Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Stef_T on February 05, 2005, 01:52:12 pm
-
Sorry, I am not aware of this mouse issue? I know that the mouse that comes with the Mac isn't very good (same things goes with anything you get from dell) but you can still attach any USB mouse to a Mac and it would work fine, right?
Stefan
-
As for Photographers going Windows, I think it's due to cost and ignorance
I disagree. If you're used to Mac, it's easier than Windows, but if you learned computers on Windows machines, Mac OS is not particularly intuitive to figure out, and there is no compelling reason to switch. And if you can get better Photoshop performance for 2/3 the cost, what's ignorant about using the Windows platform?
If you read past my first sentence in that paragraph I am talking about people new to computers in general and not nessasarily only people visiting these forums...
Many Do-It-Yourself-ers tend to go with Win due to the customizeability of that platform. But DIYs (and computer savvy DIYs) are a small portion of the artistic/photographic crowd. Most people don't know a terrible amount about computers and easily get "sticker-shock" as they don't fully understand the value of a system.
Also the cost benefit of going windows depends on your setup. If absolute high-end is the game (dual CPU for example) then the Mac can actually be cheaper. Mid (where most photogs land) and low-range (no pro-photographers land here) the WinPC has the price advantage.
-
Maybe 64 bit port of Photoshop running on a 64 or 128 way Itanium system?
64-bit PS? That's on Macintosh and with the release of Tiger it'll be true 64-bit (not just partial).
You'll have to wait untill WinXP 64 comes to the PC. WinXP 64-bit is currently in RC 2 (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050208-4597.html).
Also:
* There is no 128-bit Itanium.
* 64-bit computing would not increase the heat produced by the chip in any significant way. It only increases the instructions the chip can run (very simplified).
-
I have had so many virus problems with my VIAO table top computer I switched to a Mac G4 running OSX 10.3.3. I am running Virtual PC on it
because I need to run word 2000 on it for a very small and modest business venture I am engaged in. I am hoping that I would have to access the Internet in Virtual PC to get a virus that affects Virtual PC. I only access the Internet from OSX. Am I living in a fools paradise or am I correct in my assumption? Any one have any difinative answer to this question.
Robert
-
I see what your saying
-
I currently use a Mac 12" Aluminum 1.33 GHz G4 PowerBook running OS X 10.3.7, sometimes attached to a 19" Samsung SyncMaster 192MP display when I want a larger and better view.
I also have a 2.8 GHz Intel PC running XP, but seldom use it unless I have no choice (i.e. syncing my PDA) as I still prefer the Mac for its ease of use and greater security.
I first got involved with computers in 1966 when I learned to program and use them and hated them for their nonintuitive complexity until I saw my first Mac in 1985 and immediately bought one. I now support both Mac and Windows because competition is good for us all and look forward to the day when Linux truly competes.
-
It was increased to 6GB of DDR2 RAM within days of my taking delivery because I hadn't realised the motherboard was capable of 8 Gb of RAM and that the company that assembled the computer for me had started advertising 2GB sticks of RAM in the period between my ordering the computer and their delivering it. They were prepared to swap 2x1GB of the 4 sticks for 2x2GB, for the price difference, giving me a total of 6GB. I would have got the full 8GB if I could have found any reference to a benifit in Photoshop, on the net or at Adobe. Apparently 8GB on a Mac is of some benefit, but not with Windows.
Now if only ColorEyes had a 64bit driver for my DTP94, this system would be fully functional :D .
-
I'd apreciate if you could tell me what computer you use for photoshop. In case you use more then one, please pick the one that you use most or prefer using.
I would like to refrain from turing this into a flame war, but I would apreciate if you told me how do you find your computer now (good/bad/planning on getting a new one) and why you picked that one as opposed to something else.
Thank you all for your time.
Stefan
-
My Win XP PC has never crashed. Not once.
PS, yes I agree on the mouse issue :D
Agree and agree!
Glad to see I'm not alone on the mouse issue. About time it was aired! ;-)
Seriously though, it's horses for courses. The decision makers of the digital image world have, for the most part, been using MACs since a time when choosing the competition simply wasn't a consideration. Those of us who came to the party a little later, often as in my case requiring the use of other very PC-oriented software, have been lucky that the playing field is now a lot more level.
But, you pays your money and you takes your choice, as we say around here.
D.
ps. still perfer my mouse though! ;-)
-
and so they buy PC unaware that they'd probably be better off with a more new-user friendly platform.
Another reason for some of us to stick with PCs...
As pointed out, the office market uses PCs much more than Macs. I work in an office (not photography-related) that uses only PCs, so that's what I'm forced to use there. It would drive me nuts to switch back and forth between different operating systems constantly, having to remember the differences between them and change my manual reactions to match, so I use a PC at home too for consistency.
Lisa
-
Not when you shoot 1500+ RAWs at a concert or sporting event and want to get a color web gallery (with correct white balance and other tweaked conversion settings) posted in a reasonable time frame. The fastest available hardware is none too sppedy for such things.
Mmm. An additional 2s/image for 1500 images would get you close to an extra hour. In that case, buy the fastest you can, if you can't batch enough of the work.
Maybe 64 bit port of Photoshop running on a 64 or 128 way Itanium system? Of course, the power requirements and air conditioning to run the system adds to the cost ...
Giles
-
First off, why did you buy VPC to run Word 2000 when youy could have bought the full version fo Word for OSX for less?
Anyhow, if you were to get a virus on the mac that is geared for Windows it won't do you any harm unless you get the virus through VPC in which case it'll only effect Windows within VPC. You still could however get a virus that is cross-platform or made for Unix or even contribte to the spread of Windows-based viruses.
-
I love macs, who are you preaching to! I'm just talking about people that specifically switch because of the reasons I mentioned...reasons that have nothing to do with the inhearent platform
'Oh, I had blue screens and crashes, and got infections, oh, I couldn't deal with a PC anymore, so I went MAC'. That's very common to hear. And it just means the user didn't know what they are doing, and got infected. When MAC virii start spreading more like they do for the PC< those type of users will be back in the same boat...'oh, my mac kept crashing and getting infected, I can't take it anymore, I went to (linux? LOL)'
Get it?
-
Linux could and would truly compete if vendors like Adobe would release apps like Photoshop for the platform. For some reason, there is a misconception that if a commercial application is released to the Linux platform it somehow is forced into the GPL. This is maddening, and quite frankly, I see Microsoft's hegemonic hand in this. After all, Microsoft has led the charge in the computer world for some time to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about Linux, because they know it is a better performing platform and as an open platform they could not control as they have Windows.
I agree about the Mac's inherent advantage in ease of use, and I have a collection of Macs dating back all the way to the same time you do. Every now and again, for fun, I will fire up an old 128 and play with it -- and the amazing thing is the relative consistency back to the very beginning.
My only problem with Apple is the extreme premium they charge for hardware. For me, the decision came down to purchasing a dual G5 or a 400mm VR lens -- and since at the end of the day, the print cares not one whit about what computer platform edited and printed it, I went the cheaper route. When it comes to glass for the camera, the print does indeed show the quality of the lens. Seems wiser to me to put my money there.
However, if Apple ever comes out with a truly competitive price/performance option, I will happily resume using their products.
-
. Intel Pentium D 830 3.0GHz Dual Core S775 64 bit CPU
. Asus P5LD2 Deluxe motherboard
. 4GB Kingmax DDR2 533MHz RAM
. Matrox P650 PCIe 128 video card
. 16x Pioneer DVD burner
. 2x WD 36GB Raptor SATA hard drives (10,000 rpm)
. 2x WD 200GB SATA hard drives (7200 rpm)
. Win XP Professional X64
Budget system! Being built!
Sounds like a sweet system Ray!
Henrik
-
I recently got a Macintosh G4. I have been using windows based IBM clones for more years than I care to remember. Recently my latest pc cought a virus or probably a few viruses and I completly rebuild the whole C drive but a few days later it would be infected again, I heard that the Mac platform did not have these problems so I switched. I am running Photoshop CS and it runs nice. I did have some programs and data pertainig to a very small business endeavor so I put a copy of Virtual PC running Windows XP on the Mac. This is a hassle but at least I can still use the Mac to run PC software. So far no viruses as I do not access the Internet from Virtual PC but only from the Mac OSX side. When or if I ever migrate totally to the Mac I will remove the Virtual PC software and never look back.
I am a happy Mac er :D and not so happy PC er :p
-
If you have an Apple store near you, pay them a visit and see for yourself. As for the price/performance advocates any true comparison must be done by comparing machines which are identical in specs. Once you do that the price difference is minimal.
-
The market share of Win and Mac goes back to the early days of the platforms. MS gambled on the buisness market and Apple gambled on the educational market figuring that if people were learning computers on the mac they'd buy a mac. It didn't work out that way; MS gambled correctly...
As for Photographers going Windows, I think it's due to cost and ignorance (generalizing- not neccsarily on this site alone). Many photographers are used to film and never had to deal with computers. They are now switching to digital and suddenly need a computer. They get a little freaked by the initial costs of things ("I want quality that matches my MF but $1500 for a camera!?" is something I hear a bunch) and see that PCs are alot cheaper than Macs and so they buy PC unaware that they'd probably be better off with a more new-user friendly platform.
Oh, My current system:
Dell 4400
Intel P4 1.6Ghz
1GB ram
GeForce4 Ti 4400
Dual monitors
Logitec MX700 mouse
My next system will definatly be a Mac.
-
That test at Rob Galbriath would have been interesting a year ago but holds no relevance today
... erm, a year ago it would have been a year out of date (or am I missing something?)
As for OSX viruses: what are they? When did they surface? How are they transmitted?
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm not about to suggest it'll never happen (there were a handful for the Classic MacOSs, for example). I'm not suggesting I'm an expert by any means. But I genuinely want to know, as I'm unaware of the existence of even one that affects OSX. I do spend quality time investigating occasionally (although I haven't gone on a proper hunt for a few months now).
Outside of a few proofs-of-concept that never went any further than that (and were quickly addressed by Apple), the closest thing to a virus that I am aware of is a "zombie" script for OSX which can do all sorts of truly hideous things to the machine it's installed on. I mean really frightening stuff.. But it's not a virus (and is even discussed on the forum from whence it came as being more 'nifty' than 'useful' due to the hoops one must jump through to get it working). It requires extensive physical access to the computer, the open-firmware password, an admin password, and it's not self-replicating. A large number of Windows trojans put this thing to shame in terms of both features and ease-of-use - not to mention installed base!
Besides, with that level of access to the machine, they can do anything they want. Give up. If you can manage to get this thing installed on your box without your knowledge, well... you probably won't find THIS (http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,12707653~mode=flat~start=50#12712968) cartoon very amusing either.
