind that Window 7 is coming out very soon. I'm currently testing it (release candidate version) and I like it alot, it's much nicer then Vista! It's a little more "Mac like" compared to previous versions of windows. It hasn't crashed on my yet, either.. amazing,

[Moppie]

First, pick an OS. Then, pick a monitor. Then you know how much you have to work with to buy a desktop or laptop.



The OS does not get used to process the photos.
That is done by your choosen software and the hardware.



DJCRAZYACE, files sizes from your XSi should not be a problem for either system, unless it is a really old macbook, or you tend to work with lots and lots of layers on 16bit tiff files, then you will want the AMD.

However, the desktop will have advantages other than perforamnce over the laptop. Your not restricted to one harddrive, and the price difference means you can buy a nice mid range monitor that will be superior to the one in the laptop.
I would add another 2 Harddrives to the desktop:.
A smaller one for the OS and programs, and another 1TB drive that can be used as an internal back up for your photos. (plus another drive as an external back up).
This can also be used as a scratch disc for photoshop which helps with performance.


Forget about crap about which OS is better. OS-X and Vista are both very, very capable and very powerful. They are both stable, and easy to use.

[bacchanal]

The Macbook vs. desktop is an issue of portability vs. power as much as it is about OSX vs. Vista. If you intend to do a lot of serious photoshop work, I'd go with the desktop all the way. Then again, if you need a computer to take with you on photoshoots and that can do some editing too, the Macbook may be perfect.

Your PC parts list leaves out a power supply and optical drive. Are those included in the cost? Also, tell your pc tech buddy that you don't want your hard drives in RAID 0. Like Moppie said, you'd be better off with a smaller internal drive for the OS, a large internal drive for photos and PS scratch, and a large external drive for backup.

Personally, I'd probably go with a Q8400 and stock heatsink vs. the Phenom setup if you plan on using software that can take advantage of quad core like CS4. See here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3559&p=5).

You could also go with slower DDR2 and double up on your RAM capacity for about the same price. I'm not sure which would actually be faster, but it probably depends on what you're actually doing.

[DStanic]

The last two posters have some good points.

Just so happens that I put the Q8400 in my system. I was going to put a slower quad core (whatever model the 2.3ghz version is) but they were out and this was only $20 more. I'm not sure on AMD processors at this point (my last system I had one of the first AMD64 CPUs) but Intel is leading the way (they are IN the Macs after all...)

I also have the Antec Three Hundred case and it's nice and solid and not overpriced (IMO case doesn't need to be fancy, it's just sheetmetal).

DDR2-1600 ram is cheap, I paid $75 for 4gb (2x 2gb). When I have some extra cash I might double it up just for the hell of it, even though I'm not having any speed issues at the moment.

2x 1TB drive is a HUGE amount of space, but hell hard drives are cheap these days! Better to have too much then not enough. I agree with the others in sticking to a simple configuration with seperate drives one for storage and one for the OS. On my last system I played around with raid and didn't notice any real performance improvement. A couple times I had issues with the raid controllers and then BOTH of the hard drives didn't work! I read somewhere that having a dedicated raid card (not built on the motherboard) is more reliable and takes advantage of the performance. Anyways I don't want to sound like a guy at a computer store, cause that's basically what i did a few years ago.

In the end- portability vs power, both OSs are good once you get Adobe running it doesn't really matter. :)

[Tony-S]

In the end- portability vs power, both OSs are good once you get Adobe running it doesn't really matter. :)

Unless you want to use Aperture. ;)

[tim]

AMD will be faster, the other will be a mac. It's your call really, personal preference. Portability and Mac OS vs speed.

[toxic]

The OS does not get used to process the photos.
That is done by your choosen software and the hardware.

...

Forget about crap about which OS is better. OS-X and Vista are both very, very capable and very powerful. They are both stable, and easy to use.


Well, the OS is gonna be used for everything else, so I think it's kinda important. Also, if the OP wants OSX, his choices are more limited.

It's not about which OS is better - it's about which one the OP prefers.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Just want to point out that it isn't really MAC vs Desktop... it's MAC Laptop vs PC Desktop.

