pc or mac

[Pascalf]

First, I don't mind ANY operating system if it is perceived by the customer/ user to be:
- stable,
- reliable,
- consitent in its' use.

Eg.: I've used Windows NT when I was working at a high end animation tool company, and I did not mind its' use: it was stable, quite reliable, and consistent in its' use.

“- Your Mileage Varies from mine.”
I just wonder how miles you have driven?

- I've used computer since the TRS-80.  I wrote my own word processor because I could not get Paperclip, a very good Commodore64 word processor.  I've used ANVIL 5000 when it was popular, which was before AutoCAD was widespread.  [Where I worked at the time,] we assembled a MoviePak system on a Quadra 950 when it was the cat's meow.  I've used Photoshop since version 1 [came with an Abaton 300 scanner], Premiere since version 2 [bought with the MoviePak], Illustrator since version '88.  I've been around computers for a while.
- My main field of computer use is graphics: technical, illustrative, photo, video editing.
- what really matter is my experiences, for my choices.
- I don't know what 'units' you use to compare.

You truly don’t understand?  It’s quite simple, explain to me what a MAC can do that a PC can’t.  Show me a software package ported to a MAC that there is no PC alternative, IOW as I stated above Aperture is a very poor example because obviously there are better programs out there for a PC.  Forget 35mm and MF, it’s a lousy analogy.

- so, when a list of sofware packages are provided that are not on Windows is provided, it is dismissed because "obviously there are better programs out there for a PC."

Let's do this:
What software on Windows, that cannot run on OS X [or Linux or IRIX or whatever else], that cannot run in emulation/ dual boot on Apple hardware, and for which there are never "better programs out there" for a Macintosh?

Note:  Even AutoCAD fails your own logic: there are CAD/CAM packages for OS X.  Using your Aperture logic [where "IOW as I stated above Aperture is a very poor example because obviously there are better programs out there for a PC."], I could 'argue' that there are 'better  programs' for whatever you show as an example.  It's a no 'win' situation.

I can tell you have NEVER touched Auto-Cad because nobody would buy it based upon an emotional need unless you like to torture yourself!  Just kidding, but it’s very powerful software with a steep learning curve.  As far as what other CAD software packages can do, well all the good ones are based upon the Auto-Cad engine!!
 

- Spoken like a true zealot.  I can tell you are 'passionate' about your AutoCAD.  {sarcasm}
- AutoCAD working for you does NOT invalidate the experience of others [with their setup]:  The aurguments you are using for your good experience with AutoCAD, and its' 'exclusivity' are equally applicable to many setup that might happen to use other operating systems.

- ElectricImage was originally Macintosh exclusive.  At the time, people using Windows were saying that there were 'alternatives on Windows': they were all worse.  RenderMan used to be exclusive IRIX: same songs of complaint.
- in 2011, Logic, Final Cut Pro, Aperture, iLife, Bracketeer, and other packages, are exclusive to OS X.
- OSX exclusive software does not make OS X better, or worse, than Linux or Windows.  It makes it different.
- When you list Windows exclusive software, it does not make Windows better, or worse, than Linux or OS X.

Yes, you very stupidly went there with more idiotic statements.  I can tell you have NEVER touched Auto-Cad because nobody would buy it based upon an emotional need unless you like to torture yourself!  Just kidding, but it’s very powerful software with a steep learning curve.  As far as what other CAD software packages can do, well all the good ones are based upon the Auto-Cad engine!!

- I could say the same for Maya, Soft3D, ElectricImage, Renderman, Final Cut, Logic and many more: they all require a big investment in time and dedication to be fully used to their limits.
- I have used RenderMan; I am using Maya, ElectricImage, Final Cut Pro.
- It does not make any platform better or worse.  It makes them different.

Let's do this:
What software cannot run on ANYTHING other than Windows  [No Apple, OS X, Linux or IRIX or whatever else], and for which "obviously there are better programs out there" does NOT apply?
- I really want to see this list.
- and why it makes Windows BETTER than anything else

Note: "Gemmtech" consistently places me in the 'Apple only user' club/ band.  That is not accurate, thought I understand and accept that it is practical.  I don't mind.

What I find curious about "Gemmtech" [and similar] is the dogma that other people are obliged to consider computers only as a commodity, where hardware cost are to be a major consideration, and most everything else moot.  If they don't, they are "emotional".