The next biggest threat to OSX that I can see would be to people running Virtual PC (which for those who don't know is a Microsoft product that allows you to install and run Windows on the Mac). I guess this could be considered splitting-hairs, but it's a bona-fide way to make all kinds of viruses run on modern Apple hardware, and they'll do all the nasty things to your Virtual PC partition/install that they can do to the x86 machines they were initially coded for. Performance will be lacklustre compared to running them on native hardware, however These are still Windows viruses affecting Windows though, so does this even count? Who runs Windows without AVS and the joy that is "Windows Update Mondays" anyway?
About the only valid way I can see to run a genuine virus on your Apple hardware under OSX (and again: I'm soliciting updates to my level of understanding here), would be to acquire one of the many macro viruses written for Microsoft Word.. Needless to say, this is not because of a flaw in the OS's security architecture.
Lastly, I can't think of a piece of adware/spyware for the MacOS that's any more threatening than RealPlayer, and I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who would strongly disagree with that classification. Can someone point me to something worse though? Fact is, I really don't consider spyware or adware to be a real threat to any platform, annoying and sneaky as it may be. But once it becomes installable without user input it moves into virus or trojan territory, does it not?
User negligence is a treat to any and all computer systems. Need to rid your life of spyware or adware? Follow best practice and stop installing it
-
In the PC world that's known as mouse acceleration, configurable in the mouse settings. See, we're not so different after all .
-
Let me admit my biases straight out. I've used Macs for 20 years, and I prefer them strongly for my own use. I've also worked as both a PC and a Mac systems guy, and have built a number of PCs. I can't stand advertising, spyware or shoot 'em up games (I am more sensitive than most to dancing ads and the like). I have always preferred the Mac OS to whatever version of Windows was current at the time, but I certainly like some flavors of Windows much more than others (Windows 2000 was my all-time favorite, and I don't like XP).
One thing to consider is that upper-end Macs are better built than MOST PCs. The Power Mac G5 is a comparable design to an upper end Dell Precision or the HP dual CPU workstations. These machines (whether Mac or PC) are a whole different level of quality from the average desktop PC-just look at the cooling, the way they're put together, the attention to detail throughout. The Mac is actually slightly LESS expensive than its competition in similar configurations.
A legitimate beef against Apple is that they don't offer a whole lot of choice below that level (if you have your own favorite monitor, Apple's offerings jump from the Mac Mini to the Power Mac workstations). Apple DOES tend to aim its machines right at what a photographer would want, while any powerful Wintel box (except for the aforementioned workstations, and also servers) will be aimed straight at gamers, with quite different performance optimizations!
If you can afford a Power Mac, it's probably the cheapest route to a really top Photoshop machine. PowerBooks are among the nicest notebooks out there (but, again, they're comparable to top-end PCs in pricing and Apple offers less choice at lower levels-although the iBooks are very credible).
Windows offers a lot more choice, especially if you're willing to build your own (essentially the only way not to pay for gaming-centered features). Remember that you'll be dealing with buggy, spyware and virus laden Windows XP (it's a shame Microsoft no longer offers Windows 2000, which was much more stable than XP). It may be worth it to many people to bite the bullet and buy a Power Mac even if you don't care about the build quality, just to avoid buying $300 worth of partially effective virus, spyware, ad and spam blockers.
Of course, if you don't have a monitor you're attached to, Apple offers many more options (if you're in the market for a nice single processor system, Apple will gladly sell you one with a 20 inch LCD for under $2000-they just won't let you decline the LCD and save a lot of money, because it's part of the computer).
The one thing that would change this equation is if you also like games. Games just don't work as well on Macs, and, if this matters, you have two choices-Windows or two computers. The same, sadly, holds for using Windows 2000 to get around some of the problems with XP-2000 is nice, but most games won't run. Since I never touch games, I don't care, but anybody who does care needs to consider this and probably just use XP (being careful about the spyware, etc...)
-dan
-
Mac Dual G5 2 gigahertz, OS 10.3.7
But then I have been using a Mac since 1984
Dave S
-
I use an AMD-powered PC with 1.5gb RAM running Win XP with more gadgets hanging off of it that I can remember. If your view is that Macs are more reliable than PC's, I'd say its not true, provided you use good hardware. The problem with PC's is variability in quality of the hardware. Buy decent kit, and its rock solid and reliable. My Win XP PC has never crashed. Not once. The consensus referred to that Macs are more reliable than PC's is based on books written mainly by Mac users and to be fair, it may have been true at one time, but it has not been the case since Windows 2000, in my view.
We run a stock library from another PC.
Buy what suits you. Truly, the differences are now down to personal preferences, not performance or reliability.
Quentin
PS, yes I agree on the mouse issue :D
-
I just went through a PC upgrade (January 2005). Hand built from scratch. Very satisfied, whisper quiet, excellent PSCS performance. I backup photo files to replaceable IDE hard drive. DVD backup is too much fuss.
Motherboard = MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum
CPU = AMD Athlon 64 (939) FX53 2.4GHz
Ram = 4GB (OCZ PC3200 Perf. DC - 2x1024mb x2)
Operating System = Windows XP Pro
4 SATA ports on motherboard:
Hard Drive = SATA Western Digital 120 GB (boot drive)
Hard Drive = SATA Western Digital 250 GB (current year photo files & PS scratch drive)
CD/DVD Rom = SATA Plextor PX-712SA/SW 12x DVD+RW
2 IDE sockets on mother board:
Hard Drive (replaceable for backup) = IDE Western Digital 120 GB
CD/DVD Rom = IDE Pioneer 106 DVD+RW
I run two monitors (2 x Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 20” CRT), each with it’s own card (both use same driver):
AGP Video Card = MSI/nVidia GeForceFX5200 128MB
PCI Video Card = MSI/nVidia GeForceFX5500 128MB
Power Supply = Antec Neopower 480W ATX2.0 PCI-E
CPU Cooling = Thermalright XP-90 Heatsink
Case = GlobalWin YCC-61F1 Full-Tower
ps: MAC is a religion. If you believe, you believe. I don't.
-
As for Photographers going Windows, I think it's due to cost and ignorance
I disagree. If you're used to Mac, it's easier than Windows, but if you learned computers on Windows machines, Mac OS is not particularly intuitive to figure out, and there is no compelling reason to switch. And if you can get better Photoshop performance for 2/3 the cost, what's ignorant about using the Windows platform?
-
First, the base G5 is 1499, not 1899.
Second, it has the following components that your PC might not:
(1) Superdrive and Apple's DVD creation sofware
(2) Firewire 800
(3) Built in airport extreme
(4) Optical audio in and out
(5) A suite of software.
(6) Native dual digital monitor support (no special or secondary video card required)
When we spec machines we have to be careful to really include everything. That's the only point I was making.
-
Has the world of gaming anything to teach us about choice of processor/graphics card?
After all, at the front end, pretty much everyone is using Photoshop. Right?
So, shouldn't the very "anorak" world of gaming offer some insights into choice of hardware?
Just wondering......
There's a discussion on that very topic here>
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/35516/ (http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/35516/)
I'd be interested to here the views of those in the know.
D.
-
My point was for you to be more diplomatic. I know you weren't implying that I lied but the immediate opposite of the statement "not true" is "lie." Due to the striped down nature of text-communication you leave interpretation of such bold remarks to the person reading. "Not true" can easily be mis-interpreted and lead pointless hostility. "Not fully accurate" (or something like that) is much more diplomatic, more productive, and represents what you mean far better. Even "Not accurate" would be a vast improvement over "not true."
That's what I was getting at in a not-as-direct way (I admit I did not communicate it that well).
As for the PC stuff what I said is not a strawman argument by any means. What you have said about a profesional enviroment is very accurate (I used to work in such an enviroment) but I am clearly not talking about that enviroment. I am talking about the average user. Most people (photograhers included) use their computers for a multitude of things.
Profesional or not, people install software to do what they need beyond just photography, people install trial software to see if they will benefit from it, they install software that makes things more convenient or pleasant and they install updates and upgrades to that software. All this can and does lead to the computer acting up as it ages. It does not matter how much you maintain it, it will eventually degrade in performance and reliability and it will sometimes begin to act "odd" or "quirky" (there really is no better way to describe it). Most of this isn't always very noticeable when it's happening but becomes very evedent after a fresh instalation. The sevarity and time-frame this occures depends on the situation. It may never become a problem or it may become a problem a month after you buy the machine. It all depends.
To think that most users can or should mimick a controlled IT enviroment is just unrealistic and naive.
-
That test at Rob Galbriath would have been interesting a year ago but holds no relevance today
... erm, a year ago it would have been a year out of date (or am I missing something?)
As for OSX viruses: what are they? When did they surface? How are they transmitted?
You missed something. The test was done one year ago before the G5 was released. Thus it's irrelavance today since technology for the Mac has advanced a some since then.
I'm not going to spend much time on the Mac virus thing. A simple Google search and a spare 10 minutes will net you plently of info.
Basically there are several cross-platform vireses that exist, viruses/worms that are ment to attack Unix/apache/samba/etc (which OSX is built on and has installed), and many viruses can spread from macs even if they can't damage them.
As has been said already, they do exist, although they are rare.
Malware Myths and Misinformation, Part One:
http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1695 (http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1695)
-
I admit I'm running on old systems: a PC with PIII 450Mhz and an Apple Powerbook on 233Mhz.
I've used PCs for years so I admit it's always a bit of a struggle going onto the Mac (like how do I find 'task manager'?). One day I need to upgrade at least one of these machines and at present it would certainly be the PC.
Basically what swings it for me is the huge amount of support and software out there for the PC. I would like to support Apple because I believe competition is always good for an industry, but when it comes down to it, if I have a problem with my PC I can usually find an answer in 10 minutes, while a problem on my Mac usually takes a few hours to resolve.
So many things just aren't supported on the Mac or have 'limited' support. I'm not just using the machine for PS work, the bottom line is that sites and facilities will always work for PCs but may or may not work for Macs (in many corporate environments you can forget using a Mac).
Anyway, I admitted my bias from the start - but for me it's the PC.
-
I recently priced a top of the line Dell 670 with a top of the line Mac G5 (both dual processor with similar amounts of RAM etc) and they were within several hundred dollars of eachother. On a 5500-6000 dollar computer set-up this is insignificant, indicating that arguments about uncompetitive Apple hardware costs are not always correct.
-
I recently priced a top of the line Dell 670 with a top of the line Mac G5 (both dual processor with similar amounts of RAM etc) and they were within several hundred dollars of eachother. On a 5500-6000 dollar computer set-up this is insignificant, indicating that arguments about uncompetitive Apple hardware costs are not always correct.
