Mac vs PC

[dalethorn]

I don't use a Mac for technical reasons, but seeing what people like Jeff Schewe and Bill Atkinson do with them is proof of product.

[douglasf13]

In the past couple of years, I've owned 2 ibooks, 1 macbook, 1 home built PC, and an iphone, so you could say I don't really have any allegiance.  At the end of the day, firefox, photoshop, Capture One, etc all work very similarly on both systems, and I don't really notice much difference.  I've just put Windows 7 on the PC, and it is great so far.  Ultimately, I would say that if money is no issue, I'd go Mac.  Unfortunately, money is always an issue for me, and I can build PCs** that are much faster for the money, and upgrade them over time, so my main Photo computer currently is PC.

  I'd agree with the above that matte screen is the only way to go for your main photo computer, and, if you get a desktop, you want to stay away from cheaper LCD panels, like TN panels.  This limits you with mac, because you're basically looking at either a mac mini, Macbook Pro 17, or Mac Pro tower.  I guess you could possibly run an external monitor out of the imac, but that wouldn't be very elegant.



note:
**building PCs is easier than it sounds.  Just an hour of reading on the internet got me there, and I've had few, if any issues for the 3 years that I've been doing it.

[tived]

TOOLS

I use PC at home and Mac at work,

Mac's are the most beautiful, sexy looking computers to grace this planet....they remind me of Pamela Anderson (no offense meant to her)...it is therefor amazing what some people are able to do with these machines, which makes me thing! Hmm, I wonder if they had an abacus and a couple of crayons, they could probably create art, regardless of the tool at hand. In other words, it isn't the tool that makes the art, it is the one using the tool, who does.

Comparing Apple with Windows and all its myriads of hard ware configurations isn't fair to apple, as they can only support a very limited different configurations, but what for what they are, pretty and slick, they do perform well, in skilled hands.

I myself choose not to use Apple for myself, with the exception of my iPod, another great design, slick looking. Though I have to confess, that there has been a time or two, when I have look to the other side, wonder what that beauty might do for me, but no thanks.

In my experience, I have more problems with the Macpro's that I am using, once the state of the arts (Dual Dualcore), so it is a few steps behind. However, when I compare it to my AMD Opteron Dual Dualcore, at the same clock rate, working on the same or similar images. It surprises me time and time again, that the Mac just doesn't get the job done that fast, despite it has almost twice the ram (Mac 14gb vs AMD 8gb (2005 vintage)) both have the same hard drives, both uses some kind of software raid, only the video card is different Mac with its default card and my PC with a Quadro FX3400, so there is a difference, but not major.

Anyway, if you want to use a Mac, by all means go ahead, as long as I can use what I wish to use, and should I one day choose differently, well great!

Enjoy photography and computing which ever way you choose to do it :-)

Henrik

[dalethorn]

In other words, it isn't the tool that makes the art, it is the one using the tool, who does.
.........
I myself choose not to use Apple for myself, with the exception of my iPod, another great design, slick looking.

John Henry tried making the first point, and the result was a disaster. On the second point, the iPod didn't just look good, it did video, mp3's, photos, and (don't forget) text notes. Now that I have a phone that does all that and much more, the iPod is useless to me. But it was a breakthrough product.

Here's a new quote: "To make good art and enjoy doing it, use a machine designed for art."

[BernardLanguillier]

Not a plug for any system over another, but, it's not so important how easy a system is to use the first or second time, or even the 50th time.  It's much more important how easy it is to use, or more precisely, how efficient it is to use, the 500th and 5,000th time.

My personnal guess is that the way 98% of users use a computer doesn't change a bit between the 3rd and 30.000th time...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jack Flesher]

My personnal guess is that the way 98% of users use a computer doesn't change a bit between the 3rd and 30.000th time...

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

I think Dale's point was about the user experience with the machine and not how they use it; IOW is the machine working as well a year later as it did when they first got it...

[dalethorn]

My personnal guess is that the way 98% of users use a computer doesn't change a bit between the 3rd and 30.000th time...
Cheers,
Bernard

This is correct, of course. Whether it's good or bad, YMMV.

[dalethorn]

Bernard,
I think Dale's point was about the user experience with the machine and not how they use it; IOW is the machine working as well a year later as it did when they first got it...

There have been science fiction movies about machines acquiring personalities for many years now. And truthfully, we're in a transition toward that now. We no longer write software from the simple instructions up - we leverage old code with "wrappers" that hopefully preserve the good functionality of the old with none of the bad things.  So the observations here that Macs and PCs are maybe getting a little more alike are pertinent, but, even though there's a lot of crossover of machine function and the way people actually use them, I still say that the fundamental design of the Mac is to support art, and the PC to support utility. And Schewe and Atkinson et al's demos drive that home for me.

[situgrrl]

I've used Apples since the Classic and have owned them for over 10 years.  At the moment, my 1st gen MBP is about to die and I'm at a loss with what to replace it with - the last thing I want to do is move to Windows - but Apple is more interested in making flashy phones than concentrating on it's core user base which gave it it's "cool."

I need a new Desktop really - 17" laptops are far from portable and smaller ones don't have the screen estate for a main work station.  That gives me the option of the Mini, iMac or Mac Pro.  The Mini is instantly written off due to it's woeful specification which is barely an improvement over my 3 yr old computer.  The iMac is still built on laptop components and the glossy screen looks great in store but seems over saturated so I'm left with a Mac Pro.  The cheapest is £1900 - and I still need to find another £500 for a screen.  For most amateurs and I imagine many pros - that's just too expensive.  For that matter, so is the iMac.

I can buy a similar spec PC for half that - but then I have to learn Windows, deal with driver issues and viruses....I don't fancy that much either.  Psystar or Hackintosh are looking really good for many of us at the moment.

[tived]

Here's a new quote: "To make good art and enjoy doing it, use a machine designed for art."

Good one! Non of the discussed platforms/machines are :-) still using one, should it exist, does not make you an artist, no matter how artistically you phrase it!

:-)

Henrik

[jmccart]

  Just converted from a PC to the IMAC 24.  Best word to describe the experience is 'HEAVEN"  and of course I wonder why it took sooooooooooooooo long.  
      Bought mine from B&H for $1229 with 2gb memory and 320GB drive + 4gb upgrade ($49.95) and 2TB RAID backup drive ($259.95).  
      DON'T WALK RUN TO MAC
     
      Capture the moment then bring it to life on your MAC,
      Jerry

ps: B&H just dropped the price to $1199

[joedecker]

The Windows PC's huge advantage (for automation) is Command Mode (DOS), but that's a world that very few users ever see.

As a UNIX hack from way back (1981), you'll find that the OS X Unix shell, which is what I'd today call the "Mac equivalent", is actually significantly more powerful than the DOS shell.  However, for most folks it is ... deeply baroque.  But not broke.  

Joe

[Nick Rains]

The Mac glossy screens are an issue for me. I have a 2.4 MacBook and a new Cinema display hooked up to a MacPro 8 core. The glossy screen is fine on the laptop since it's small but the big screen reflects more 'stuff' due to its size.  I find it very annoying. My Eizos on my PC are much easier and more comfortable to use.

I have both systems, and dislike them both equally.

If I had to choose I'd go with the MacPro and an Eizo screen, but if there was a budget in place I'd go with PC 'cos you really can get more power for your buck.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I have both systems, and dislike them both equally.

That says it all, as far as I'm concerned.