Apple makes desktops too :p

Personally I have a Mac Pro and a PC. I prefer Macs for working, but don't care if others like PC. PC is OK when it's a stable setup. They do tend to do things in a more complicated way (updates for example... what I mean is, ON PC they'll release heaps of little security updates all the time, on a MAC you tend to get more application updates and the occasional system update... less security updates). I find PCs are much better for messing around with, Macs are better for just doing your work (not so many "distractions").

Windows 7 may change things a little.

I think cdifoto is right. The desktop will most likely be faster (whether you get a Mac or PC desktop, this is mainly the trend). A laptop sacrifices speed for portablity (whether it's a Mac or a PC).

[Moppie]

You can have the bestest most magicalist OS in the world, and it won't mean squat if you havn't got the Hardware to support it.


The differences between Vista and OS-X are so small and subjective they really don't enter into it.

DJCRAZYACE has made it clear this is a new computer that needs to be "compatible with image editing".

As a general rule that means getting the best Hardware you can afford. Since we don't know what spec the Macbook is, that leaves the AMD system, or a similar spec Quad Core Intel System.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Just go for Ubuntu.

[toxic]

The differences between Vista and OS-X are so small and subjective they really don't enter into it.

Really? Two entirely different design philosophies, and the differences are still "small and subjective"?

Of course the hardware is important. But again, the OP's choice of OS will influence what hardware is available.

Anyways, one way or another, you will probably have to buy an external monitor.

[Moppie]

Really? Two entirely different design philosophies, and the differences are still "small and subjective"?


Having used both to do everything from edit photos to operations managment, yes, the differences are small and subjective.

Get over it and move on.

[Kiwikat]

Just go for Ubuntu.

Now we're talkin! (in fact I'm using it right now on my EEE 1000h)

I'd go for the desktop too. I do a LOT of non-photography related work in photoshop cs3 on my desktop. It runs considerably faster than it did on my "old" laptop. The extra processing power and ram will come in handy.

[basroil]

Lets just say this, for 1400, you can't find a mac that is good for photo editing, at least not compared to the desktop you chose. If your budget had been, say 2k, then you have a few macbook pro options which would have enough power, but macbook is nowhere near as good.

[wlescall]

Lets just say this, for 1400, you can't find a mac that is good for photo editing, at least not compared to the desktop you chose. If your budget had been, say 2k, then you have a few macbook pro options which would have enough power, but macbook is nowhere near as good.

Currently (2:25 pm EDT) in the Apple online store - refurb section:

Laptops:
MacBook Pro 2.4 GHZ/2 GB RAM/200 GB HD/15.4" matte or glossy screen $1349
(previous generation)

MacBooks ranging from $749 to $1449


Desktop:
iMac 24" 2.66 GHz/4 GB RAM/640 GB HD (current generation) $1299
iMac 24" 2.8 GHz/2 GB RAM/320 GB HD (previous generation) $1199

I use the above MacBook Pro (matte screen) for my basic editing when I'm on the road.

[Kiwikat]

Plainly saying, you can get almost twice the computer if you go with a windows PC vs. a MAC.

A mac with similar specs as my desktop would have cost at LEAST twice as much. Closer to 2.5 times as much.

[Tony-S]

Plainly saying, you can get almost twice the computer if you go with a windows PC vs. a MAC.

No, you won't.

A mac with similar specs as my desktop would have cost at LEAST twice as much. Closer to 2.5 times as much.

No, it wouldn't be.

[Kiwikat]

No, you won't.

No, it wouldn't be.

Trust me, I tried it. Building your own desktop from newegg parts is so cheap. Some of the parts I have in mine you couldn't even get on a Mac when I built mine. Just recently they finally got a decent graphics card in the evga GTX285. But as with all mac stuff, it costs more than the "PC" version.

I'm even doing the comparison between mine and the Mac Pro right now.

Ignoring the graphics card as Mac doesn't have anything that comes close to the GTX280 on their store, the mac is just about exactly twice as much as my desktop was. If I put in a better graphics card that is closer to the 280, it would be more than double.

(desktop was just under 2200, mac is just under 4400 + 450 dollars for the Mac GTX285 from evga)

You are wrong.

[toxic]

Having used both to do everything from edit photos to operations managment, yes, the differences are small and subjective.