    I tend more towards a quote from Albert Einstein:
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html


From MY experience, OS X works very well for ME.


The original poster want to change operating system because

beeing angry about the more and more enclosing  politics of apple, so first time i consider to change to pc. ( even with iphone/ipad. )

To that I say, change for whatever reason you want.

Use whatever operating system works well for you.  No one is harmed or hurt.

Hardware-wise, I suggest the upper range of Sony Vaio and Toshiba.  Avoid Dell.  Lenovo ThinkPads are a shadow of IBM Thinkpads, which were FANTASTIC: Lenovo, not as much.


Regards,
Pascal
/"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

[Pascalf]

Macs tend to be run by "creatives" and Windows by "conformists".

In my experience, this holds true.

One of the main reasons I use Macs is because most other users/ clients in the field of graphics use Macs.  I learned from professionals, and they used Macs [for graphics].  I had a choice after using both, and went Mac [for most things].


Pascal

[tom b]

Theory and practice.

I work for the government in a creative position. We have Macs with the latest software which are regularly updated.

The rest of the building has PCs which are controlled by the IT department. Contolled by the finance department they are cheap and nasty machines. This means that you can walk upstairs to look at a monitor and see the following. The 1024x768 screen is set to 800x600, why because the user doesn't want to put on their glasses. The screen is set to 1024x768 but the screen is widescreen. The two monitors have two very different brightness levels. Go to use the mouse and there is temptation to throw it through the window to put it out of it's misery. Try to do something simple and get the reply we don't have that software on our machines it's too expensive.

Theory, there are cheap, fast PCs out there. Practice, they are not in any government office run by finance teams and looked out for by an IT department. They can be found in photography studios and the like.

Practice is that the PC users come downstairs and say, that looks so much better on your screen. The reverse is never going to happen.

The reality is that there are a lot of cheap and nasty PCs out there. Unfortunately you are very likely to find them in a government office.

Cheers,

[Jeremy Roussak]

So, if you have to ask the question which platform to use, you really need to ask yourself the question, why are you even asking the question...get the Mac!

Perfectly put.

Jeremy

[Farmer]

If you want to think of the ultimate difference between Mac vs PC, current Macs CAN run Windows (if you really need to) but "PC boxes" will NEVER be able to run Mac OS's.

Ultimately, that tells you something about the fundamentals...

Not really, Jeff.  It tells us that Apple has a restrictive licence with regard to the OS compared to Microsoft.  You can (and people have and do) run OS X on non-Apple hardware.  It's just a breach of licence.  In fact, there was a time (from memory, we're talking 3 years back?) that the fastest benchmarked OS X box was a Hackintosh ASUS mainboard PC.

So in an absolute sense, you're wrong.  "PC Boxes are able to run Mac OS's and do so".  Apple doesn't support it, and it's not legal (well, I don't think it's ever been challenged, so we'll accept that their licence is enforcable), but it does happen.

So, again, all it tells us is the differences between the two companies in terms of licencing.  Apple wants to sell hardware.  I understand that Apple doesn't want to support all the, literally, millions of permutations that Windows does.  That's fine.  They also want to sell their hardware.  That's fine.  But it's absolutely not a reflection of any technical limitation or benefit (depending on which side you look from).

As I've said many times, and continue to say, if you find Apple to your liking then go for it and vice versa.

Personally, I still miss my Amigas, which were amazing and saw me leave Apple at the time.  They're coming back, sort of, and I can't wait :-)

[tived]

Being a user of both Mac and PC, and see both having their advantages. I personally would lean towards the PC.

Each and every time I need a new system I look at both players to see if there is something one has that would give me the upper hand, and at what cost. Now if one does have something, how much more is it going to cost me. It has become a lot easier to compare components now that Mac is using Intel, so it is a straight hardware comparison (excluding the OS and the very nice and super sexy Macpro case).

Now, Schewe, may be very right in that most if not all creative industries have the majority of their computer with a Apple Logo on them.

Why is that? Well, We are creatures of habits. Macintosh was the first computer or one of the first computer companies with a real sell-able GUI (Graphical User Interface), this enabled the then creative industries to use the Macintosh computers to improve their trade back then in the 80's+, MS-DOS back then wasn't even conceived at that time. Macintosh build up a strong following back then, and this Macintosh/Apple/Mac tradition has had a strong followed since in these fields. Hi, there is nothing wrong with a good Mac!