Reality check!
A few hundred dollars are still enough to get you a long way to an upgrade on either system, a lens upgrade, a new bicycle, a few haircuts and several crates of beer, regardless of how much you're spending. (And I don't care whether the Mac or the Dell was cheaper.)
I've read similar reasoning in other threads in this forum, but I still think it's ludicrous when people write things like "oh, when you're spending ten thousand dollars, another thousand doesn't matter".
Everybody has a budget limit. That extra dozen, hundred, thousand or hundred thousand might just be what pushes you over that limit.
End of reality check.
-
I have the experience of recently switching from a Dell pc with XP-pro to a dual-processor G5 Mac. The pc was a mess- I experienced many blue screen crashes during normal use and even went through a total re-format of my hard drive to try to solve what in hindsight was probably a major hardware malfunction like a defective motherboard. Unfortunately, I never got anywhere with either Dell or independent tech support. To add to the misery, the entire system was infected by a virus even though I ran a full suite of anti-virus and spyware software. In contrast, I have had zero problems with the Mac and I find the machine and operating system an elegant alternative to pc's/windows. Literally night and day in my case.
-
I've been using Macs since 1989, there were ups and downs. Currently we really are at an up with the unix type operating system "OS X".
I'm using PCs at work. Since Windows 2000, the OS is OK. It only starts to really degrade when you start uninstalling things. Something which is very straightforward and clean under Mac OS: you generally just dump the application folder into the trash (except for Microsoft Office which is unbelievably PC complex).
Oh, and by the way, I agree for the mouse, but very few people ever notice it. The Apple mouse is non linear: if you move fast, the mouse moves very fast, if you move slowly, the mouse moves very slowly. This gives you increased precision.
Xavier.
-
I'm using an AMD machine 1800GHz with 512MB ram.
-
Intel PCs are (at least at all the times in the past I've looked into it) considerably more bang for the buck than Macs. I use one for PS (and everything else) and it works fine.
Lisa
-
I have been using home computers since about 1978. At that time the Personal Computer was not named yet. I started with a Radio Shack TRS 80 computer running with 4kb ram. Kilo byes that is, not giga bytes.
The PC is a nice machine if you have need for word processors or spread sheet programs. I liked playing games occasionally also. The Mac, it seems to me, is more oriented to the digital artist wether that is image processing digital camera output or just generated out of the thin air. I understand that it is also a good platform for digital music creation or manipulation. So it seems it has a lot to offer the digital artist. Not to say PCs are wanting in that arena. Choices are not easy. You have to evaluate all your priorities and choose accordingly.
My G4 is running Mac OS X Version 10.3.3 and has a 55 gigabyte hard disk and one gigabyte ram. It runs a gigaHz CPU speed. Image processing is computer intensive isn't it?
Just remember no matter what you buy you will not be stuck with it for long as in a short time it will be obsoleter and you will want a newer one. I alresdy want a G5.
Robert
-
Its also very interesting that on a photo related board like this, PC users still significantly outnumber Mac users. That probably would not have been the case 5 years ago.
Yes that is interesting. But since PCs running Windows are supposed to have almost 95% of the market...
Yes, but that 95% of the market includes all the major office users. The point is that the PC is the more popular choice for the pro, semi-pro and serious amateurs who post here. Even I, a PC user, am a little surprised by that. :cool:
Quentin
-
As for the price/performance advocates any true comparison must be done by comparing machines which are identical in specs. Once you do that the price difference is minimal.
That's actually impossable due to the difference in hardware architecture. The best one can do in reality is to compare the fastest mac possable to the fastest PC possable.
(6) Native dual digital monitor support (no special or secondary video card required)
The PC has native dual monitor support if the video card has two outputs. Most do. In addition, Windows allows for more than two monitors. You can have as many monitors as you have video cards (of the same brand to avoid video driver issues) to plug into it. Have a PC with 4 PCI slots and one AGP? 10 monitors. A bit overkill but possable...
__--
Anyhow. I have been using PCs for over 10 years now and I have always though Macs sucked. This is because, well, they did. I learned computers on teh Mac and I have family members who have always had macs. Macs have always been easier than PCs, but less flexible in configuration (still are), sluggish, expensive and a bit "fruity" in behavior.
Then the new designs came out in the 90s and they became pretty. Then OSX came out and showed potential. Unfortunatly that was basically beta software and they still had lame (but pretty) hardware. With each release things improved and then things got real interesting with the G5 release.
What sold me on Macs is a combination of things. I watched a low-end mac over a year ago with only 512MB of ram switch between VirtualPC, PS, IE, and dreamweaver without a hitch. Each transition between the apps was smooth as silk. All of these are memory intensive apps. When I saw that I was sold. My PC on 640MB of RAM chokes when I switch from PS to my web browser.
Add to that the UI which is 100x better in design and functionality than the FisherPrice UI of Windows, the Unix core (and all the functionality and security that comes with it), and the fact a Mac is not so prone to the same secutity issues. The next OSX (Tiger) looks very impressive; especialy it's search function. Needless to say, I am going to be buying a high-end dual G5 as soon as I can. Considering Macs and PCs in the high-end are about the same cost it's a no-brainer IMHO.
-
* There is no 128-bit Itanium.
I must be using jargon. "128 way" means a system with 128 processors in it:
http://www.hp.com/product....on.html (http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/integrity/superdome_high_end/comparison.html)
Once you place all those processors in a system, trust me, there's quite a lot of heat to worry about, too.
The Itanium processors themselves are 64 bit, of course.
Cheers,
Giles (yes, we're well off topic now :laugh:)
-
Games do mess things up, particularly the relationship between games, video drivers, sound drivers & DirectX. Take those out of the equation, use common sense and Win2000 and WinXP are plenty solid and reliable.
But boy are those Macs pretty. :D
* I can't belive the forum removed the word formed by rearranging these letters: nmad
-
Yes thats right I lied. Not! "That's not fully accruate" or something along those lines would be more diplomatic...
What I said was accurate giving the typical situation where people install and remove software on their PC (thus the reference to DLLs).
I don't see the word "lied" anywhere in my post. One can make a statement that is factually incorrect without being a liar, like when given incorrect information that is believed to be true. The statement you made is incorrect, but that doesn't make you a liar.
With PC or Mac, constantly installing and uninstalling software that is not task-related will decrease system stability over time. Knowledgeable professionals limit the installation of non-task-related software on work machines for this reason. (This, and licensing issues, are the reason most corporate IT departments forbid users to install software on company machines. It's the #1 cause of help desk calls if you don't implement such a policy.) You can have a perfectly stable OS/app/hardware configuration, and still crash the machine if someone installs a buggy game or malicious spyware. In that situation, it makes no sense to blame the OS or hardware for a problem caused by third-party crapware. IMO your whole argument is a bit of a strawman for that reason.
-
Here's a couple very interesting article at AnandTech I just stumbled upon a day ago. It's about a PC users experience with a Mac.
Haven't read part 2 yet, but I'll link it to you anyhoot.
A Month with a Mac: A Die-Hard PC User's Perspective (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232)
A Month with a Mac - Part II: The Mobile Experience (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2326)
-
I feel sorry for all the mac people that converted because of so many problem with virii, crashes, etc. - because when mac virii become more popular (give it a little time) you will be back to square one with excuses
-
When I told him I was taking classes in photoshop using OSX on a G4 and PSCS, and I had more crashes in one semester than I'd had on Wintel machines for the last several years, he was incredulous.
Sounds like they were using an older version of OSX. By all rights when OSX first came out it pretty much was still in beta. There were quite a few kinks that needed ironing. The latest version of the OS is much less problematic.
-
I'm using a Dell 8200 PC, which has some severe limitations for Photoshop CS, but works OK in the final analysis as long as one doesn't depend on speed to make a living. Instead of starting a new thread, I am looking for a bit of relevant advice to improve the system incrementally until I change to something better.
I am told that if my second hard-drive were more up-to-date (the one I have in there now dates from 1998) it would improve scratch disk performance. (I have 1.56 GB RAM now and another RAM up-grade for this machine is not worth the cost under any circumstances - it uses extremely expensive RDRAM.) I can install a relatively new 7200 RPM drive at no cost and the mechanics of doing so are easy. I am wondering however whether there are any system issues anyone is aware of that I need to watch out for (Windows XP Home). That is, do I only need to remove the old one and stick in the new one, format it and assume it will be recognized, not wreck performance of anything else and in fact work compatibly with all the stuff that now works fine (e.g. MS Office, PSCS, etc.)? Any advice from experience?
-
I had been an IBM devotee since my first computer in 1992. I built my own the last few times, but switched to Mac in 2003 after nearly melting down in frustration trying to capture, edit, and DVD-burn digital video on my Windows machine, which did most other things decently running Windows 2000 and then XP Pro.
Switching was relatively painless, except that importing old Quicken financial data from the Win to the Mac versions proved impractical (Intuit has a virtual monopoly on personal financial mgmt software and I find not very responsive to its customers) and error-prone, while my QuickBooks migration was painless. I quickly found Mac equivalents of the other apps i usually ran, so no real issues there.
I would say that my Mac crashes rarely; if an application goes awry, it can be handled more gracefully without bringing the whole house down. Day to day operation for me is smoother and more intuitive with the Mac than with any windows version i'd used including XP Pro.
On the whole, however, I think I have had more "kernel panics" and other machine-OS interaction problems with the Mac than with the PC, and I agree with a previous respondent there that those situations are nearly always due to some piece of hardware giving the Mac indigestion.
I am satisfied with my choice of systems, and my wife is going to buy her own Mac pretty soon; I will likely upgrade my dual 1.42 GHz G4 Powermac by the end of the year or early 2006.
-
Windows to Run on Intel Processors (http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/06/microsoft_intel.html)
-
Dual-CPU AMD machine with 2GB RAM. At the time of purchase (3 years ago) it had a better performance/cost ratio than Intel or Apple. It's still a very decent performer.
-
Mr. Spoecker,
What are your impressions of your Mac, you like it, what are your specs? Also, have you ever used a PC, and how does it stack up?
Thank you, I'd be a big help if you could help me out,
Stefan.
-
I think it's because Windows/PC has pretty much caught up to Apple with regard to OS stability and user-friendly interface. Windows has always had a wider variety of hardware and software available, and until Apple gets over its proprietary mentality it will always be at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace and be a niche player.