Get over it and move on.

I use both OS's on an almost daily basis, so I have just as much authority as you do. Obviously you think they're close enough not to matter. I don't. More pertinently, neither of us know what the OP thinks.

Trust me, I tried it. Building your own desktop from newegg parts is so cheap. Some of the parts I have in mine you couldn't even get on a Mac when I built mine. Just recently they finally got a decent graphics card in the evga GTX285. But as with all mac stuff, it costs more than the "PC" version.

I'm even doing the comparison between mine and the Mac Pro right now.

Ignoring the graphics card as Mac doesn't have anything that comes close to the GTX280 on their store, the mac is just about exactly twice as much as my desktop was (desktop was just under 2200, mac is just under 4400). If I put in a better graphics card that is closer to the 280, it would be more than double.

You are wrong.

No point spouting crap over this. There are plenty of comparisons already available.

[Kiwikat]

No point spouting crap over this. There are plenty of comparisons already available.

Exactly. However I won't allow someone to falsely claim the things that Tony-S has, without offering the other side of the story myself. Especially if hes giving someone advice on what to purchase.

[Moppie]

Exactly. However I won't allow someone to falsely claim the things that Tony-S has, without offering the other side of the story myself. Especially if hes giving someone advice on what to purchase.


It has been well proven that the price difference no longer exists.

To build a computer using the same, or similar hardware used in the Macs, costs about as much as buying a Mac.
A same spec laptop, i.e. using the same quality of parts, with the same levels of performance costs the same whether it be a Mac or a Dell or an HP.
You might get a cheaper laptop with the same level of performance, but it will be made from a cheaper, lower quality case and use a lower quality monitor and battery.

The all in ones from Dell and HP are actaully more expensive than the iMac, and generally have low spec levels as well. But if your using an all in-one for photography you might have your priorities wrong.

The Mac Pro use's server grade parts. It is literally a server stuffed in a desk top box.
To build a similar computer yourself, also using server grade parts, will cost as much, or even more, than a Mac Pro.


Where there is a price gap, is in the hardware line up offered by Apple.
They have a HUGE gap between the consumer level iMac, and the Server grade Mac Pro.
This means you can buy, or build, or have built, a computer with 80-90% the performance of a Mac Pro for half the cost using high end consumer level parts, or low end work station parts.
However, Apple do not make a computer that is similar, so there is nothing to compare with.

[Tony-S]

Exactly. However I won't allow someone to falsely claim the things that Tony-S has, without offering the other side of the story myself. Especially if hes giving someone advice on what to purchase.

No, it's just that every few months some newb comes in here spouting off misleading information on the costs of Macs vs. PCs without even bothering to search the forums. I know perfectly well how they price out; people like you only think one thing is responsible for the price of a computer - how many 1 and 0s can be pushed through its cpu.

[Kiwikat]

No, it's just that every few months some newb comes in here spouting off misleading information on the costs of Macs vs. PCs without even bothering to search the forums. I know perfectly well how they price out; people like you only think one thing is responsible for the price of a computer - how many 1 and 0s can be pushed through its cpu.

Being a camera and POTN noob has nothing to do with my experience with computers... so you are making some pretty poor assumptions. I'm going to college for computer science so you can believe what you wish. Changing most Mac users' minds about anything is nearly impossible anyways...

A computer SHOULD be priced based on performance, not its color and logo.

Anyways, I gave my input, so this'll be my last post on this thread. The OP can read it for what its worth. I didn't join the forum to argue about Macs anyways. I came to learn about photography and my XSi that's in the hands of UPS right now. :eek:

[tim]

To build a computer using the same, or similar hardware used in the Macs, costs about as much as buying a Mac.

Yes, but Mac uses very high grade parts that are perhaps overkill. By compromising a little on quality you can save a reasonable amount of money and still get high performance.

[Tony-S]

A computer SHOULD be priced based on performance, not its color and logo.

This statement reveals how little you know about Macs.

[MaxxuM]

Being a camera and POTN noob has nothing to do with my experience with computers... so you are making some pretty poor assumptions. I'm going to college for computer science so you can believe what you wish. Changing most Mac users' minds about anything is nearly impossible anyways...

A computer SHOULD be priced based on performance, not its color and logo.