Bill Gates & Co came along, and it has taken many years for them to build some really good OS's, personally for me XP x64 was great (once I got all my drivers :-)), and now Windows 7 x64 seems really nice, its probably the first real answer to OSX.

Anyway, Windows took hold in the conformist (as Schewe points out) e.g. the business world (the guys with the money!) and managed to build what we see today, leaving Apple/Mac in the dust in terms of market penetration, some 90% or so of the overall computer market. Apple managed to get another strong foot hold in the Education departments, in particular the Higher Education/Universities with highly subsidized deal for them, and what better to do, then prime the next generation of workers and thinkers with the Apple/Mac philosophy. Its one of the few things that has kept their computer's going for them.

Interestingly enough, I don't know if you have noticed that Apple has removed "Computers" in their name (logo), and as of January 2011, have stopped their Server Division. No more Xserve!!! Though Apple isn't making their money on their Macpro, iMac or MacBook's etc... any more (not to say that they don't make money on them) but the core of Apples business isn't computers any longer, its MP3 players (iPods), phones and tablet's

What I really like about Apple, is their ability to design their products in a visual sense, its very appealing in particular for a Dane (Scandinavian), they are the B&O of computing and gadgets! Sexy, gorgeous objects! It beats me, why any PC maker can't do the same!

Anyway, getting back on topic here after this quick-step history lesson :-)

There are many people who in resent years have left Windows for OSX, and its interesting to see why they left, because they will often complain about their computers not working as they desired and this is interesting because where all Mac's are build to a given standard, and can therefor be judge accordingly, However not all windows computers are build equally and this is where we find that people will complain that computer XYZ with Windows on it, isn't working, it keeps crashing, even from well established vendors. Often such computers are build to fit a price-point, and compromises have to be made. This is an area that has served Apple well, that they have been able to maintain a "Turn it on! and it works!", well, ok it works most of the time!

There are also us creatives how do not wish to conform to any one, in particular not to a computer company that says, well, of course you can have choice, we have two graphics cards to choose from, pick one, but only one! (just one example! for simplicity). We want more then just 4 hard drives in our computers, and we want the fastest CPU and the fastest RAM, and that RAID card isn't cutting the mustard here, I want arrays with 8, 12 or 24 drives in various configurations.

Last time I checked, Windows XP x64 loaded separate profiles to each of my monitors, Vista did too (but i have to admit i didn't like Vista! a glorified service pack! a bit like going from one cat to another except it was more expensive!), Windows 7 seems to be doing it too. I am yet to connect all 4 monitors.

Damn, getting so sided tracked here, but one thing I do like about the Mac OSX is the column view in the finder and also that you can color code your files and folders! Why you can't do this in Windows is beyond me.

RANT OFF!!!

Anyway, to OP.

If you need advise on what to have in your Windows Workstation, I am happy to help you out. It is a bit of a jungle out there with choice (almost too many choices :-) ), but I am sure both the Mac and PC users, those who are interesting in high performance computing, and in this particular case high performing Digital Dark-rooms (All Digital Photography), we are on both platforms held back by the same bottlenecks.

That said, in a PC/Windows, not all components are equal, some brand, type are better then others. Some don't want to work if component B is there and so on, so its important to know what one is wanting to archive with their build, its very much like building a Hot Rod car, but in this case a computer. I think this process is why the 9% of computer user chooses Mac over Windows.

A high Performance Windows machine isn't cheap, it may be cheaper then the equivalent Mac, but we are moving into Medium format price land here, or just short off!

I personally consider anything with one CPU to be a Desktop system, and Dual processor (or greater) to be Workstations/Server, also if one is to compare Apple with Windows, and you are looking at a Macpro, then you will need to look at a Dual Processor system on the PC side. The advantage of a Dual Processor system is that you can add more RAM to the system, as each Processor has its own Memory bank allocated to them. You will also find that Workstation grade components to be more expensive and also more durable then their desktop counter-part, in some cases they can perform a little slower then their desktop equivalent,

However, when we start looking at workflow, the Dual Processor win's nine out of ten, as the they will perform better when you are multi-tasking and I believe this is the key.

