stick with winblows or move to mac?

[ssil2000]

hi guys,
since i have started using lightroom and shooting in raw i have found my 3 year old laptop can no longer handle the work, its fine for everything else, but when i get into lightroom or photoshop i have nothing but frustratingly slow performance which in turn makes me walk away and watch tv instead of sorting/editing my pictures...
i wasn't really planning a new laptop/system but i think it will have to happen very soon.

now, my issue lies with either sticking with winblows or moving my photography stuff to mac... i can get an imac for around 1700 aussie but i would only consider the switch if i will notice a massive performance increase.

i know what i will need in the winblows market to achieve my goals, so a i am looking for some mac users to share what they use and how their system performs.

cheers guys, i guess i am entering a new phase of my life... nearing 30 and gaming isnt a benchmark anymore, its now multimedia! haha

Sergio

[griptape]

Mac has a habit of over simplifying things. That's my only real complaint (aside from the proprietary hardware and lack of gaming options). Windows tends to be more compatible for... well pretty much everything. The only people I recommend macs to are those who want their computer to tell them what to do instead of the other way around. Mac OS's tend to be like windows for dummies. That's not a bad thing for a lot of people. And this is also coming from someone who is comfortable opening the dos command prompt and knows a text book full of commands for it. Mac is good for what it is, but to me personally there is such a thing as too simple.

[Squirt]

Macs are simple, but it doesn't mean that they can't do the job. I've owned several PC's, as a matter of fact I have a collection of old dead ones. Just because something works quite well, doesn't mean that it's simple. I made the switch in June of last year, and I'll never go back to Bill Gate's Folly. In 9 months I haven't experienced a single "Blue Death" screen. My Mac Book Pro is faster and provides a great workflow using Aperture and built in systems. Color Syncing was easy, just a couple mouse clicks and I have matched output through 2 printers. I don't have to worry about drivers for anything, I went to a dual screen set-up last week. I didn't have to jump through hoops to get it up and working, just plugged the monitor in and it was ready to go, color synced it to the rest of the system in under 5 minutes. Using OSX 10.5 and Time Machine I have hourly, daily, and monthly back ups, simple yes but get Windows to do it without having to purchase other software and going to school to get your computer science degree. I purchased a Canon 40D in December, shot some pics, and plugged it into the computer, I didn't have to load the Canon software or drivers, the camera is fully supported through OSX, truly just plug and play. Simple doesn't mean I'm a slave to my computer, it means that rather than putzing around trying to get my computer to do what I want it to, it already knows what to do.

[njoy_az]

Mac has a habit of over simplifying things. That's my only real complaint (aside from the proprietary hardware and lack of gaming options). Windows tends to be more compatible for... well pretty much everything. The only people I recommend macs to are those who want their computer to tell them what to do instead of the other way around. Mac OS's tend to be like windows for dummies. That's not a bad thing for a lot of people. And this is also coming from someone who is comfortable opening the dos command prompt and knows a text book full of commands for it. Mac is good for what it is, but to me personally there is such a thing as too simple.

I have disagree. I think that calling MacOS X Windows for dummies is quite simplicistic.

I might look like a Mac tell you what to do, but is the other way around - my Mac often "anticipates" what I want to do and then supports me doing it. A windows machine often feels (to me) like an obstacle course where one constantly needs to fix things that ought not to be broken in the first place.

As you see I prefer a OS that implements the most used features right, rather that implementing 1000's of them of which none work as you would expect them to (and thus would call MacOS X a "Windows that just works" :p ). And if I need to do some fine tuning (which is usually not necessary) there is always its Unix underbelly at your service.

It that combination of hard- and software that makes an Apple such an intriguing choice as it allows them to fine tune both to a much larger extent that Microsoft does. I also prefer an aesthetically pleasing design (as I have to look at it all day) btw.

Or to put it in a nutshell: I have a life, too and thus want a computer that just works (and is straightforward to use too). :D

[droopy1592]

Macs are simple, but it doesn't mean that they can't do the job. I've owned several PC's, as a matter of fact I have a collection of old dead ones. Just because something works quite well, doesn't mean that it's simple. I made the switch in June of last year, and I'll never go back to Bill Gate's Folly. In 9 months I haven't experienced a single "Blue Death" screen. My Mac Book Pro is faster and provides a great workflow using Aperture and built in systems. Color Syncing was easy, just a couple mouse clicks and I have matched output through 2 printers. I don't have to worry about drivers for anything, I went to a dual screen set-up last week. I didn't have to jump through hoops to get it up and working, just plugged the monitor in and it was ready to go, color synced it to the rest of the system in under 5 minutes. Using OSX 10.5 and Time Machine I have hourly, daily, and monthly back ups, simple yes but get Windows to do it without having to purchase other software and going to school to get your computer science degree. I purchased a Canon 40D in December, shot some pics, and plugged it into the computer, I didn't have to load the Canon software or drivers, the camera is fully supported through OSX, truly just plug and play. Simple doesn't mean I'm a slave to my computer, it means that rather than putzing around trying to get my computer to do what I want it to, it already knows what to do.

It's not as if additional drivers need to be installed in windows. I can plug my 400D or your 40D into a windows box and it'll take the pics right off.