-
sorry, i could've made it clearer - all my prices were in cdn $. i do see your point, and for me, many of those g5 features are not helpful for improved photo editing. and that $ difference is still way to large for the differences in components, in my humble opinion - since i didn't mention that my motherboard/video card also support firewire (maybe not 800, can't remember), and dual monitors.
i'm not trying to discredit you, you definitely do have a point. we all have to make our own decisions for what's best for ourselves.
-
Cheap and cheerful is one of the things PCs do really well, and Windows goes along for the ride. That end of the market is largely irrelevant to shoppers after systems for running Photoshop I imagine.
i respectfully disagree, and this is what i was hinting at with my post. i got my pc for well under $1000 cdn taxes in, for a system that runs photoshop cs very well for images under 250M. and i will spend a $100 - $200 for more ram later on to make it even better.
the base g5 is $2200 (cdn) after tax, for many components that don't seem to me to help photoshop run any faster. and since my system is used only for photoshop, there just wasn't any point in me spending all that more money. i could use that to get even better components and be running photoshop as fast as i need (for the moment).
i am not debating which systems are better. and i'm not saying that my system is faster than the base g5. i am just saying i think the price/performance for photoshop performance is quite large at the moment - it is possible to spend much less on a pc that runs photoshop well, compared to a mac/g5.
-
Dinarius,
I suggest you look at the more objective, quantitative review sites out there (e.g., www.anandtech.com) to see which CPUS do what best and what role RAM has in various applications.
As for photo editing and video cards, I don't think anything released to market in the last 3 or 4 years will leave you wanting. 2D performance has pretty much plateaued with respect to speed. However, with respect to quality, Matrox is reputed as having exception 2D quality. Similarly, if you have coin, a professional card (ATI's FireGL line and nVidia's Quadro) also concentrate on fidelity over speed. Again, the war is in the 3D, not 2D.
If all you do is photoshop, surf, office, and email, I'd find an ATI card with 128MB of on-board memory, no fan, WHQL certified drivers, and be happy.
N
-
Stef - I recently bought a Mac G4 after a decade plus of PC hardware. In my personal feeling, it is a preferable machine for graphics and for that matter, everything else. Since Photoshop is virtually identical on both platforms, I cite the stability of the Mac OS as the main reason for my preference.
The poster below is correct about the fact that, at the end of the day, you cannot tell which platform created the image. We do have excellent choices. While I haven't benchmarked my PCs versus my Mac, I am content in knowing the Mac gets the job done and is preferable to work with. If it were slower in executing a Photoshop filter relative to a high end Pentium or Athlon, in terms of my total workflow that difference remains negligible.
Another advantage the we have today is the inexpensive PC. This makes it feasible to buy a Mac for graphics and whatever else you prefer it for and buying a separate PC for those tasks that will only run on a PC. After you factor the cost of Virtual PC and the time lost due to emulation, it approaches the cost of just buying an inexpensive PC.
Indeed we do have some great choices.
- Arthur
-
I was a PC/windows guy for about 5 years, I got very tired of the sysem crashing every time I tryed to open 3 or more programs at the same time.
After much gnashing of teeth I spent the money to go with a G5 and Apple 20" cd, It's been the decision I ever made, the machine just works and has not crashed once in the 6 months that I've had it. I'm now a happy Mac guy all the way.
-
Interesting thread - addresses a debate I've been having myself for the last year or so.
As a new digital guy, I've been researching all sorts of tech/gear questions, including computing platform. A local working digital photo artist friend of mine, who scans at hi res 8x10 and 4x5 color negs into 100 Mb+ files, swears by Macs. When I pressed him as to why he thought the Mac was so great, his initial claim was that it didn't crash as much. When I told him I was taking classes in photoshop using OSX on a G4 and PSCS, and I had more crashes in one semester than I'd had on Wintel machines for the last several years, he was incredulous. But he did allow that the odd Mac crash was not unheard of.
Yeah, I've had my share of "blue screens of death" on various wintel machines over the years, but not so much lately - not any on WinXP that I've been using for last six months.
Anyway, the only reason he could give me for Mac's alleged superiority that sounded even somewhat objective was this: color rendering. He claims Macs render color more accurately than PCs. Now I can't argue that since I haven't done the comparison.
Anyway, having learned window-based computing on the very first Macs (remember when they had two floppy drives??), I have no inherent prejudice against them. But I will say that I found OSX no more or less intuitive than WinXP - I'd say they are about a horse apiece for a newb pc user.
Given that, my investment in a relatively new IBM Thinkpad T-40, running Intel Centrino 1.5Ghz chip, and a brand new ram upgrade to 1Gb, and the MS Office suite for pc platforms, I am committed to making this thing work for digital.
I've just picked up the Adobe Creative Suite 1.3 with PSCS and all the extras it has, and am just now acquainting myself with it on my T-40.
Next step is to get a monitor to use for photo tasks, as my TP's LCD is too small (14.1"). Guess it'll be a CRT, based on posts to this thread - if anyone has any suggestions for specific brands/types, I'd be interested to hear about them.
My $0.02.
-Tom
-
That is, do I only need to remove the old one and stick in the new one, format it and assume it will be recognized, not wreck performance of anything else and in fact work compatibly with all the stuff that now works fine (e.g. MS Office, PSCS, etc.)? Any advice from experience?
In terms of how software interacts with hard drives, little has changed since they were first introduced. Install the new one, format it and you're good to go.
-
2 months ago I purchased a Dell Precision Workstation 470 with dual Intel Xeon 2.8Ghz processors, 2 GB RAM, running WinXP Pro and a RAID 0 320 GB internal drive. This machine replaced my 3 year old Dell 8200 P4-1.9Ghz.
Running Photoshop CS on this new machine is amazing. CS supports dual processors and every aspect of CS is incredibly faster. The CS Browser refresh is greatly improved since many of my image folders contain hundreds of RAW files shot with my Canon 20D and 1DMk2.
My video card supports dual DVI/Analog displays so when I complete my home office in the basement I'm finishing, I plan on adding a 2nd 21" LCD display.
I've been a Dell customer for 10 years since I had to give up my Mac when I switched careers to become financial planner. Initially, I really missed my Mac, but now WinXP PC's are very good.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
Sonds like he's pandering to you and talking out his back-end.
Yeah, I guess I am since I am a member of Adobe's Open Source group as a corporate member.
And the prices I yielded were directly off of the web sites of both companies. Go figure.
BTW, with our corporate discount we get the Dell machine with a dual processor setup for $2285.75. There's a certain cache' at being IT in a Fortune 100 company and responsible for a few thousand desktops, not to mention a data center that spews out 40 TB of data across the world to a 45 billion dollar business.
-
hello all
not sure if everybody noticed this, and if it's appropriate for this thread but i'll post anywayz. if admins find it inappropriate, i'll post a new separated thread
================
imagine someday you can run Windows OS and softwares on a G5, or run Mac OS X on a PC...
contributing editor of PC Magazine John C. Dvorak predicted about the fusion of Mac and Intel 2 years ago
How the MacIntell Will Change the Market (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1007215,00.asp)
.. and it's becoming true
The Mac-Intel Computer, Finally! (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1824704,00.asp)
running a OS X on a PC or a Windows OS on a G5, which way do you prefer?
-
Sony Vaio, VGC-RA810g series
I think is very good,,I have it for 6 months still working very good.
BlasR
-
I don't get the mouse issue. While waiting for my Mac G4 I went to Wall Mart and bought a USB digital wheeled mouse for about $20. This is so trivial in comparison to what we all buy in computers, software and digital camera equipment it seems to get lost way deep in the noise.
-
Mac's advantage is the tight integration of software and hardware. Windows has to work on goodness knows how many possible combinations of kit.
All my recent PC's have been home built from componets I have selected - which is both a strength (user choice, price competition, value etc) and a disadvantage (I might trigger a hidden incompatibility).
Windows gets the blame when things go wrong, but it's almost always a hardware issue. I chose quality components and thus I have a stable and reliable system.
Incidentally, when considering Mac suitablilty for imaging work, I have read of a number of problems with drivers and RIPs involved in recent changes to the Mac OS - so the evolution of OSX has not been problem free for all Mac users.
Its also very interesting that on a photo related board like this, PC users still significantly outnumber Mac users. That probably would not have been the case 5 years ago.
Quentin
-
Quick and dirty rules of thumb:
Macs:
- tight hardware/software integration and control enable (not necessarily deliver) cleaner coding and less variability in the computing environment
- limited software options unless running PC emulator
- historical "best for graphics" label is just that historical
- limited hardware choices & very limited user upgradability
- very slick look and feel, except the freaking mouse
- consider it to be, more or less, an integrated system with hardware matched to software.
PC:
- huge choice
- huge variability in quality: consumer control equals consumer responsibility for what they buy, whichi inevitably ends in the classic "Windows sucks" story.
- more flexible - one PC can be a cutting edge graphics, video editing, gaming, and coding platform
- lower prices driven be higher level of competition among hardware vendors (always 2 producers of each component)
- maximizes choice for altenative operating systems - Linux, FreeBSD, etc. Your discontentment with Microsoft shouldn't lead you away from the PC platform, just another OS.
- AMD-Intel Battle? Read reputable reviews, consider each companies product roadmap and equate both your needs. Then, buy the best value product for your needs. Current winner AMD64.
My computing history:
1997: Compaq 4508 (Pentium 200MMX, 48MB RAM, 2MB on-board video)
1999: Home built (the Compaq was my "buyer beware" lesson) AOpen AX6BC Pro Gold, Intel Celeron 366, 128MB RAM, Matrox G400Max
- upgraded to Pentium III 700
- upgraded to MSI KT2 turbo with Duron 700
- upgraded to Abit KR7A133 with Athlon Thunderbird 1000 & 512MB RAM
- upgraded to Athlon XP 1700+ & ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
2004 - upgraded to MSI K8N Neo Platinum with AMD64 3200+ with 1GB of RAM
Home server system still running that PIII 700 on a used Asus CUSL-2. Other motherboard/cpu combinations have been sold, given away, traded-in.
N
-
Not true. If you're not constantly installing new games and crap like that there's no reason to periodically reinstall the OS.
Yes thats right I lied. Not! "That's not fully accruate" or something along those lines would be more diplomatic...
What I said was accurate giving the typical situation where people install and remove software on their PC (thus the reference to DLLs).
Yes of course, if you don't install many apps the possable need for a re-install is reduced or removed. I was speaking in generalities and not everyone is going to fit into that; especially your situation with a file server.
_--
I too would like to see some PS benchmarking. I remember some sites used to do that but it's not really seen anymore.
-
Here we see a true Mac zealot.
...
Anything a Mac can do, a Windows machine can do as fast or faster for the same hardware investment. But the Windows box and OS GUI won't look as cool.