The bottlenecks, CPU's are today pretty fast, and spend most of their life waiting for us, So we can count this one out.
Enough memory is important, it doesn't help you have 2 or 4 Giga-bytes of ram wish to process a 2 Gigabyte panorama and expecting it to be ready rendered in 10 minutes, it ain't going to happen. So having enough ram is vital for good performance.
These days a good graphics card with 1GB of Video ram or more is great, I currently don't know of any photo-related software that can take advantage of multiple GPU's or SLI/Crossfire yet, but its bound to come and I am sure that even though Apple doesn't currently support it, they will when the day comes.

Now, to the bottleneck!! Drums please!!! its your hard drives!!! Single drive systems are a thing of the past, it is preferred to have a single disk for you Operating system and your applications, then a separate disk for your Data/images. This would be a minimum configuration, the bare minimum!!!!

Today, if I were to build a minimum configuration of hard drives, I would do the following (for Digital Darkroom PC/MAC)
1 x SSD drive for OS and APPs
1 x SSD drive for Scratch/temp/page-file, this can be a smaller disk then the OS, but I would buy two of the same disks (I will tell you why later)
2 x mechanical hard drives for DATA, and I would make a RAID-1 (Mirror) for this, now I would recommend Enterprise grade hard drives here! Such as Western Digital RE-4, Seagate Constellation, or any SAS disks
This will give you a fast OS/APPs it will load your applications quick, if in Photoshop, the scratch disk will be quick. You data will not be as quick, but it will have redundancy and though not a backup solution, its the next best thing. Obviously one should have a backup solution separately.

To Jazz it up a bit, I would double, triple etc... all the drives i RAID-0 (Stripping), this will require RAID or HBA controllers, which are additional to what you computer comes with. This will significantly improve the speed of the computer, because it will suddenly be able to move the data/image between devices much faster.

To give you an example, and average hard drive will on average move around 65-75 mb/s, a good one above 100+ mb/s, SSD (sandforce based) will do 170-270 mb/s, Crucial's C300 will do 250-340mb/s give and take 10% here on all numbers.

in my current system, with 3 SSD's for OS and 2 SSD's for Temp/scratch and 4 HDD's for DATA, here I will move data on average 350-500mb/s and in bursts of up to 1.4 GB/s now my own plan is to double these numbers later in the year. This box also has 48GB of ram, and by the sound of things is a bit similar to Christoffer's. Of course this machine/computer is build specifically for doing work in the Digital Darkroom.

I may offer a "write-up" later in the year. Anyway, regarding setting up the hard drives, this applies to both Mac and PC, only on the Mac you do not have much room beyond 4 HDD, or 8 SSD's using special brackets, and you could remove the optical drives and fit more there! :-)

So, if you decide to get a new computer, be it Mac or PC, let us know if we can help you Pimp it up :-)

All the best

Henrik


PS: The Shortcuts on the OSX are shorter and often easier to reach then on windows

PPS: Schewe!!!! though not officially supported  , but it has been done, running OSX on a PC :-) ....Nothing like running OSX with 24 cores at 4+Ghz!!!    

[adammork]

Wow - this is even more fun than the 35 vs medium format 

Just fyi Autodesk released AutoCAD for Mac last year.... I prayed for that when working as an architect, whould had loved to get rid of the PC's then.

/adam

[Gemmtech]

I knew it was coming eventually but u was unaware that autocad added Mac support
I haven't upgraded to the latest version and we use Softplan more and
That still only has Mac support via bootcamp etc.
The point remains the same, why spend more for less?

[Pascalf]

Now, to the bottleneck!! Drums please!!! its your hard drives!!! Single drive systems are a thing of the past, it is preferred to have a single disk for you Operating system and your applications, then a separate disk for your Data/images. This would be a minimum configuration, the bare minimum!!!!

Today, if I were to build a minimum configuration of hard drives, I would do the following (for Digital Darkroom PC/MAC)
1 x SSD drive for OS and APPs
1 x SSD drive for Scratch/temp/page-file, this can be a smaller disk then the OS, but I would buy two of the same disks (I will tell you why later)
2 x mechanical hard drives for DATA, and I would make a RAID-1 (Mirror) for this, now I would recommend Enterprise grade hard drives here! Such as Western Digital RE-4, Seagate Constellation, or any SAS disks
This will give you a fast OS/APPs it will load your applications quick, if in Photoshop, the scratch disk will be quick. You data will not be as quick, but it will have redundancy and though not a backup solution, its the next best thing. Obviously one should have a backup solution separately.

This!  How about +1!