[Rooz]

have never used a mac so i cant comment. i upgraded to Vista a while ago. it was a horrific experience. i had to uninstall the whole thing to get rid of it. it was the fucking nightmare of nightmares.

that being said, with xp and win 98 beforehand, i never had a blue screen, never plugged somthing in that didn't automatically get detected and installed, never had to upload anything, (well not have to go look for it and load it up), to get things to work and have never really had any issues at all.

this isn't a ringing endorsement of windows. i just see it as a means to an end really. i have no knowledge or interest in operating systems UNLESS they don;t work like Vista. am i haopy with windows ? well, i have no opinion of it. to me it's just a means to an end.

i just replaced my PC not long ago actually and what i could get for my money was pretty amazing nowadays. the PC is a friggin beast. no lag, no wait, no worries. but if somoene told me i could replace my PC with a Mac for better performandce and less money, i couldn;t care less, switch it baby ! whatever's cheaper and whatever works is my only requirement. both seem to fit the bill, (so to speak :D ).

[ssil2000]

thanks for the replies, i may need to rephrase my question as this isnt inteded to be a macs suck windows sucks etc etc thread...

i have worked in IT for over 10 years and know windows inside and out, i dont intend to get rid of my windows machines, but simply add a mac to be used strictly for my photography (if that is the best option, i ma end up just getting a new windows laptop)

what i am asking is for those who have their raw workflow on a mac (preferebly a mid range mac like the imac or a mac lappy) i am not willing to spend more the 2 grand AU on the machine as really it will be used for processing photos.

lets try not to argue guys :)

Sergio

[njoy_az]

I have both a 6yr old Powerbook G4 Ti running 10.4 and a 1.6 GHz CoreDuo MacMini running 10.5. I use the MacMini for all the processor-intensive stuff and it rocks. Using CS3 is a real pleasure, too. I have not been able to really max it out yet. The iMacs, Mac Pro and MacBook Pro have dedicated GPUs, the rest don't but are still plenty fast. So any current Mac should be fine.

It is up to you to decide which one you like best. :)

[Jason25]

thanks for the replies, i may need to rephrase my question as this isnt inteded to be a macs suck windows sucks etc etc thread...

i have worked in IT for over 10 years and know windows inside and out, i dont intend to get rid of my windows machines, but simply add a mac to be used strictly for my photography (if that is the best option, i ma end up just getting a new windows laptop)

what i am asking is for those who have their raw workflow on a mac (preferebly a mid range mac like the imac or a mac lappy) i am not willing to spend more the 2 grand AU on the machine as really it will be used for processing photos.

lets try not to argue guys :)

Sergio
I work in IT as well, and switched to Mac 3 years ago and haven't looked back. The way I see it, I build/fix all types of Windows boxes at work and don't want to do it at home. The only time I've ever even rebooted my Powerbook is for required software updates. It has never restarted when I didn't intend for it to!

With that said, my 3 year old Powerbook G4 has been able to handle D50/70s files as well as D200 files without issue. Oh, and get the lowest amount of RAM to start and add your own for MUCH less money.

[Rhys]

My niece has a Mac. I am about to buy a Mac.

Macs don't get viruses or at least if there are any there are so few they can be counted on the fingers of an underspecified hand.

Software needs to be installed on Macs and deleting software is as easy as dragging it to the trash bin. Software does not auto-install as on Windows so viruses cannot self-install. OSX does not have a registry so corrupting one file won't give the system a hernia unlike Windows.

I've used Linux, Unix, Windows, Mac OS9, OSX etc. OSX is based on FreeBSD Linux so you know it's stable. It then has a better front end (GUI) than Linux and has software availability (unlike Linux). There isn't so much software available for Mac BUT what is available is of higher quality as Mac owners tend to be somewhat more discerning.

[FlashX83]

If you're asking whether Photoshop and Lightroom will perform noticable better on a Mac than on a similarly (if not identically) spec'd Windows machine, the answer is no.

I'm not sure how the Adobe licensing stuff works, but if you already own Photoshop and Lightroom for Windows, wouldn't you have to rebuy it for Mac? If so, that would increase the cost quite a bit, to the point where Windows makes a lot more sense.

[eman]

Not sure if you had considered this idea. You might have heard about it already since you work in IT. Have you consider running Mac OSX on a non-Mac laptop? You could probably load up your current laptop with OSX and get it a try before you shell out the $. Also the windoz laptop usually is cheaper and have faster CPU(s) than the true Apple Mac laptops.

[erichlund]

First, the OPs original question:

Software is software. If you are using the same software, you will have the same workflow. Apple has some products only available on Macs. PCs have a lot of products exclusive to PC. There are also a lot of cross platform products. Some will say it's more vs better, but that's not really a set relationship. There are some very good products for the PC that are simply not available on the Mac, and that can save you a huge amount of money. Paint Shop Pro is an example. It is basically Photoshop without the $650 price tag. Its interface is a little different, but some actually like it better. Not all photoshop plugins work as they should. But for the basic task of full featured photo editing, $150 beats $650 any day of the week. Products I believe are exclusive to Mac are Aperture and the Apple gimmes that come with the operating system (Not bad, but neither could they be called "full featured").

Now, to the myths:
1. Faster isn't (completely) about the operating system. It's mostly about new hardware. My computers get faster each time I build a new one (or buy a laptop). Unless you needed to scrimp to save money, why would anyone buy a slower computer???