Calling the guy a zealot is a bit rash. He's certainly ignorant but did not type anything that would indicate zealot status. Spyware and viruses do exist on the mac but they are much more rare than on the PC and thus gives the illusion the mac does not suffer from that when in fact it can.
It is certainly not wise to run any PC or Mac without antivirus software and common sence.
...
There is more to the Mac OS than just good looks. There is alot of common-sence functionality and stability that just plainly does not exist in Windows. OSX as it stands today is a far better designed OS than Windows XP is hands down. Longhorn (the next version of windows) is susposed to get MS caught up in OS design and looks prommising, but it was susposed to have been released last year and keeps getting delayed. Once Longhorn comes out (mid 2006 mabye) then this issue of stability/useability/functionality between the OSs can be argued but untill then OSX is in the lead. Anyone who says otherwise really hasn't bothered to sit down and use a mac recently or at all for that matter (briefly poking around a display model doesn't count).
If looks were all the mac had over the PC I would not be considering the switch. Programs like ThemeXP and WindowsBlinds easilly make the PC look as good or better than OSX.
...
That test at Rob Galbriath would have been interesting a year ago but holds no relevance today unless you plan on processing images on a Mac Mini. It is comparing G4 systems. The G5 is a significant improvement over the G4. It not only is able of 64-bit processing (which unlike the WinPC can actually be used and more fully with Tiger), has a much better architecture than the G4, but it also got rid of the G4s very pathetic 167MHz FSB limit.
A top of the line dual-G5 system runs $3k and a top of the line dual Opteron system runs almost $4K with as much being equal as possable. That's a performance comparison I'd like to see. But then agian, how do you measure convenince, stability, security and useability along with shear performance?
-
Hmmm, can't we all just get along?
I will state up-front that I love technology and enjoy playing with it. A slight lack of stability I can avoid by being sensible and knowledgeable is fine by me. My system is a Frankenstein assembled from parts I upgrade every year or two as technology mutates. I have recently been through some heavy upgrading.
Here's what I have currently:
- A Supermicro SCR-830 server chassis w/ 550W PS on top of which are
- Two Viewsonic P225f CRTs displaying 1792x1344 resolution each, calibrated via Pantone Spyder2
- Supermicro X6DA8 motherboard
- Dual Xeon 3GHz / 800MHz FS bus
- 4GB DDR2-400 memory (XP only sees 3GB)
- Gigabyte/ATI X600 XT PC-Express graphics card (to be upgraded)
- 68GB (effective) SCSI U320 RAID 10 array (system) on Adaptec 2120 controller
- 580GB (effective) SATA RAID 10 array (user) on Adaptec 2410 controller
- 400GB SATA lonely drive
- The usual floppy & DVD/CD-ROM drive stuff
- lots of USB-2 and Firewire ports
- Windows XP Pro / SP2
- Zone Labs Zone Alarm Pro firewall
- Norton Antivirus & eTrust PetPatrol
I will say I have never had real bad problems, other than by my own stupidity, and have never lost data. OTOH, I have been a computer professional all my life, including programming patch-wired systems - anybody remember drum memory . I have used tape back-up but no more. That's what all that redundant, swapable storage is for, and I use Ghost to backup the file systems across storage subsystems.
Yes, Windows can be improved lots. It also works well for me. I used to own Amigas (500, 3000 & 4000) and a Unix-based system (Zilog S-8000/110).
Not that anybody really cares, but you did ask "What computer do you use" .
Cheers, and happy image processing!
DJ
-
That's silly. Almost all Mac users have to use a PC at work (myself included), and have no trouble working on either system.
On a slightly related note, most all Mac users (as I said) use PCs at work an Mac's at home and hence have all the normal experiences with a PC. Most PC users either don't use a modern Mac or haven't used one at all. So it's actually the Mac users that are a bit more (though not entirely) objective about the performance of both platforms, since they use both platforms on a daily basis.
-
Now, at least at the high end, performance of both Windows PCs and Mac is good. Hey, it's better than that, it's excellent. So choosing on other factors (availability, support, familiarity, style, application availability, ...) ahead of price/performance is quite reasonable.
Not when you shoot 1500+ RAWs at a concert or sporting event and want to get a color web gallery (with correct white balance and other tweaked conversion settings) posted in a reasonable time frame. The fastest available hardware is none too sppedy for such things.
-
I feel sorry for all the mac people that converted because of so many problem with virii, crashes, etc. - because when mac virii become more popular (give it a little time) you will be back to square one with excuses
To assume people are making "excuses" just because they are happy with the Mac platform is just absurd. It's like saying people are making excuses when they are happy with their old 67 Mustang instead of buying a cheaper 67 Camaro because there are more performance parts available for the Chevy and they're generally less expensive.
Being a power user, I know if you had actually spent some time using a Mac objectively you'd be wanting much of the functionality found in OSX for the PC. We'll just have to hope MS delivers with Longhorn... But like dbell said, Mac vs PC flamewars are silly along with stupid and immature.
Is it Fast Only Rolling Downhill or is it Can Hear Every Valve Rap On Long Extended Trips?
-
Thanks Daniel, that is re-assuring.
-
...except I am hearing murmurs from the Adobe rep that PS CS 3 may actually show up on the Linux platform. One can hope he is not pandering to us as he knows very well that we have Opteron-based Pro/E Wildfire workstations now.
One thing is certain, however, he says that Adobe now develops for Windows as it's "prime" platform. Odd to hear him say that, as there has to be more Mac based GD's out in the world than PC.
Sonds like he's pandering to you and talking out his back-end.
Why would adobe develop for Linux (and what flavor, PPC or x86?)? They would only do so if there was a market for it and at this time the market for Linux in the design field is rather small. Not to say that's not possable, but I'll believe it when I see evidence that it's the case.
As to the PC being the "prime" platform is bunk. I bet he's constriving that "fact" from the time when Adobe announced that PS runs faster on the PC. When they announced that, that was the case. There is no evedence that Adobe develops PS on the PC and then converts it to the mac. Any talk to the contrary is just pure speculation.
Adobe has gone a long way to seperate their programs operation from the peculiarities of the operating system. This way the program behaves the same no matter what platform you are on and it's not limited by the operating system.
As to your comparison:
Since you don't list the specs I was curious to how you got the prices. So... here is the comparison I did:
Dell:
OptiPlex GX280
P4 570 (3.8Ghz )
XP Pro w/media center
1GB RAM (2x512)
80GB HD
16X DVD+/-RW
128MB ATI Radeon X300 (w/DVI and VGA)
Dell UltraSharp™2001FP flat panel
1394 Controller Card
Total: $2,372
Apple:
1.8Ghz PowerMac
1GB RAM (2x512)
80GB HD
8x SuperDrive
128MB ATI Radeon 9600XT
20" Apple Cinema Display
No 56k modem
Total: $2,494
The mac is almost $100 exaclty more expensive. Of course the PC will have more sheer processing power so that difference is greater. If you move one step up in the Mac line you get a dual 2.0GHz machine for $2,800 and the PC to compare needs a bigger HD which only adds $40 to the price. However, at this point the performance difference is not so great as the mac gets a slight speed bump but mroe importantly, it gets two processors. As we all know, PS is a multi-threaded app and benefits quite a bit from that. How closely these systems will compare in speed will only be known with a test.
I know that once the PC gets into the dual-proc range, prices jump up and PCs no longer have any price benefit over Macs. Agian, speed needs to be tested but I haven't seen anything out there that suggest that today's current dual-CPU workstations can outperform today's top-end dual G5 Macs when it comes to Photoshop.
IMHO once we get into the $2.5k and up range it's more about useability than performance when considering Mac vs PCs.
All this will change quite a bit in the next month or two though. PCs will have a definate performance advantage with multi-core (Intel) and dual-core (AMD) chips coming out but once the IBM PowerPC 970MP CELL chips become available for the Mac (perhaps by Christmas I hope) things may not be so clear-cut once agian. *Speculation* Currently the Mac line is going to see a minor update which indicates to me based off how long the current line has been up and the direction of the market, a much bigger update is comming up next. We'll just have to wait and see.
-
. Intel Pentium D 830 3.0GHz Dual Core S775 64 bit CPU
. Asus P5LD2 Deluxe motherboard
. 4GB Kingmax DDR2 533MHz RAM
. Matrox P650 PCIe 128 video card
. 16x Pioneer DVD burner
. 2x WD 36GB Raptor SATA hard drives (10,000 rpm)
. 2x WD 200GB SATA hard drives (7200 rpm)
. Win XP Professional X64
Budget system! Being built!
-
Thank you all for your replies,
There has been a general consensus in most books that I have read about digital photography that Macs are slightly better and quite a bit more reliable and steady than PCs. It is mostly for that second reason, and the fact that I am getting fed up with my current computer, that I am considering (still far off) a Mac. I'd like to hear your opinions on the topic.
Please bear in mind that I know most PC users will instantly cry out saying that Mac is just a bunch of hype and that in fact Macs are horrible and way overprised. I'd have said the same thing a few weeks ago 9still agree that it is too expensive) but I realize that they do serve their purposes. So if you plan on saying that Macs are horrible (or that they are great) I'd apreciate some reasons or experiences that make you say so.
Thank you all very much once again, and please add your computer info, if you haven't done so already.
Stefan
-
Sorry, I am not aware of this mouse issue? I know that the mouse that comes with the Mac isn't very good (same things goes with anything you get from dell) but you can still attach any USB mouse to a Mac and it would work fine, right?
Yes. Typical two button+wheel USB mice work without problems. Most Mac software even seems to have sensible menus on the right button.
Giles
-
Its also very interesting that on a photo related board like this, PC users still significantly outnumber Mac users. That probably would not have been the case 5 years ago.
Yes that is interesting. But since PCs running Windows are supposed to have almost 95% of the market...
-
>Motherboard = MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum
CPU = AMD Athlon 64 (939) FX53 2.4GHz
Ram = 4GB (OCZ PC3200 Perf. DC - 2x1024mb x2)
Operating System = Windows XP Pro
4 SATA ports on motherboard:
Hard Drive = SATA Western Digital 120 GB (boot drive)
Hard Drive = SATA Western Digital 250 GB (current year photo files & PS scratch drive)
CD/DVD Rom = SATA Plextor PX-712SA/SW 12x DVD+RW<
Well, with an old G4 Tower I can place four hard drives in the case if I like. This is standard. But instead I daisy chain 500GB Lacie Firewire 800 drives together.
>I run two monitors (2 x Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 20” CRT), each with it’s own card (both use same driver):
AGP Video Card = MSI/nVidia GeForceFX5200 128MB
PCI Video Card = MSI/nVidia GeForceFX5500 128MB<
Mac Pro towers have always allowed monitor spanning, which is the attachment of two monitors to expand your virtual desktop. This has been standard for years.