Anyways, I gave my input, so this'll be my last post on this thread. The OP can read it for what its worth. I didn't join the forum to argue about Macs anyways. I came to learn about photography and my XSi that's in the hands of UPS right now. :eek:

Kiwikat, please do not feel offended, it's just that this topic usually turns out this way, particularly when it's about personal choice. In a perfect world all computers prices would be based purly on performace, but you're always going to spend more for a brand. That's why no-name's are usually so cheap. Even Dell adds a premium. Apple doesn't have the luxury of not having to develop their entire brand lineup and that adds cost. Not to mention, all proprietary equipment adds to cost because it is highly developed within it's line.

To put it in other terms, if performance was the bases for all prices then I would own a Ford, but I don't see/hear many people downing me for my choice in cars dispite the lack in horse power.

[Moppie]

Yes, but Mac uses very high grade parts that are perhaps overkill. By compromising a little on quality you can save a reasonable amount of money and still get high performance.



Which is why I don't own a Mac :cool:

[tim]

Which is why I don't own a Mac :cool:

'cause you're cheap? :p

[MaxxuM]

Yes, but Mac uses very high grade parts that are perhaps overkill. By compromising a little on quality you can save a reasonable amount of money and still get high performance.

Yes, that is true, but what does Dell 'not' have to do which Apple does? Dell can keep costs down because they do not have a very large development department. Their entire goal is to buy as cheap as possible - that's job one at Dell. Apple (and Google) give bonuses on innovation, creativity and 'thinking' out of the box whereas Dell gives bonuses for 'money saved'. Apple does not use the same bidding process as Dell or HP either. They use contracts for hardware development vs picking what's cheapest. Dell has clauses that make it possible to drop a subcontract if certain goals are not met. Apple 'must' stick with who they go with until a line in dropped, therefore, development and research are MUCH longer because of, again, internal R&D for new drivers and compatibility.

I know most people don't care about these facts nor will it sway someone that wants the most MHz for their $. As someone that works on thousands of computers on a 10,000+ user network I have picked Apple simply for the pure joy of never ever seeing my OS crash or have 'mysterious' problems. Just don't tell me that my Mac Pro or MBP are over priced for what I got in the deal. I'd pay it again (and will soon) to have the pure joy and satisfaction of OS X and superb workmanship.

[bacchanal]

I don't know. I don't really feel like I'm compromising on quality when I build a PC from OEM parts. I just built a Q8200 machine for work with 4 gigs of ram for $700 shipped (sans monitor and input devices). I don't buy cheap boards or power supplies either. That's the thing about building your own PCs, you get exactly what you need at the performance and quality level that you need and nothing that you don't need.

I agree that the price gap isn't there anymore if you're going to try to spec out the exact same system, but that isn't really the point....the thing that keeps me with PCs is that Mac doesn't really have an attractive desktop option (to me) below the Mac Pro level, and the Mac Pros are overkill for what I do. I've always been he kind of guy that can be perfectly content with a $1500 desktop and a netbook, and I like options.

What would you rather have for photo editing: a macbook, an iMac, or a custom PC? They all cost about the same.

[Moppie]

Maxxum, there are more choices in the world than just Dell or Apple.

If you think Apple somehow has some magically wonderful supplier agreements then you would be very wrong.
Yes, they do tend to buy higher quality parts, but I assure you price is a big factor, it has to be if they want to compete. Most of thier systems are built with off the shelf parts, and the amount of custom parts used is no different to Dell.
Usually the case and mother board, but the motherboard is assembled from off the shelf components.

Dell sell the whole range, from really budget, low end systems built with the cheapest possible parts that cost only a few hundred dollars, to high end enterprise level servers that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Apple operate in only a very small part of the total computing market. They have chosen to specialise in that small market, and have done very well at it. But, it does limit how useful thier computers can be to anyone who doesn't happen to fit in that market, which just so happens to be a large number of photographers looking for a decent desktop to process thier photos on.
The number of threads about quad core rigs in this forum is a good example of that.