2. Software color calibration is fine and good. I can do that on my PC, though it's not conveniently built in like Apple has done. However, when your monitor starts to drift, then software color calibration based on fixed hardware profiles will only get you wrong results. Color monitors change over time. If you truly want to be color correct, you have to use hardware. And no, Mac monitors are not different, only more stylish. You pay extra for that. As for printers, there are profiles for printers as well. Generally speaking, these don't change over time like a monitor. OTOH, if the software doesn't have a profile for that special paper you want to use, then you can't profile it. With my Spyder 3 studio, I can. I believe it's available for the Mac, so you aren't left out in the cold.

3. I find it amazing that Apple is getting so much out of backup software. Windows has had that for years, and it keeps improving. The current version is pretty simple to use and quite flexible, but if you need more, you can buy extraordinary solutions. Of course, you would actually have to set it up to do hourly, and I don't know if that would be a pain. I've never considered doing more than daily. Office applications generally take care of this sort of thing for you anyway. Here's the problem. You have to store all those backups. If you are using your single internal hard drive, then you aren't really backing anything up, since one of the purposes of backup is in case the MOST LIKELY FAILURE POINT fails. Yup, that's the hard drive. So, you still need a second hard drive, whether in system, or external. If you have a second drive for in system backup and you set your software to save often, set up raid 1 and you have fairly LIVE backup all the time. I'd still recommend an external backup type. I use an external SATA drive, but USB or Firewire would work as well (Tape is old hat, and really lacks speed and capacity for modern operation).

4. So, your Mac has Canon support. What about Leica or Samsung? Are they left out in the cold? Frankly, I don't have to install drivers for most things on my PCs. They are already there. There are exceptions, and that is to be expected. I have more hardware options, so I expect to have more complications. This is nothing unique. If Macs don't require drivers for installed hardware, how come some of the things I purchase come with a disc for PC and a disc for Mac???

5. Vista vs XP. Vista is past its early adopter phase. I've been using it for nearly a year, and everything I have has a driver and works just fine. Mine is on 24/7, except when a system update requires a reboot. That occurs about once a month.

6. Macs don't get viruses because Virus writers are egomaniacs. Macs are not mysteriously protected by superior security. If you can write a virus that has the potential to tap 90 of every 100 machines, or one that will tap less than 10 of 100 machines, and your purpose is to tap as many machines as possible, which are you going to write for? Viruses are a product of Windows success. There's a corollary to that.

7. FreeBSD is UNIX, not Linux. It makes a difference.

8. Mac hardware is very reliable, and the software works well with it. That's because Apple doesn't let you muck with it. Oh, there are a few options, but by and large, Apple controls what goes in the box. They insist on quality parts, and you pay for that. Your choices are more limited with Apple products, and you have to run windows to run many applications that do not run on Macs.

BTW: It hasn't always been about closed systems at Mac. My Apple II+ was as open as it gets. The manuals for the computer had the complete bios code, the hardware instruction set, and instructions for making modifications requiring a soldering iron (on the motherboard!!!). The basic development language was built in (Apple Basic), as well as a mini machine language compiler. Those were different times.

I can buy quality parts. Heck, I can buy better parts, but they are real expensive. Most PCs are designed with gamers at heart, and that is one of the problems with PCs. They are designed for maximum performance instead of maximum reliability. Most people would be much better served if they would spend more on reliable hardware designed for servers rather than the high performance gamer systems. But, they want cheap and fast, and that's what they get. Reliability is not built in. That's a consumer choice. If 90% of PC owners bought Xeon based systems, with fully buffered memory, redundant hardware and power, and all that goes into an Intel based server, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Of course, performance would suffer a bit, but the systems would be utterly reliable. It's all about choices.

9. As for running OS-X on a PC, I've heard of people trying to hack that. I'm not sure how successful they have been. Apple uses a proprietary BIOS, and I presume OS-X looks for it.

10. Last Words: Be careful what you purchase from the Apple lineup. Some of the integrated solutions are having some problems with the LCD screens. I'm speaking of the machines where the computer is built into the screen. Apple is doing all it can to squelch the rumors, but Tom's Hardware Guide has published some info. It's run off the current news, so you will have to look at the archives.

[ssil2000]

ok, there are some limitations in my scenario, desktops are not really an option including the imac. i would prefer to build my own windows system if i were to go that way but i would not be able to use some of the tax benefits we have here in oz (salary sacrifice) for those who are aussies...

so my options are limited to laptops in saying that i am starting to look away from macs as their mid/high range are rather expensive, i may just have to get another windows laptop and gear it towards photoshop/lightroom... and use this one for all other day to day stuff which it handles just fine, it only bogs down while using photoshop and lightroom.

thanks guys, sorry to bother you with this but it was worth exploring...

:)

Sergio

[fionndruinne]

Just buy a good Windows comp', or upgrade what you have. A dual-core processor and 2GB of RAM will happily run Lightroom.