Power Supply = Antec Neopower 480W ATX2.0 PCI-E
CPU Cooling = Thermalright XP-90 Heatsink
Case = GlobalWin YCC-61F1 Full-Tower
ps: MAC is a religion. If you believe, you believe. I don't.
Work smarter, not harder
-
Hi all, I'm new here and will introduce myself by way of posting in this topic. I'm a computer programmer and have been building my own PCs since 1992 when I got my first 286 with a whopping 1MB of RAM. I've always used AMD processors and have been happy with them. Right now I run Windows 2000 and Redhat Linux at home.
Being a programmer, I've worked in environments where I had to deal with multiple operating systems and platforms on a regular basis and haven't found switching back and forth to be a problem.
Additionally, I spent a long time as a music major (undergrad and graduate degrees), where the Mac is the platform of choice for music software. I believe that was true then because there were simply more tools available, but suspect it's now simply because that's what people have become accustomed to over time. Mac definitely had a head start in the creative arts area, but PCs have caught up. I run a package called Finale which has long been considered the preeminent music notation tool and there are no issues running it under Windows.
Perhaps in the past there were specific reasons why one platform would be advantageous over another for certain types of applications, but these days I think it boils down to personal preference.
Those of you who are looking for an OS that never crashes should check out Linux. Unfortunately there aren't as many popular applications available for it. I use it at work for my desktop development environment with great success. At home, though, I run Windows 2000 specifically for music and digital applications.
-
llama,
I have looked on anandtech several times to show some head to head benchmark of computers in regards to PS and similar tasks. I have even asked them to make some if they could. To date I haven't seen anything that compares any processors or RAM in regards to photo editing.
Stefan
-
The discussion focus on price/performance seems rather old fashioned to me. When computers were much more expensive and when mainstream applications (word processors, browsers) pushed the hardware limits, then this made sense.
Now, at least at the high end, performance of both Windows PCs and Mac is good. Hey, it's better than that, it's excellent. So choosing on other factors (availability, support, familiarity, style, application availability, ...) ahead of price/performance is quite reasonable.
Of course, if you're looking for the lowest cost option for Internet access and minimal word processing, the rules would change. Cheap and cheerful is one of the things PCs do really well, and Windows goes along for the ride. That end of the market is largely irrelevant to shoppers after systems for running Photoshop I imagine.
Cheers,
Giles
-
There is no such thing as spyware or adware for a mac. The mac operating system hasn't had a virus since 2001.
Here we see a true Mac zealot. These statements are false. There are fewer viruses written for Mac than for Windows, but viruses are written for every platform and OS on a regular basis, including Palm OS and some of the proprietary cell phone OS's. You are foolish indeed to run any network-capable computer without regularly updated anti-virus software, regardless of platform. As to the rest of the post, it's primarily opinion without any solid basis in fact. Mac is neither junk nor evil, nor is it as superior to everything else as its more cult-member-like devotees would have you believe. Anything a Mac can do, a Windows machine can do as fast or faster for the same hardware investment. But the Windows box and OS GUI won't look as cool.
Do a search at robgalbraith.com, he used to do head-to-head comparisons between Windows and OSX for things like batch processing and converting RAW images. For a while, the Mac fell significantly behind, although in the last comparison it had almost caught up to the PC.
Speed Comparison (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-4869-4882)
-
Oops, forgot in all the tech-steroid excitement, I use a Motion Computing M-1300 tablet PC for processing images on vacation, most recently China .
DJ
-
I use an Apple G4. I'm actually very comfortable with a lot of OSes (I'm a unix system administrator by trade; the day job rears it's ugly head...), it's just that I would rather spend my time in OS X than anything else when it comes to photo work.
Computers are lot like other photographic tools in that there are lots of ways to get the job done. Conversely, flamewars about which tool is best are usually silly :)
-
I currently use Windows, mainly because it is all but free for me as an IT guy. I like Mac's would love to have a Dual G-5, but price/performance ratios are just too low for me to break out the bucks for the Apple.
My druthers would be to use Linux, it has everything a Mac has and has an excellent performance ratio based on the fact that it is on the cheaper Intel/AMD platform. And, in the right hands, it can do something not easy to do with a Mac: it can computationally cluster. That would be incredibly convenient for large files, as the workload could be split onto three or more cheap machines.
At the end of the day, I think it is the hard drive and memory that really makes the difference anyway. Every since I build a RAID10 FibreChannel network storage array, I am getting read/write speeds measured in nanoseconds. A 2GB file writes in less than five seconds, plus it has built in disk redundancy, making backups necessary only for offsite storage. Hope you guys are not only backing up your datas but also keeping an extra copy away from the place where your computer is!
Oh, and to answer the query above about how to get the equivilant of Task Manager on a Mac: Open a Terminal and type "top". It should tell you every running process, memory usage, etc. It's all *nix under the hood. You may need to be a superuser to run it, so if that does not work, check and see if sudo is installed and then run it that way.
-
I just priced out a Dell 3.8 GHz 4GB RAM machine with a flat screen monitor and every goody I could add for $3122
Dell Optiplex GX280 - 3.8 MHz P4 (http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W463&l=en&oc=nemtmin&s=bsd)
A similar Mac, a single processor 1.8 GHz G5, same memory, a flat screen monitor, same HD, pretty much similarly configured is currently $4051.
Apple G5 1.8 MHz (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72601/wo/Kp2S4Jjwk9BH3D3gRat1BEGRa1b/3.0.13.1.0.6.3)
The Apple has a higher level of security, being that it is BSD based UNIX, and comes with Tiger preinstalled. However, behind the firewalls and routers on our network, that's redundant anyway. The Apple would be close to my dream machine, except I am hearing murmurs from the Adobe rep that PS CS 3 may actually show up on the Linux platform. One can hope he is not pandering to us as he knows very well that we have Opteron-based Pro/E Wildfire workstations now.
One thing is certain, however, he says that Adobe now develops for Windows as it's "prime" platform. Odd to hear him say that, as there has to be more Mac based GD's out in the world than PC.
No matter to me, at the end of the day my photos care not one whit what OS or CPU hardware printed them.
-
Hi guys,
whew, that was a long one to get through. Ok, I am on the WinTel team, however I was really condemplating a dual G5 as a serious upgrade as my editing system after buying my first Mac product - yes, the IPOD Photo. ####, that is one se*y little thing. However, what it was I liked was the feel and look of things. I have used Mac's for prepress and graphics design in tandem with PC's and in terms of PS then it is just swapping the keys around Alt option control etc...
however, I went to a couple of mac shops locally to where I live in Western Australia and I really felt sick by the constant mantra - Mac is great! PC sucks! Like could have been using a PC, when these Mac's are so beautiful. This wasn't just one shop it was all of them (all 3) ???
Anyway, I went looking on the net and this is what I found
http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html (http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html) this is a ProMac site, so I thought that when they can put up benchmarks like this, it has to bare some weight.
I ended up getting a Dual AMD Opteron, which in the end of the day will cost as much or more then a Dual G5.
For the looks of things, well, they mac's looks great but since my feet don't have eyes, then I couldn't care less how the box looks as it will be on the floor out of the way and I was going to get a Mac 23 or 30" Cinema Display WOW, but two 24" Dells will do the job, and nobody is entering my little den anyway, it is my little cubbyhouse!
However, this Mac vs PC will be over soon and we will all be sharing a common platform INTEL!!
Have a fantastic day guys and gals
Henrik
PS: also have a look at this one from FredMiranda's site
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/233604 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/233604)
people running a radical blur on a image and time it in PS
The Dual G5s are doing very well, very impressive!
-
IMHO the battle between Mac and PC is similar to the battle between Canon and Nikon. At the present time both can do a superb job, particularly since Photoshop is virtually identical on both systems. Macs certainly have a longer history as excellent machines for graphics, and they have the advantage of not being hobbled by Microsoft operating systems.
That being said, if you're starting from scratch, try out both and see which feels more comfortable to you. Just like Nikon vs. Canon.
For the record, I have recently moved from Pentaxes (for many years) to Canons. I like the feel, controls, lenses, etc., and Nikons never felt right to me. And I use a PC (Dell XPS with a 2.8G Intel P4, with about 600GB of hard disk space), because I got used to PCs long ago and haven't wanted to go to the trouble of learning a Mac.
Yet I've never seen a print that I could tell was made on a PC or on a Mac, nor have I seen one that cried out that it was taken with a Canon or a Nikon. We're fortunate that we have some good choices.
Eric
-
As for the price/performance advocates any true comparison must be done by comparing machines which are identical in specs. Once you do that the price difference is minimal.
i don't know about that. i just bought a new pc.
p4 3ghz 800mhz fsb / 512k l2 cache
512mb ddr400 ram
160G ide hd
128mb video card
cd burner
windows xp pro
all for $800 cdn - taxes in.
the 1.8ghz single g5 has...
600 fsb / 512k l2 cache
256mb ddr400 ram
80G sata hd
64mb video card
for $1899 + tax.
granted these components aren't exactly the same. but they're close. at $1400 difference...until i make much much much more money than i presently do, it's really a no brainer for me. the difference is enough to buy me the canon 70-200mm f/4 L lens i've been eyeing!
-
I second Liz's recommendation of Linux!
My home server runs on Fedora Core 3 linux, an off-shoot of RedHat. That lowly PIII700 with 512MB RAM is over-clocked to 848MHz yet acts as a music server, file server to my Windows machines, Unreal Tournament 2004 game server, Apache Webserver, picture repository, and nightly back-up system -- it never crashes and updates its software weekly.
If it weren't for my gaming interest and Windows PDA, I'd use Linux exclusively and figure out The Gimp, Linux's answer to Photoshop.
N
-
I use a powerbook G4, and the advantage to using a mac besides the secuirity issues is that it is more stable. I have both a windows computer running XP pro, and two powerbooks that run OS 10.3.8. There is no such thing as spyware or adware for a mac. The mac operating system hasn't had a virus since 2001. There are also operations that are simplified on the mac, so many operations that going into it would take pages to cover. Working in photoshop is a great deal easier with expose to manage all open windows. Just take a mac for a spin, and you will see that windows is outdated, buggy, and inharently flawed. An apple machine comes with more software out of the box than any windows computer. Programs like imovie and idvd are great for creating short movies with you images. Another plus is that most of the apple laptops come with superdrives that burn to dvds. Something else to think about when buying a computer for photography, because dvds are great for archiving images from your digital camera. Apple machine's also have the convenience of the genius bar at apple stores. If you do have problems, just take your machine in, and they will help you fix it. Most of the time it's free of charge. Remember that you get what you pay for. Sure, windows computers might be able to do the job, but you'll get all the problems windows is prone to; hackers, spyware, popups, and viruses. Also, don't let the processor speeds fool you, the processors in the macs are much more efficient, and have to do less cycles to process the same amount of information. It takes some adjusting to get used to the mac, because you'll say " why didn't windows do it this way?"