Dell and Apple are both large companies, with all the problems that go with large companies. Both are ultimately driven by a need to return profits to thier shareholders.
They both engage in misleading marketing compaigns, and they both care more about getting your money than they do about providing the right computer for your needs.
Apple works very hard to sell a complete system, where everything you do on your computer leads back to more profits for Apple.
iTunes and iPhoto all have built in stores that let you buy further products from Apple (songs, prints, printed products etc) and Apple make a wide range of Apple branded products that are designed to work only with the Apple system.
The iPhone and iPod all require Apple software to use, and the ULA in OS-X makes it clear you can not use it on a non-Apple computer.
The iPhone was sold with only very limited funtionality so that people would have to buy apps for it. Only you have to buy those apps from Apple. From a consumer position its really cool, because you can customise the phone to have exactly what you want on it, and there is always a new app to try, and you can get the easily from the same place.
Apple however get to sell you a phone with limited funtionality at full price, then charge you extra for apps that add basic things, all the profit goes to Apple.

As a consumer this sounds like a cool idea. Everything is intergrated and easy to use.
Apple see it differently. It is thier way of making you spend more money with them, and not with thier competitors. It limits consumer choice, allows for higher margins and in the end makes more money for Apples shareholders.
It is very un-ethical.

Dell are no different either. They will do everything they can to offer upgrades, and extra add ons for extra cost, all at high margins.



But, as I said before, there are thousands of other places to buy a computer from.
If your serious about having a proper photography work station then forget the name brand, mass market systems.
Go to your local wholesaler and talk to them about building something for you.
Then you get what you want and need, you get personal, experianced service and your supporting a local business in your comunitty.
Not a giant corporation and its shareholders.

[Kiwikat]

But, as I said before, there are thousands of other places to buy a computer from.
If your serious about having a proper photography work station then forget the name brand, mass market systems.
Go to your local wholesaler and talk to them about building something for you.
Then you get what you want and need, you get personal, experianced service and your supporting a local business in your comunitty.

Or you could build your own. :cool:

I know PLENTY of professional 3D artists who have built their own machines. It is definitely the best way to go if you want the most bang from your buck.

[MaxxuM]

I don't know. I don't really feel like I'm compromising on quality when I build a PC from OEM parts. I just built a Q8200 machine for work with 4 gigs of ram for $700 shipped (sans monitor and input devices). I don't buy cheap boards or power supplies either. That's the thing about building your own PCs, you get exactly what you need at the performance and quality level that you need and nothing that you don't need.

I agree that the price gap isn't there anymore if you're going to try to spec out the exact same system, but that isn't really the point....the thing that keeps me with PCs is that Mac doesn't really have an attractive desktop option (to me) below the Mac Pro level, and the Mac Pros are overkill for what I do. I've always been he kind of guy that can be perfectly content with a $1500 desktop and a netbook, and I like options.

What would you rather have for photo editing: a macbook, an iMac, or a custom PC? They all cost about the same.

There might not be any compromise when you build your own system - my PC is well over $2000 and it's a build-your-own. I chose parts that were very well made with the features I wanted. If you can support yourself, then there shouldn't be much of a problem and if there is you'll figure you way through it. I just don't want to :) With PC's however there is the eventuality of errors. It's par of the course due to the fact that there are so many drivers, dll's and configuration combination. Most people never notice them though because they are pretty minor.

I've never said that do it yourself solutions were bad, they are whatever you want them to be. You could have a great system or a junker. But you'd never have an Apple with OS X which is what I really like and use professionally.

So, what do I use for photography? A MBP with Aperture and Photoshop and I've never felt that I've been hampered in any way.

[Stealthy Ninja]

When I used PCs for work, they crashed very often (Windows XP using Adobe Products). Mac improved this no end (they crashed, but not even close to the amount of times my Windows computer use to). To me it was well worth the price premium to be able to WORK and not FIX COMPUTERS. Also don't forget the much reduced virus problems.

HOWEVER, it may be different now, I haven't used a windows Machine (for work) for 2 years or so.


The reason why Mac use "high quality parts" is because they have a more narrow range of possible hardware than Windows machines. Windows Machines have to be able to use many, many different combinations of hardware whereas Macs are much more fussy (unless you hack the OS).

Therefore the theory is that Macs can utilize the Hardware more effectively. So if you have a PC and a Mac exactly the same in specs the Mac SHOULD be more efficient (in theory).