[r3g]

An agreement is never reached in a windows vs mac thread lol. You can spend all day trying to compare the 2 OS but in the end it comes down to user preference. I personally cant strand Macs nor can I stand smug Mac owners who chant that Apple is god and windows is trash when the fact is both OS systems have their goods and bads. There is no task that can be completed by one system but not the other. You will learn that listening to other people too much on stuff like this can lead you to a wrong choice. For instance people say how windows isnt stable. The only stability issues I have EVER ran into with Windows has been during overclocking and that comes with the territory. People chant how windows vista is trash. I have Vista on my desktop and both laptops and have had nothing but good experiences coming from XP Pro. People (especially Mac owners) rant about how Windows gets viruses. I build my first PC 9 years ago. Since then I have gotten maybe 3 viruses all these years. The fact is anyone with halfway decent knowledge can use their computers everyday without downloading viruses (and its not hard at all to learn how to be a competent internet user). The main reason I dont like Macs is a) dont like osx user interface and b) Macs are wayyyyyyyy overpriced. Hope this rant helps. Try Vista Home Premium or better and then try OS X Leopard and see which one fits you best. If you do go Mac just promise not to get smug and we'll be cool :p


Is it ironic that 3 Mac commercials aired while typing this message? :D

[ssil2000]

An agreement is never reached in a windows vs mac thread lol. You can spend all day trying to compare the 2 OS but in the end it comes down to user preference. I personally cant strand Macs nor can I stand smug Mac owners who chant that Apple is god and windows is trash when the fact is both OS systems have their goods and bads. There is no task that can be completed by one system but not the other. You will learn that listening to other people too much on stuff like this can lead you to a wrong choice. For instance people say how windows isnt stable. The only stability issues I have EVER ran into with Windows has been during overclocking and that comes with the territory. People chant how windows vista is trash. I have Vista on my desktop and both laptops and have had nothing but good experiences coming from XP Pro. People (especially Mac owners) rant about how Windows gets viruses. I build my first PC 9 years ago. Since then I have gotten maybe 3 viruses all these years. The fact is anyone with halfway decent knowledge can use their computers everyday without downloading viruses (and its not hard at all to learn how to be a competent internet user). The main reason I dont like Macs is a) dont like osx user interface and b) Macs are wayyyyyyyy overpriced. Hope this rant helps. Try Vista Home Premium or better and then try OS X Leopard and see which one fits you best. If you do go Mac just promise not to get smug and we'll be cool :p


Is it ironic that 3 Mac commercials aired while typing this message? :D

hehe

well i think i will get a new windows laptop, i am staying right away from vista though as it is a resource hog, i would never get rid of my windows machines as i dont have any issues with crashing etc, my only reason for this thread was on the basis that i would be using whatever i buy strictly for photos, and macs have always been known for their multimedia performance, i was just trying to figure out if it was worth the extra cost. i suspect not so i now need to figire out which laptop to buy, i would rather build a new desktop but at this time its more beneficial to me to take advantage of the tax benefits and purchase a new laptop.

now i need to suss out which one to get :)

thanks again guys,

Sergio

[r3g]

its only a resource hog until you disable all the unneeded services and background processes. there are many sites out there that list what those services are.

[Rhys]

its only a resource hog until you disable all the unneeded services and background processes. there are many sites out there that list what those services are.

But why should we have to bother? With OSX, only what's needed is running.

[erichlund]

Rhys, I suspect that's a bit of a naive statement.

Since it's a UNIX system, I would guess this would bring up a list of running processes:

Open a terminal window.
Type: ps -ef | sort | more

That should tell you all the processes running on your Mac. I'll bet you can find a few that are not really "necessary".

Another point is that those resources that get shut down may mean some convenience function is lost. Some people actually accept the performance loss for the convenience.

As Reg said, we each have our preferences, and that's all they really are. In the end it is very silly. They are actually so similar. Vista is built on Xp which is built on NT which, BTW, was designed by a UNIX guy. Sound familiar? Microsoft made some compromises to keep some compatibility with what came before, where Apple has made several deviations that essentially complete "do-overs". I have software that I ran on Windows 3 systems that will still run on my Vista machine. Even old DOS software that will still run. I don't, as there's nothing really useful that I don't have something better, but I can. I'm not certain a Mac owner can say the same.

In a way, this parallels the Nikon-Canon procession. Nikon's are basically compatible with lenses right back to the 1960's, because Nikon has only added to the F mount, while not removing anything from it. There have been some deviations along the way, but the enthusiast and above cameras can use lenses that have been around for a long time. Canon, on the other hand, made a hard break, killing the FD line of lenses to create the EF autofocus lens mount.

[K1W1]

I've been in IT for, well a long time. We currently have 3 Windows based PC's at home and the two kids each have an iMac.
One thing that constantly frustrates me with the Macs is that they just do things. Want to get onto the network? You are. Want to load a network printer driver? It works.
With Windows I expect the odd headache and I know where to look and how to fix them. With Macs they never seem to happen.
As Eric mentioned I think the speed thing is really a function of newer hardware rather than any huge difference between the OS's.
As far a Lightroom Licencing is concerned I think the licence allows installation on two computers whether Adobe will allow one Mac and one PC would be worthwhile asking about.
As far a running OS-X on a Windows PC and notebook it can't be done as far as I know. You can run Windows on a Mac but not the other way around at this stage and that is also an option. Buy a Mac and run your PP software under Windows on the Mac. There is a performance hit but a new Mac will still probably be faster than your current PC.