-
Mac for all creative work. Windows machine for all drudgery, or for all maddening programs that will only work in Win. 70% Mac, 30% Win.
-
Building your own PC is always going to save you some bucks in the high end but I don't consider that option when comparing prices since a majority of people don't have the know-withall to build their own. The only time the price of a self-built system could be fairly compared with the likes of Dell and Mac would be if it's for yourself and you have the ability to do so. Furthermore, people who can build systems themselves aren't the type that would be asking which platform is better/cheaper as they would already know what the need and how much it'll cost.
The most relavent comparison is with pre-built systems and when it comes to pre-built systems in the high-end there is no price benefit to buying PCs. In fact I'd argue there is a big price benefit to the Mac. Not only is it actually a few hundred cheaper than a comparble PC but it also has numerous productivity and security features built into the OS not found on the PC which add a certain value to it as well.
This argument will probably change once Intels multi-core (not dual-core) chips come out within the next month since these chips will be aimed initially at the consumer desktop. AMD will be releasing dual-core chips too but those are aimed at the very high-end with prices over $1K per CPU. I'm hoping Apple will be releasing a CELL chip to compete with the next hardware update but I'm not going to hold my breath.
-
I've been running various PCs with Windows 2000 for several years now. I can't even remember the last time I had a system crash. I find Win 2k to be very stable.
Regarding the statement a ways back that AutoCad and games are the only things you can't get on a Mac, here are some more major applications to add to your list:
Altera's Quartus
Altera's MaxPlus II
ModelSim
Veribest VHDL Simulator
Synplicity Synplify
Mentor Graphics' Leonardo Spectrum
CadSoft EAGLE
These are all critical applications for the work I do.
-
Fujitsu-Siemens/Intel Pentium 4/ 2.5Ghz/ 512Mb RAM/ laptop with added external HD and 19" Lacie monitor for photo editing.
I used to use MACs. Great machines. Only problem is that I use lots of other PC-only, non-photo software, and I don't wish to use virtual PC in order to avail of it.
As for stability/security........I run XP Pro SP2. It has never, and I mean never, crashed in two years of use. I protect it using Grisoft's AVG anti-virus program, one of the best freebies on the web. Simple.
In addition, I keep it clean as a whistle by regularly running Disk Cleanup and Disk Defrag. Computers are like cars: service them regularly and they will never breakdown.
Just one other point......when people talk Mac versus PC, they always talk about stability and security, something which is less relevant now than it used to be (all Windows operating systems prior to XP Pro were crap. I know, I've used them all! But, XP Pro has changed that.), but no one ever talks about the MAC mouse versus the PC mouse. In my opinion, if you accept that most of the PC's past failings have been sorted, as I do, then it wins hands down on the mouse issue. Anyone else agree?
OK........waiting to be flamed! ;-)
D.
-
I switched to a dual processor G5 last year after years with PC's. I still use a PC at work and will do for the foreseeable future due to techical engineering programs that only work on the PC. So every day, I switch between Windows XP and OSX. It's a breeze and after a couple of weeks your brain goes on autopilot and you do not even have to think about which system you're using. Is the G5 worth the extra cost? You bet. The build quality is far beyond any PC I've used and the performance will keep me from having to upgrade for years.
-
except the freaking mouse
Don't have to use the lame one-button mouse. Plug in a two (or more) button mouse and it works just as it does in windows.
limited software options unless running PC emulator
That would be a very valid point a few years ago but not so much anymore. The gap in software is quickly diminishing. The only two areas of use the PC has a significant software advantage is with AutoCAD and Games. As it relates to photographers (as this thread should maintain focus on), the Mac has software out there that lets it do anything the PC can do.
huge variability in quality: consumer control equals consumer responsibility for what they buy, whichi inevitably ends in the classic "Windows sucks" story
True, but even well maintained systems can be flakey and any windows system need to be re-installed every year or so otherwise the system stability suffers (thanks in part to DLL hel) and it becomes more quirky over time.
maximizes choice for altenative operating systems - Linux, FreeBSD, etc. Your discontentment with Microsoft shouldn't lead you away from the PC platform, just another OS.
*nix based OSs are far from user-friendly. They improve with each release but the UI still has that beta software feel. Abolutly not recomended for anyone who isn't technically inclined. Not an option for Photographers who shoot RAW.
In addition to PC:
- thanks to 1) the huge market share of MS and 2) the incompetent coding of MS the Windows platform constantly has to be maintained with security updates and fixes.
- spyware/maleware/hijackers/trojans/viruses/etc. (All possable on Mac but very very very rare.)
The two platforms are obviously different. They should not be looked at as two directly competing computers but as two different types of computers for two different useability needs. The IBM PC is a custom machine that allows for infinite flexability at the cost of additional maintenance. Like a toaster or a TV, the Mac is an appliance. It is designed to turn on and work without much user configuration and knowledge.
-
The point still remains that no matter what the hardware, OS, or applications used, limiting software installations to the minimum necessary to accomplish the task at hand is best practice.
While I tend to agree with this for the most part, I find that the more OSX and its development community matures, the less critical this practice becomes.. for the most part. (Windows is a whole different kettle of fish though, and I agree with Jonathan 100% where that platform is concerned. Install what you need. Nothing else.)
In OSX, however, the vast majority of developers are adopting the use of application packages, which means that you're not getting involved with installers splattering billions of files all over the hard drive in folders you've never heard of. The app package is basically a specialised folder that already contains all that crap. To the user, an application is its icon and nothing more.
Want to install the app? Drag its icon somewhere. Want it gone? Put its icon in the trash and empty it.
From time to time, one of these apps might make a folder for itself in your Application Support folder, but without the actual application running these items will never be accessed by the system, and so are completely benign..
Of course, none of this changes the fact that certain combinations of applications running at the same time can occasionally conflict with one another. This is true of any OS though, and so people should be observant of what software they allow to load at startup, etc.
But as far as OSX goes, IMO you could safely load up your hard drive with as many packaged apps as you like - whether necessary or not - and likely never run into any trouble at all..
Best practise though? Probably not.
Installing buggy applications can cause problems on any platform.
I'd say best practice is to simply avoid buggy apps.
Getting back OT re: computers I use?
I own:
2 self-built Windows machines -- one an XP2400+, the other an XP3200+. Both have Abit mobos, 2GB DDR 3200, Radeon 9700 Pro vid cards (128 MB). SATA HDDs (RAID 0+1 on the 3200+) Running XP Pro
3 Macs -- one 2x800Mhz G4 (overclocked to 2x867 :laugh: WOOHOO!), one 1.25Ghz G4 PowerBook, one 2x2Ghz G5. The G4s each have 1.5GB of RAM, the G5 sits at 2.5GB. All run OSX.3.8..
If given a choice, I always choose to do any image related tasks on the Macs. My Windows machines are perfectly competent, functional and fast when it comes to this sort of thing, but in terms of overall productivity, there simply isn't a better OS currently available for working with photography than OSX (do I need an IMO here?). Exposé practically does this on its own, and it's only one tiny (revolutionary) feature of the OS! It just keeps getting better, too -- Tiger promises to bring colour management to non-colour managed apps, for example.
As far as relative performance, the PowerBook is about on par with my 2400+ in PhotoShop, and that's saying something because it's got a painfully slow drive and less RAM (both system and video).. The dual 800 is actually faster in some operations, but it's only used as a server anymore these days.
The G5 smokes everything. I've never used such a fast, beautiful, stable computer in my life before.
Come to think of it, given a choice, I choose to do nearly everything in OSX.. No viruses, adware, spyware, crapware, whoputthisherethereandeveryware bothering me has been very nice in the last few years. I'm becoming a real fan of system-wide spell check as well. If I install an OS update, Apple doesn't change preferences on me or decide that I really do want a bunch of their apps to load at startup even though I had found every last hidden 'off' switch for those apps in the past..
Lately, my Windows boxxen get used for essentially one thing: gaming. You don't want to have just a Mac if you're at all into games. If you're serious about games and can't have both platforms, there's no question about it: Windows it is
-
Apple Dual 2 GHZ with 6 Gigs of RAM -
OS X latest version - its a cream dream machine -
never used Windows... :-)
Andreas.
Concorde-SST
-
As I wrote my contribution I knew in the back of my mind that custom-building is comparatively cheaper than either Dell or Mac; however, I was responding on the basis of canned solutions which constitute the overwhelmingly large share of the market compared with the (growing) numbers who custom-build their computers.
Of course one pays a premium for buying from established manufacturers, in return for which one gets (or is supposed to get) the comfort of guarantees and tech support, whose only counterpart in the self-build community is patience and expertise - two commodities that many of us find in short supply!
-
Bill Gates is the Sith, and he is trying to turn us all to the dark side of the force.
Most PC users have not tried a Mac. I was once an ignorant PC user constantly rebooting my computer and performing late night chants and sacrifices to get rid of viruses that the antivirus software let in. Then my older daughter forced me to try a Mac--I was saved.
Seriously, it is almost a religious experience to use a Mac. I got a Dual 800 G4 in 2001 and it is still going strong. I can not remember a crash. No anti virus and no viruses. We now have 2 powerbooks, an ibook, an iMac, and I just ordered a dual 2.3 G5. They are all in use every day in the family with no problems. They just work. And they come with a lot of software fully integrated.
You just do not know until you take the plunge. You will never look back.
-
Dual 2Ghz Mac G5 4.5GB ram, 500GB disk, Lacie Blue 19, 22in Cinema Display, Wacom 15in Cintiq, OS X 10.3.7 & PS CS
Now the reality ... Macs do crash. Anyone telling you that they don't isn't being realistic. I've used Mac's for years and even under 10.3.x your system can crash or require a restart primarily due to applications failing (Safari/FireFox particularly) - these typically kill the GUI but not necessarily the OS but the overall effect is the same - reboot. OS failure is extremely rare however.
PC's - better bang for buck. If you just want performance vs price then you'll get a better deal with a PC. The logical choice for a platform. You can do everything that a Mac can do for image processing on a PC for less money.
Macs - the emotional choice & lifestyle decision.