Linux is better, but you have to put up with Open source... which doesn't look as pretty. :lol:

I am not actually on one side or the other (I use both). I just prefer Macs, so I stick with them.

[tim]

When I used PCs for work, they crashed very often (Windows XP using Adobe Products). Mac improved this no end (they crashed, but not even close to the amount of times my Windows computer use to). To me it was well worth the price premium to be able to WORK and not FIX COMPUTERS. Also don't forget the much reduced virus problems.

HOWEVER, it may be different now, I haven't used a windows Machine for 2 years or so.

My machine crashed in April I think. Apart from when I changed motherboards on a system without reinstalling i've never had problems with machines crashing. If windows crashes there's a problem with your hardware or software and it needs to be investigated, rather than writing it off and changing platforms.

I would expect macs to be more stable, as they have total control over the hardware and software.

[MaxxuM]

Maxxum, there are more choices in the world than just Dell or Apple.

If you think Apple somehow has some magically wonderful supplier agreements then you would be very wrong.
Yes, they do tend to buy higher quality parts, but I assure you price is a big factor, it has to be if they want to compete. Most of thier systems are built with off the shelf parts, and the amount of custom parts used is no different to Dell.
Usually the case and mother board, but the motherboard is assembled from off the shelf components.

Dell sell the whole range, from really budget, low end systems built with the cheapest possible parts that cost only a few hundred dollars, to high end enterprise level servers that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Apple operate in only a very small part of the total computing market. They have chosen to specialise in that small market, and have done very well at it. But, it does limit how useful thier computers can be to anyone who doesn't happen to fit in that market, which just so happens to be a large number of photographers looking for a decent desktop to process thier photos on.
The number of threads about quad core rigs in this forum is a good example of that.


Dell and Apple are both large companies, with all the problems that go with large companies. Both are ultimately driven by a need to return profits to thier shareholders.
They both engage in misleading marketing compaigns, and they both care more about getting your money than they do about providing the right computer for your needs.
Apple works very hard to sell a complete system, where everything you do on your computer leads back to more profits for Apple.
iTunes and iPhoto all have built in stores that let you buy further products from Apple (songs, prints, printed products etc) and Apple make a wide range of Apple branded products that are designed to work only with the Apple system.
The iPhone and iPod all require Apple software to use, and the ULA in OS-X makes it clear you can not use it on a non-Apple computer.
The iPhone was sold with only very limited funtionality so that people would have to buy apps for it. Only you have to buy those apps from Apple. From a consumer position its really cool, because you can customise the phone to have exactly what you want on it, and there is always a new app to try, and you can get the easily from the same place.
Apple however get to sell you a phone with limited funtionality at full price, then charge you extra for apps that add basic things, all the profit goes to Apple.

As a consumer this sounds like a cool idea. Everything is intergrated and easy to use.
Apple see it differently. It is thier way of making you spend more money with them, and not with thier competitors. It limits consumer choice, allows for higher margins and in the end makes more money for Apples shareholders.
It is very un-ethical.

Dell are no different either. They will do everything they can to offer upgrades, and extra add ons for extra cost, all at high margins.



But, as I said before, there are thousands of other places to buy a computer from.
If your serious about having a proper photography work station then forget the name brand, mass market systems.
Go to your local wholesaler and talk to them about building something for you.
Then you get what you want and need, you get personal, experianced service and your supporting a local business in your comunitty.
Not a giant corporation and its shareholders.

I use Apple and Dell because they are the top sellers of computers to the public and because I’ve been to both campuses. So, I can attest with some degree of accuracy that each of their business models is strikingly different. Where Dell is very business like and sterile (all-be-it enjoyable), Apple has taken a different path. Aesthetics, health (recreational areas) and creativity are their main goals. Where Dell promotes bonuses based on how much you can save the company (or get a patent), Apple rewards creativity and ingenuity. It really is comparing Apple’s to oranges :)

I don’t think Apple’s main goal is one of money at the cost of its customer base. They take great pride in showing off their feats of beauty & simplicity. Apple could easily start using molded plastic and cheaper parts and flood the market – but they don’t. Their attention to fit and finish is remarkable as is Dell’s focus on the pure ‘ business & tech’ of things.