[talkingdog]

I've been in IT for, well a long time. We currently have 3 Windows based PC's at home and the two kids each have an iMac.
One thing that constantly frustrates me with the Macs is that they just do things. Want to get onto the network? You are. Want to load a network printer driver? It works.
With Windows I expect the odd headache and I know where to look and how to fix them. With Macs they never seem to happen.
As Eric mentioned I think the speed thing is really a function of newer hardware rather than any huge difference between the OS's.
As far a Lightroom Licencing is concerned I think the licence allows installation on two computers whether Adobe will allow one Mac and one PC would be worthwhile asking about.
As far a running OS-X on a Windows PC and notebook it can't be done as far as I know. You can run Windows on a Mac but not the other way around at this stage and that is also an option. Buy a Mac and run your PP software under Windows on the Mac. There is a performance hit but a new Mac will still probably be faster than your current PC.

There are only a few configurations of Mac so hardware should be much easier. There are to many variables for pc hardware. I have a legal copy of xp on one of the kid's computers and MS keeps telling me otherwise.

Anyone load Steadystate on any of their computers. Just wondering if it is worth it. Seems good for the kid's computers.

[Rhys]

There are only a few configurations of Mac so hardware should be much easier. There are to many variables for pc hardware. I have a legal copy of xp on one of the kid's computers and MS keeps telling me otherwise.

Anyone load Steadystate on any of their computers. Just wondering if it is worth it. Seems good for the kid's computers.

It looks interesting but I'm not prepared to guineapig it. It's something that I think was very necessary for XP from the beginning. What I dislike about XP is that I can't install software from the Admin account and automatically expect it to work on user accounts. Instead I have to set the user as Admin, install then reset the user to a user account. What a PITA!

One of the benefits of OSX is that you can't find all this download game crap that my stepson insists on downloading and then denies having downloaded.

[r3g]

But why should we have to bother? With OSX, only what's needed is running.


like i said both OS have their ups and downs. 2 minutes of tweaking wont kill you ;) (dont tell me u mac owners are lazy too!!:p) id rather take that 2 minutes then to use OS X. but its all about user preference! A lot of the extra stuff is useful especially for people who arent super computer literate. only more advanced users have no need for it and so disabling them is nothing. whats needed is a matter of opinion.

[talkingdog]

It looks interesting but I'm not prepared to guineapig it. It's something that I think was very necessary for XP from the beginning. What I dislike about XP is that I can't install software from the Admin account and automatically expect it to work on user accounts. Instead I have to set the user as Admin, install then reset the user to a user account. What a PITA!

One of the benefits of OSX is that you can't find all this download game crap that my stepson insists on downloading and then denies having downloaded.

Thats why I may try Steadystate on my youngest sons computer, nothing on it that he would miss from a format/install. It gets old installing the os everytime they screw it up. I only use the admin accounts, To much trouble with user accounts. I would miss the gaming if I did make the leap to Mac.

[Squirt]

Any discussion between PC and Mac attributes ends up being a wizzing contest, a mine is better than yours thing. I use both, not because I want to but because I have to. I use very expensive proprietary design and operating software for my sewing machine that is only available for Windows. I wish it was available for my Mac but it isn't. I don't want to be an IT pro, I want to turn my computer on and be able to do what I want to do when I want to do. My Mac boots faster, doesn't hiccup, and instead of be a machine that controls me, it's just an appliance that I use to simplify my life. I have very few complaints concerning the PC, I feel that Windows is a bloated and not very well thought out operating system, it's slow and prone to problems. I got tired of having to update it with long downloads, SP 1, Sp 2, and now SP3. Early reports on VIsta were not very encouraging, so I haven't and won't update to it. I refuse to be Bill Gate's test medium. I wouldn't purchase a car that wasn't fully tested and fully operational, why should I be forced to do it with my computer.

My Mac does everything I ask of it, it's like owning a sports car, very efficient at what it does and it does it well. My PC, is like owning a house in a bad neighborhood , I live with it because I have to.

[njoy_az]

I've been in IT for, well a long time. We currently have 3 Windows based PC's at home and the two kids each have an iMac.
One thing that constantly frustrates me with the Macs is that they just do things. Want to get onto the network? You are. Want to load a network printer driver? It works.

Well imho, that is how a computer should be designed.


As far a running OSX on a Windows PC and notebook it can't be done as far as I know. You can run Windows on a Mac but not the other way around at this stage and that is also an option. Buy a Mac and run your PP software under Windows on the Mac. There is a performance hit but a new Mac will still probably be faster than your current PC.

Running MacOS X on a non-Apple Computer does work it is just frowned upon by Apple (and thus unsupported). The other way around is much easier. Apple even provides a full set of Windows drivers for their Intel-based Macs called Bootcamp. As Windows runs natively on an Intel- Mac I don't see why there should be a performance penalty to it? Even the virtualisation options (like Parallels) are supposed to be rather fast. :)

[timmciglobal]

I think the entire "mac" push is for people who don't understand and/or can't operate PC's.

I've been using PC's a very long time and I've built all of mine and I've supported all of mine and while I love apple's products (I'm addicted to the "just works" of my ipod touch now) the mac just seems like a waste.

Photoshop runs amazingly fast on my home built Q6600 and total cost was 75% what a low end mac would run.

Installing windows XP right, using good drivers, only using quality hardware and keeping XP with a good Virusscan/Adbot helps a lot.

The mac isn't all fun and games either. It suffers from low compatibility, less software choice, FAR less supported video games/bleeding edge applications and generally requires entire system upgrades to move to new features vs ability to "build your own new pc" using old parts + new ones.