I use PC's for my day job. I buy and use Macs exclusively for my own use where I'm paying the bills - the intangible/irrational logic is that they are just 'nicer'/easier to use and for me at least, more productive. Overall, PC's just don't feel 'finished' in so far as apps & XP don't have that fully integrated feel and user experience. All the cliches about Macs exist primarily because they are true. ::
-
Thank you for all the advice guys,
Please continue to debate the two, I am still following it closely, but I'd to add my say to this as well. Please bear in mind while reading this that I have zero experience with a Mac, and no photoshop experience with PC either.
One of the problems that I see his is that you are comparing specs. Specs, as I am sure you will agree, are numbers that mean absolutely nothing. Someone earlier pointed out that they could never tell a difference between a print made by a Mac and one made by a PC, while I am sure that this is true, this is also not the best way to compare the two.
In my mind, the only way to compare the two, is to give person A and person B the exact same photos, and comparable computers, one a Mac and one a PC. Then to let them do whatever it is that they want with the photos. Then whoever is done the fastest would be considered the most efficient. It doesn't matter if your PC/mac is uber fast if it crashes every second, because then you won't get the task done.
Also, another thing that I have noted in different Computer forums, is that Mac users are (generally) more happy with the preformance of their machines. Most mac users (from what i can tell) have used both platforms and have chosen Mac, while the same cannot be said for PC users. As for happiness, mac users are usually so thrilled with their machines that they won't get off them. For them it is almost a religion. Pc users, while some are very enthousiastic about their machines, do not take it to that level of passion.
By all means, please continue the debate, it is teaching me quite a bit and showing me both sides' points. Thank you.
Stefan
-
True, but even well maintained systems can be flakey and any windows system need to be re-installed every year or so otherwise the system stability suffers (thanks in part to DLL hel) and it becomes more quirky over time.
Not true. If you're not constantly installing new games and crap like that there's no reason to periodically reinstall the OS. My Windows 2000 file server is still running the original OS install from 3-4 years ago, and the only downtime I've had with it is rebooting after installing occasional security updates. I can't remember the last time it crashed. But if you're constantly installing new applications (especially games), stability can be negatively affected.
-
Just goes to show how different the experiences can be, I guess as different as the hardware and software configurations, which is to say, almost infinite.
I routinely have Photoshop, Dreamweaver, ThumbsPlus, Outlook plus several Win Explorer and Int Explorer sessions open in Win XP over the two 22" monitors. I never have any problems. OTOH, a couple of years ago XP would crash once or twice a week - I traced that finally to the ATI 9700 card, which apparently had problems in dual-head mode.
The big plus for the Mac environment is that apple controls both the base hardware as well as the OS. Amiga had the same advantage. The Wintel/WinAMD environment is a real hodge-podge from all over the place. I'm always amazed it works as well as it does with some judicious configuring.
The key thing is that you find a platform configuration that you're comfortable with, and can spend the amount of time you want with the apps you want.
Cheers,
DJ
-
The point still remains that no matter what the hardware, OS, or applications used, limiting software installations to the minimum necessary to accomplish the task at hand is best practice. Installing buggy applications can cause problems on any platform. If one depends on the reliability of a machine for one's livelihood (or even one's hobby), then don't install anything unnecessary on that machine. This is equally applicable to full-time pros, casual amateurs, and everyone in between, regardless of computer type.
Of course, whether people choose to follow best practice is another story.
-
Woo hoo! I just upgraded to an AMD Athlon XP+3200 with two gig of RAM. I still have my Raptor hard drives. Not the fastest machine around, I'm sure, but it blazes for me! And should keep me going for two more years, when 64-bit is fully mature and the Windows 64-bit OS has had the first service pack released (which would mean "out of beta testing" from any other manufacturer! :D)
-
Jani, I hear you, but here's another reality check: amortize that several hundred dollars over a two or three year holding period on a computer, and that annual cost difference for many people would be a few months of coffees at Starbucks. OK? What I mean is that affordability is a somewhat elastic concept because there are trade-offs - unless one is truly down to the wire for every last cent - then I agree it's a different story and tipping points are more sensitive to small differences.
-
I can agree with you on that count Mark, however, as an electrical engineer by training and an IT systems engineer by profession, I tend to build my own hardware -- and there, the argument is very much a salient one. Really though, anyone with much computer hardware skills could save a lot of money assembling their own equipment, because in the high end of desktop computing, there really is a big price break.
Me, I have a dual core 64-bit Opteron machine under contruction, with a fibre channel 1 TB RAID 5 NAS to provide mass storage (already in use) -- something most vendors like Dell would not even begin to offer in the desktop class -- and I built it for less than the price of a dual G5. As soon as I put enough RAM in her (at least 8GB) she'll completely replace a tired ole P4 3.0 GHz box which will be relegated to an internal network file and print server.
-
Gentoo Linux on a dual core Athlon 64.
-
I see one of the side effects of the forum crash is old topics being revived from the dead.
Well, I have a new 'puter so here goes:
Mac Dual 2.3Ghz G5
1.5GB RAM (soon to be 3.5GB)
ATI Radeon 9650
Superdrive (16x Dual-layer DVDs and CD-R/RW)
Two 250GB internal drives (One a Seagate Barracuda) + a 250 External
Two 20" widescreen displays (one Apple, one Dell)
OSX Tiger (10.4.2)
-
Very nice, Daniel! But 3.5GB of RAM? The Adobe website implies that 8GB can serve a purpose on the Mac.
-
Very nice, Daniel! But 3.5GB of RAM? The Adobe website implies that 8GB can serve a purpose on the Mac.
Perhaps but I only have so much money. An extra 2GB will due for now since I also have to pick up a tablet, buy some software and save up for a good RAID setup.
-
I've used PCs since I worked as an analyst for Shell Oil years ago.
Yes, PC were crash prone before Win 2000, but not anymore.
Yes, PCs have more viruses floating around than MACs, but that is 99.0% preventable is you know what you are doing. I've never had ONE virus that got away from me in 15 years of computing.
If you run photoshop and other large programs at the same time, you DEFINITELY want a Dual Core processor, and AMD wins the day as of this time.
I just built a new machine, and it is incredibly fast and a pure joy to work with, even over the new AMD FX 57 64 bit processor--I owned both in the last month. The dual core processor just kicks ass on any single core, or even Intel multithreaded CPUs.
It actually has 2 64 bit 2400Mhz CPUs on the die.
OK so here is my evidence to the above statements, and my system specs:
AMD X2 64 bit 4800, running at a clock speed of 2.4Ghz
2GB of Corsair Extreme Pro matched pair RAM (2 IGB modules)
ASUS A8N SLI Premium Mother Board
BFG 7800GTX video card with 256MB RAM
Want evidence that if you are running power hungy applications at the same time that the dual core is the way to go, ok, try this:
Using Photoshop CS or CS2 (or PS 7)
==================================================
1.) Download Image from http://www.quicklance.com/test.jpg (http://www.quicklance.com/test.jpg)
2.) Save it to computer and then open it up in Photoshop
3.) From there please apply a 'radial blur' with the settings at:
Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best
Use the PS timer to see how long it takes to apply this filter. Run the the test three times by closing teh image each time and re running the radial blur test, and then average the three runs. Now, here's the rub for those who wish to run another application while you work in Photoshop: Grab about 1GB of data and start the compression program Win RAR compressintg the files. I say use Win RAR because it pegs your CPU and must share the clock cycles with other apps running.
So start Win RAR compressing a bunch of files, and then run the radial blur test three times and average it.
My score:
No applications running except Photoshop and your firewalls, virus programs, and things lie that.
FX57 2.8 Ghz--the fastest single core desktop processor in the world at this writing: 64 seconds.
X2 4800 2.4Ghz Dual Core CPU: 36 seconds
All your regular programs running, virus scanners, firewalls, etc, plus Win RAR working on a 1GB file. Open Photoshop, and runt eh test:
FX57 1:49 secs
X2 4800 40 secs.
And there you have it. This also goes for other applications that you amy want to run while you work in Photoshop, like Win Amp, windows media payer, both to play music, a video conversion program, etc.
I will post this test in a new thread so we can get some fresh thread results.
-
I use an AMD-powered PC with 1.5gb RAM running Win XP with more gadgets hanging off of it that I can remember. If your view is that Macs are more reliable than PC's, I'd say its not true, provided you use good hardware. The problem with PC's is variability in quality of the hardware. Buy decent kit, and its rock solid and reliable. My Win XP PC has never crashed. Not once. The consensus referred to that Macs are more reliable than PC's is based on books written mainly by Mac users and to be fair, it may have been true at one time, but it has not been the case since Windows 2000, in my view.
We run a stock library from another PC.
Buy what suits you. Truly, the differences are now down to personal preferences, not performance or reliability.
Quentin
PS, yes I agree on the mouse issue
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=46459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with the above.
I've had both systems until WinXP was released—now I just have Windows based systems. I've had Macs since 84 (still have the original with all the signatures on the inside of the case). That Macs are more stable that Win-based might have been true during the Windows 95/98 and possibly to some extent with the Windows 2000 years, but certainly not XP—unless you're into overclocking or have assembled your own system using low-grade components.
My system is stable and I've got specialized audio cards and USB/Firewire devices for audio/music production.
-
The big plus for the Mac environment is that apple controls both the base hardware as well as the OS. Amiga had the same advantage. The Wintel/WinAMD environment is a real hodge-podge from all over the place. I'm always amazed it works as well as it does with some judicious configuring.
DJ
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=46541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At one time, I believed in the above: Apple had the advantage of controlling both the hardware and software. But, IMO, Microsofts huge bank account has completely negated this advantage. The MS development team is way beyond what Apple is capable of bringing together. What saved Apple, that we can even be having this discussion, is Steve came back, along with his Unix-based OS.
My two pennies.
-
I can agree with you on that count Mark, however, as an electrical engineer by training and an IT systems engineer by profession, I tend to build my own hardware -- and there, the argument is very much a salient one. Really though, anyone with much computer hardware skills could save a lot of money assembling their own equipment, because in the high end of desktop computing, there really is a big price break.
Me, I have a dual core 64-bit Opteron machine under contruction, with a fibre channel 1 TB RAID 5 NAS to provide mass storage (already in use) -- something most vendors like Dell would not even begin to offer in the desktop class -- and I built it for less than the price of a dual G5. As soon as I put enough RAM in her (at least 8GB) she'll completely replace a tired ole P4 3.0 GHz box which will be relegated to an internal network file and print server.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=46545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You got it! I build my systems on the basis of upgradeability—I save a ton of cash building them myself, I have tremendous flexibility to conduct intrim upgrades, (e.g., replace HD or add another, replace CPU). When I was running Mac, I couldn't do that—when I need more horsepower, I had to go out and buy another system.