I did not visit the server or workstation campuses (Dell), but from what I hear they do pay far more attention to detail there and it is reflected in their prices. Which is to say, they match Apple almost to the penny; so, it could be concluded that they have chosen different paths – not necessarily better ones. Dell’s profits come mainly in the form of budget computers (from our tour guides own mouth). Apple wants’ to change the computer world, not gouge it for money.

Of course, both companies likely wanted to impress upon us their uniqueness since we got free tours – a perk for spending over a million with each company. Heck, they should have given us all hotel stays instead of just taking us out for lunch and giving us a free pen and mouse pad (Dell) or logo shirt (Apple).

[nphsbuckeye]

How often do people get viruses? Is it a "real" threat or something that people don't want to chance. The only time I've gotten viruses on my machines is when clicking on an away message...

[toxic]

How often do people get viruses? Is it a "real" threat or something that people don't want to chance. The only time I've gotten viruses on my machines is when clicking on an away message...

I don't have any numbers, but it happens quite often. As you probably know, the best protection is not doing anything stupid - but most people aren't particularly smart when it comes to computers, remember.

[nphsbuckeye]

Right, but of all the things that people rant about here, I can't recall getting a virus being one of them.

[tim]

How often do people get viruses? Is it a "real" threat or something that people don't want to chance. The only time I've gotten viruses on my machines is when clicking on an away message...

I've only gotten one in about ten years of computing. It took me a couple of hours to recover from it, I didn't even need to go to my backups.

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ I also didn't get that many viruses when I used PC. I use to CHECK all downloads and programs before I installed them. Occasionally a virus would be there, so I didn't install it.

On Mac, I haven't even downloaded one virus (I have ClamXav on my mac so I can check, but it's not necessary to have a constant virus protection running in the background... in fact, I don't think you really need virus protection on a Mac, I'm just a bit careful ;) ).

My machine crashed in April I think. Apart from when I changed motherboards on a system without reinstalling i've never had problems with machines crashing. If windows crashes there's a problem with your hardware or software and it needs to be investigated, rather than writing it off and changing platforms.

I would expect macs to be more stable, as they have total control over the hardware and software.

When I used windows machines (for 10 years or so) no matter what combination I had (I had about 5 machines I guess) I still had the crashing problems, so it wasn't a once off thing. Though my latest home built Vista Machine isn't too bad (just have it for games) which is why I say they may have changed.

All computers crash now and then.

BTW I use to be very anti-mac... until I actually tried one. :lol:


BTW #2: Wasn't Windows ME the biggest load of crap you've ever seen? That so called OS made me have to TRY and start my computer 5+ times before it actually started.... needless to say I had Windows XP on my computer as soon as it was available. :lol:

[nphsbuckeye]

^^ I also didn't get that many viruses when I used PC. I use to CHECK all downloads and programs before I installed them. Occasionally a virus would be there, so I didn't install it.

On Mac, I haven't even downloaded one virus (I have ClamXav on my mac so I can check, but it's not necessary to have a constant virus protection running in the background... in fact, I don't think you really need virus protection on a Mac, I'm just a bit careful ;) ).



When I used windows machines (for 10 years or so) no matter what combination I had (I had about 5 machines I guess) I still had the crashing problems, so it wasn't a once off thing. Though my latest home built Vista Machine isn't too bad (just have it for games) which is why I say they may have changed.

All computers crash now and then.

BTW I use to be very anti-mac... until I actually tried one. :lol:


BTW #2: Wasn't Windows ME the biggest load of crap you've ever seen? That so called OS made me have to TRY and start my computer 5+ times before it actually started.... needless to say I had Windows XP on my computer as soon as it was available. :lol:
Me too.:cool: I just won't pay for them.

[basroil]

How often do people get viruses? Is it a "real" threat or something that people don't want to chance. The only time I've gotten viruses on my machines is when clicking on an away message...

You normally get viruses from being an idiot and visiting sites and downloading/opening attachments that contain them or link to them. There are also a few attacks that are possible from taking over protocols and services without user interaction, but they require two things few computers have: direct access to the internet and unpatched vulnerabilities. Even with the two conditions, most computers are still protected either by firewalls (windows one, zone alarm, etc) or luck (yes, luck, like turning off a service because you want to streamline startup, and also happen to prevent a new service attack). If you are behind your average household router, you're pretty much safe.