Tim

[jRaskell]

Any discussion between PC and Mac attributes ends up being a wizzing contest, a mine is better than yours thing.

I don't know if this was intentional or not, but your post was exactly that.

[Rhys]

I think the entire "mac" push is for people who don't understand and/or can't operate PC's.

I've been using PC's a very long time and I've built all of mine and I've supported all of mine and while I love apple's products (I'm addicted to the "just works" of my ipod touch now) the mac just seems like a waste.

Photoshop runs amazingly fast on my home built Q6600 and total cost was 75% what a low end mac would run.

Installing windows XP right, using good drivers, only using quality hardware and keeping XP with a good Virusscan/Adbot helps a lot.

The mac isn't all fun and games either. It suffers from low compatibility, less software choice, FAR less supported video games/bleeding edge applications and generally requires entire system upgrades to move to new features vs ability to "build your own new pc" using old parts + new ones.

Tim

People always bring up that tired old thing "you can't get software for Macs". It's simply not true. You can get a wide variety of office software including Open Office and a wide variety of internet software. A lot of stuff Windows needs such as registry repair and defragmentation software, antivirus, anti-spyware and disk optimising utilities just aren't needed with OSX. I can get Photoshop for Mac or use iPhoto. Sure - you probably can't get as many games for a Mac but on the other hand, do you want a computer or a stupid little games machine. If all you want is to play video games, just buy an XBox and leave computers to the big boys.

[r3g]

Do you want a computer or a stupid little games machine. If all you want is to play video games, just buy an XBox and leave computers to the big boys.



Couple things wrong with that statement.

1) xbox is horrid.

2) what makes gaming machines stupid?

3) computers are all about being able to do multiple things from one unit. in my 7 years and computer consulting ive yet to meet someone who only used their computer for gaming or for any one task. that "if all you want to do is.." statement just doesnt fit in today's world.

[photography555]

I have used both Macs and PCs for years. I would DEFINITELY go with the Mac.
1, you can run Windows if you have too. 2, Macs almost never get viruses. Windows get tons. 3, Macs don't freeze nearly as often as PCs. 4, Apple has much better customer service. 5, Macs do better with graphics.

[Rhys]

Couple things wrong with that statement.

1) xbox is horrid.

2) what makes gaming machines stupid?

3) computers are all about being able to do multiple things from one unit. in my 7 years and computer consulting ive yet to meet someone who only used their computer for gaming or for any one task. that "if all you want to do is.." statement just doesnt fit in today's world.

Games are better played on a dedicated machine such as the XBox, Nintendo, Atari or whatever. The machines are all identikit clones and thus there are no problems with compatibility. I've seen so many Windows-based games that just won't work on my stepson's computer that you wouldn't believe.

The only bit of real software that I've found that's been funky is Microsoft Publisher which will run on my stepson's machine but it just will not install on my wife's laptop nor any of the other Windows machines in the house no matter how much I fiddle with the system and report error messages to Microsoft.

In my 20 years of computer programming/repair/maintainance/design/construction I have never found Windows systems to be particularly user-friendly and have usually found that software won't run on some that will run on others. Heck, even Windows won't run on some hardware that it claims to run on!

[r3g]

but thats just it. user interface and such all comes down to user preference. what one person hates another loves. thats why these threads always fail lol :D:p

and i cant help but disagree that games are better on console but thats just my opinion. i chooses pc gaming over console because the games arent prerendered and there is a way bigger online community

[Rhys]

but thats just it. user interface and such all comes down to user preference. what one person hates another loves. thats why these threads always fail lol :D:p

and i cant help but disagree that games are better on console but thats just my opinion. i chooses pc gaming over console because the games arent prerendered and there is a way bigger online community

My niece plays Halo3 on her XBox. She stayed with us and used to connect via our internet connection. She joined the online "community" and the language she was using when chatting to other players certainly coloured the air. I was very glad when she finally went elsewhere. Given that many members of online communities tend to be less than polite, I'm rather glad that I just do not play any online games. (I do have a character on a mud that I keep alive by logging on once every couple of months or so).

[erichlund]

I actually had the opportunity to do an experiment. One of the highest graphic detail games is one called Oblivion, a fantasy RPG. While it is marginally OK on my Playstation 3, it really comes alive on the PC. The PS3 is just too choppy, and the graphics are very muddy compared to the PC. So, my $60 experiment failed, because I do not play it on the PS3, it's simply not good enough.

[tombo]

ok, this is my analagy of the way windows works, it is slightly controversial so i apologise profusely if i offend anyone in any way, but its light hearted so try and giggle.

ok, so since bill gates is so generous, every new xp and vista computer is shipped with H.I.V. You use your computer and everything seems fine, until one day, maybe weeks, maybe years later - your windows pc innevitably develops AIDS. At this point the immune system begins to shut down and despite your best efforts and pumping it full of expensive remediese eventually one day it will be killed by a stupid little virus it could have easily fought off in the first place.

os x on the other hand is guaranteed 100% AIDS proof. i had pc's for 7 years and tried my darndest to love them but all they ever did was screw me over, hard drives crashed, kernel errors appeared etc. I bought a mac 3 years ago and i kid you not it runs as fast today as it did the day i bought it. i have never had any issues with software availability or compatibility. although steve jobs is a wanker in his own right bill gates has got rich for decades off making shotty products that never ever ever work first time around. Even the Xbox has a 40% failure rate. He just can't seem to get it right.

BUY A MAC!

[jRaskell]

Windows operates on a very open hardware architecture.
Macs operate on a very closed hardware architecture.

There are significant pros and significant cons to each of these designs.

Macs have few compatibility issues, but they also have fewer hardware options, are more expensive, and less upgradable over time.

Windows systems are cheaper, have nearly unlimited hardware options, and are completely upgradable over time. Compatibility issues are a natural result of such open endedness though.

In over 10 years now, I have not at any one time bought an entirely new PC. I do nothing but continually upgrade. What I have sitting next to my desk at home is nothing at all like the PC that was there 10 years ago, but it has always been an evolving process of upgrades. That wouldn't even be remotely possible with Macs.

Also, in over 10 years, I have not had ONE compatibility issue. Sure, you actually need to know what you're doing when working with a Windows PC, but I've always been the kind of guy that wants to know exactly what he's doing and what he's working with. Ignorance is not something I find blissful at all.

[Tom_N]

Windows operates on a very open hardware architecture.


Not by IBM's choice. Using a lot of off-the-shelf parts for the first IBM PC was just a means of doing a fast catch-up with Apple and Tandy (Radio Shack). If IBM had known what was going to happen, they probably would have done things a lot differently. (E.g., by buying out MS-DOS, making the deal exclusive, or writing their own OS to maintain control.)

After clones took off, IBM tried to make PCs more IBM-proprietary again, with the MicroChannel bus (a replacement for ISA), and OS/2. But although IBM's mainframe market share had "made" the PC ("nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"), people were now more addicted to clone prices, so it didn't "take".



Macs operate on a very closed hardware architecture.


Such a "closed" architecture that it's built upon x86 CPUs, SATA hard drives, USB 2.0, FireWire (IEEE 1394), 10/100 or 10/100/1000 Base-T Ethernet, IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs, BlueTooth, VGA and DVI display connectors, and -- in the Mac Pros -- standard next-generation expansion slot types.

No, Apple doesn't invite you to go buy a motherboard from anyone, and put it together with the cheapest (and most off-spec) parts you can find anywhere in the world. But then neither does Dell, or HP, or Gateway.




Windows systems are cheaper, have nearly unlimited hardware options, and are completely upgradable over time.


Past a certain point, they're not worth upgrading, whether it's theoretically possible to do it or not.

[jRaskell]

No, Apple doesn't invite you to go buy a motherboard from anyone, ... But then neither does Dell, or HP, or Gateway.


Of course not. They'd much rather you go back to them for a brand new pc every few years instead.


and put it together with the cheapest (and most off-spec) parts you can find anywhere in the world.

That's a pretty big and largely incorrect assumption on your part. The reality is that the majority of system builders out there put together only name brand, quality components when building their own systems, and that the likes of Dell, HP, and Gateway tend to take significant shortcuts in their motherboard designs to keep costs down and profits up.



Past a certain point, they're not worth upgrading, whether it's theoretically possible to do it or not.

Well, in 10 years I haven't reached that point. Then again, that's a rather ambiguous statement on your part.

[erichlund]

Not by IBM's choice. Using a lot of off-the-shelf parts for the first IBM PC was just a means of doing a fast catch-up with Apple and Tandy (Radio Shack). If IBM had known what was going to happen, they probably would have done things a lot differently. (E.g., by buying out MS-DOS, making the deal exclusive, or writing their own OS to maintain control.)

After clones took off, IBM tried to make PCs more IBM-proprietary again, with the MicroChannel bus (a replacement for ISA), and OS/2. But although IBM's mainframe market share had "made" the PC ("nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"), people were now more addicted to clone prices, so it didn't "take".

Big Blue never understood their own product. The PC is about choice, but they built crappy, hard to upgrade packages that I would not touch with a 10 foot pole.

The mainframe market never had much to do with the PC. It certainly didn't make the PC. In fact, the IBM versions of the PC didn't make the PC. It was the successful cloners that made the PC. This was occurring about the same time that Apple was in the process of closing their architecture, so the clones were where the real hobbiests went, and at that time, they still drove the industry. Apple failed to understand that, which is why they went from >90% share in desktops to <10% over a few short years.

OS/2 was a branch from what was originally a joint Microsoft/IBM project. It was too little, too late. It had a small, fanatical following, but could not compete for development on the same platform as Windows. At least Apple had a different platform and a niche market (at the time, graphics and schools). I actually did some development work for MCI on an OS/2 server platform. It wasn't a bad system. It just didn't have a hook to compete with the established OS for PC platforms. There were always a few people who would say, you have to try this superior OS/2 system. I would ask, why? After I did some work on it, the question still remained.

Such a "closed" architecture that it's built upon x86 CPUs, SATA hard drives, USB 2.0, FireWire (IEEE 1394), 10/100 or 10/100/1000 Base-T Ethernet, IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs, BlueTooth, VGA and DVI display connectors, and -- in the Mac Pros -- standard next-generation expansion slot types.

No, Apple doesn't invite you to go buy a motherboard from anyone, and put it together with the cheapest (and most off-spec) parts you can find anywhere in the world. But then neither does Dell, or HP, or Gateway.