And OSX actually had more critical (as in something that can allow someone to access folders, files, and scripts on your computer) vulnerabilities disclosed in it's first year than vista did. And that was after Apple sent threatening emails to people that talked to Apple about disclosing these vulnerabilities if they were not patched. Lets not forget the Safari for iPhone (based on OSX) issue that could have rendered the phones useless if someone made a virus instead of only discussing how one could be made...

[Stealthy Ninja]

Why is there so much defensiveness. Just accept the differences/problems with whatever system and be done with it.

Mac vs PC = :rolleyes:

[MaxxuM]

Right, but of all the things that people rant about here, I can't recall getting a virus being one of them.

I've only gotten one in about ten years of computing. It took me a couple of hours to recover from it, I didn't even need to go to my backups.

You normally get viruses from being an idiot and visiting sites and downloading/opening attachments that contain them or link to them. There are also a few attacks that are possible from taking over protocols and services without user interaction, but they require two things few computers have: direct access to the internet and unpatched vulnerabilities. Even with the two conditions, most computers are still protected either by firewalls (windows one, zone alarm, etc) or luck (yes, luck, like turning off a service because you want to streamline startup, and also happen to prevent a new service attack). If you are behind your average household router, you're pretty much safe.

When you hear about 'viruses' many people really don't know the difference between viruses, trojans, worms, malware, key loggers and spyware - they just call them all viruses. I would venture there are more than a million new PC infections a month from reading reports from Microsoft and CA.

Also, most virus’s reports are from businesses who cannot close off all ports. Windows Active Directory must have certain ports open so security, management and other services can function. All it takes is one user bringing in an infected flash drive, laptop or disk and bam - infection. A few years ago the Blaster Worm knocked out about 8,000 computers on our network. We didn't do the update that came about over the summer during break so when people started turning on their computers the next month it spread like wildfire. Once a worm is in your network you're doomed unless you move very fast to isolate it. For home computers, all you had to do is have ports 135 and 1080 closed and you were fine (which most people were).

At work I see thirty to forty trojans and maybe a dozen viruses alerts a week at my work place and we have about 10,000+ networked computers and half that many other systems (servers, printers, Mac's and so on). So, I see much larger picture than most people here. The biggest culprit are teenagers and peer to peer sharing networks who have let their AV expire from the demo period. And the reason you don't hear about them is because these are the average users that don't talk on forums - they just go to people like me to clean them up or take them to Best Buy or CompUSA. Friends of mine in the tech repair business tell me at least 50% of the people that come in are infected with something and they see hundreds of computers pass their desks each week.

Got to remember, we aren't the common users.

[clicktor]

My experience with using a Mac is a vast contrast to the promises of speed and better usability than a PC. Additionally the first time I ever used a Mac ironically, was to help someone out with a spyware and virus problem. I find it ammusing that one of the main arguments to get a Mac from a lot of people is the added "security" in that Mac's just don't get viri or infected in anyway as everything is written to target Windows. Not in my experience.
This is obviously my personal opinion and i respect those that use Macs for the reasons they use them, but I just couldn't ever use one or find the time to learn how to use one properly as i would forever just be comparing it to a PC knowing how much easier it would be to acomplish task X without even thinking, minimal hassle with hardware/driver support and program compatability and downright performance per pound being better with a PC.

[Stealthy Ninja]

:rolleyes:

These things always boil down to tit for tat nonsense.

Unsubscribing to avoid being annoyed by it. ;)

[DJCRAZYACE]

OKAY OKAY OKAY!
I was really really busy at work and was just able to sit down and read the phew comments that i expected! OMG 4 pages.
Some of you will be pleased to know that i bought a PC and the hardware and software are being installed nest week. So thank you for all the opinions!

[basroil]

OKAY OKAY OKAY!
I was really really busy at work and was just able to sit down and read the phew comments that i expected! OMG 4 pages.
Some of you will be pleased to know that i bought a PC and the hardware and software are being installed nest week. So thank you for all the opinions!

Let us know how it works out for you ;)