A very risky position. One has to ask, why is Apple on an Intel architecture? Well, because their prevous architecture turned out to be a financial dead end. Remeber when Apple tried the clone route? The quality of the clones was... not so good. One can actually applaud Apple for sticking to their guns on this, but it is expensive, and it does make them a niche provider.

As far as cheapest, that's a choice. Yes, you can buy cheap hardware, and if all you are going to do is email and a few simple office type tasks, then perhaps all you need it the cheapest hardware. I won't go so far as to say I could upgrade EVERY part in an Apple Mac, but not all the parts are top of the line. They are, however, well above average. I was, for instance, looking at the specs for one of the new Macs. The video card choices did not include the top of the line cards available from the providers that they listed (ATI, nVidea). Yes there are some good options, but not the best.

Oh, and all those manufacturers you mention have a complete range of choices, from very cheap to very expensive. You get what you pay for.


Past a certain point, they're not worth upgrading, whether it's theoretically possible to do it or not.

Except for my case, all the parts in my case will eventually be replaced, if only because they will wear out. However, I don't expect to ever replace the 3.5" floppy, the DVD R/W drives will last me a long time, the power supply exceeds my current needs, the card reader will pretty much do for the forseeable future, and the main board is suitable for at least one more processor upgrade. If one chooses parts carefully, one can save money while getting high quality. And, I only have to replace what is out of date, not the whole system.

BTW: When you do replace motherboards and processors, at many stores, you are also eligible for OEM pricing on software upgrades as well. That IS a big deal.

[Tom_N]

Big Blue never understood their own product. The PC is about choice


No. It was about making money for IBM.



The mainframe market never had much to do with the PC. It certainly didn't make the PC. In fact, the IBM versions of the PC didn't make the PC. It was the successful cloners that made the PC.


It had a great deal to do with the launch of the PC. IBM more or less owned the mainframe market and had a substantial presence in minicomputers. The statement "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" pretty accurately described how corporate IT departments thought about vendors at the time.

So when IBM introduced a PC, lots of businesses (IBM's real market) bought it just because it had IBM's name on it. And in reasonably short order, the main players in the business microcomputer market went from Tandy and Apple, to IBM and Apple. (Eventually Tandy was reduced to selling PC clones.)

I'm not sure if it was the microcomputer market, or the minicomputer one, but there was one market where IBM announced a product and pundits said that IBM's entry "legitimized" the market. An existing vendor took out a two-page advertisement quoting that, following it with "... the b*****ds say welcome"!



the IBM versions of the PC didn't make the PC. It was the successful cloners that made the PC.


The cloners only "made" the PC after IBM had "made" it first. (Ask yourself -- where are the S-100 bus / CPM machines now?)

[T06]

Very interesting thread this for me as I've switched from IBM to Apple in the last month. Words that come to mind after 8 years & 3 pc's to the first iMac are easy, sensible, logical, etc... Great machine these Apples, so were the pc's but I'd go Apple first, everytime. Try this "Apple, it's refreshing!!!":D

[Rhys]

No. It was about making money for IBM.



It had a great deal to do with the launch of the PC. IBM more or less owned the mainframe market and had a substantial presence in minicomputers. The statement "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" pretty accurately described how corporate IT departments thought about vendors at the time.

So when IBM introduced a PC, lots of businesses (IBM's real market) bought it just because it had IBM's name on it. And in reasonably short order, the main players in the business microcomputer market went from Tandy and Apple, to IBM and Apple. (Eventually Tandy was reduced to selling PC clones.)

I'm not sure if it was the microcomputer market, or the minicomputer one, but there was one market where IBM announced a product and pundits said that IBM's entry "legitimized" the market. An existing vendor took out a two-page advertisement quoting that, following it with "... the b*****ds say welcome"!



The cloners only "made" the PC after IBM had "made" it first. (Ask yourself -- where are the S-100 bus / CPM machines now?)

Amstrad killed the CPM machines with a collosal act of stupidity. Alan Sugar then the boss of Amstrad decided to produce the cheapest ever CPM machine and effectively blew everybody else out of the CPM market. He then decided to lock in his users by installing a 3 inch floppy disk - not a 3.5 like everybody else. In the end users decided that as they couldn't squeeze their 3.5s into the Amstrad then they'd go elsewhere so as Apples and PCs were the only alternatives they went for PCs due to cheapness and mass availability of parts. Now they regret this as PCs largely run Windows and are very susceptible to viruses. Apples on the other hand don't have as many viruses and because of the way the OS is designed, don't get infected so easily. I'm currently working on a machine that had 1017 viruses when I started. I've eliminated most of the viruses and spyware but am still working on the last blighter that adaware and AVG can't see.

There are alternatives to Windows in Linux and BeOs and others. BeOs ceased development some 10 years ago despite having shown a great deal of promise. Linux is fairly decent but could be much improved. OSX seems to be very good. XP is pretty darned good although its insistance on investigating the contents of USB memory sticks is perturbing. All it takes is for a virus on a memory stick to be run by the system for XP to catch a bad cold. Note I said "by the system". XP is not very user-friendly in terms of asking the user for permission to execute files on memory sticks. XP is not very admin friendly either. If I install software on the admin account and specify all users access then I expect all users to be able to use the software. Unfortunately on XP you have to set each user to Admin then install the software then set them back to Users. What a PITA!