The storage aspect is usually the one where the client has to be hand held through when explaining the layout of a new [planned] machine, and there are more advantages than "tived" has enumerated [and all of them VERY valid].
Another big advantage of the tiered storage is that backup [automated, scheduled or otherwise] is WAY easier to explain and implement:  the drive which stores the projects/ data is backed up to a different archive set/ system than the operating system [which has its' own backup].
When trouble strikes, swapping out [ or reformatting] either the drive with the operating system or the data drive is much more manageable.
Extra bonus: when, at 03:00 [am] the operating system drive gives you fits and troubles, move the data drive to another machine.  Obviously, this is last resort, [and works much better when the data drive is on sleds/ trays] but another [of many] advantages to the tiered storage strategy.

Again, the storage aspect is usually not perceived as important [as other considerations], but from my experience, "tived" has got this right.

Regards,
Pascal

[Dennis Carbo]

"The point remains the same, why spend more for less?"   

Exactly - Less Headache, Less Downtime

This is proven every time I try to give Microsoft a try again - people have become brainwashed into thinking it is normal and ok to have a buggy, crash prone, system hog OS.

Its not the PC I hate..its the OS....a previous poster spoke of a PC running OS X with 24 cores !....sign me up ..that I would try.

[Schewe]

PPS: Schewe!!!! though not officially supported  , but it has been done, running OSX on a PC :-) ....Nothing like running OSX with 24 cores at 4+Ghz!!!    

Actually, I know (and I've seen it) but I promised I wouldn't even HINT that I knew somebody who had done it and what he/she/it was using it for :~)

The real interesting time was the period where somebody was offering a bounty on the first successful boot of a Mac OSX on a Win box...remember? It was just before Apple announce a beta of Bootcamp. I still wonder if the bounty wasn't being offered by a cutout for Apple. Sure caused a stir and then boom, Apple had Bootcamp :~)

And I agree, Windows 7 sucks less...I also agree that to get a good workstation for digital imaging, you must address all three phases of performance tuning...CPU Speed and multi-cores, ram and disk I/O. You really can't ignore any of them. When I buy a "new" workstation (every 3-4 years) I get the fastest CPU with a ton of ram and really big and fast drives. I bought my MacPro last year in April (had no choice, I needed an updated workstation for book writing season).

I went with the dual quad 2.93 with 32gig of ram, dual vid cards and 4 internal SAS 15K drives via a MacRaid card. Externally I have twin 6 drive stripped arrays.

And not long after I took delivery and burned it in, the 6-cores where leaked. That's ok...in another 3-4 years when I get a new workstation, they will be a lot faster! Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3.3 run pretty darn fast until I start doing pano-merges of 8 or 9 P65+ files...

[Gemmtech]

"Mac vs PC?

You may as well ask Democrat vs Republican"

I don't believe that's a very good analogy, simply put, Democrat and Republican are almost 180 degree polar opposites and if one is honest with one's self a Mac and PC are very similar and are made to perform very similar and at times identical tasks.

"The sides draw their line in the sand and use whatever arguments they can to prove one OS better than the other."

I don't and I'm very OS agnostic, I use Windows, Linux and Mac.  I don't close my mind to anything and is the reason why I bought a Mac in 2006.

"If you want to think of the ultimate difference between Mac vs PC, current Macs CAN run Windows (if you really need to) but "PC boxes" will NEVER be able to run Mac OS's."

I personally know this isn't true and it seems all now agree that you CAN run the Mac OS on a PC.  So, if that is your version of the ultimate difference, you'd be wrong, if that is your version of the "ultimate difference" then I suppose you'd agree there's not much difference between the Mac OS and Windows? "(if you really need to)"?  How about you absolutely have no choice?  And NEVER say NEVER especially in CAPS  

"Macs tend to be run by "creatives" and Windows by "conformists"."

This statement seems not to have any merit just as the aforementioned above regarding run Mac OS on a PC.  A creative person can't be a conformist and a conformist can't be creative?  That just seems silly!  

Apple's global market share (I believe there are creative people all over the world) is probably less than 5%, if we have 1000 computer users, then 50 of those are using Mac and roughly 90% +/- (900 people) use Windows and then we have Linux etc.  If ALL Mac users are to be termed "creatives" that gives you a total of 50 people and if just 10% of those using a PC are creative that gives us 90, so it would seem that a lot more creative people are using a PC. I highly doubt (actually I'm 100% positive) that every Mac user is what I would qualify as creative!  The fact is, more creative types are using a PC and it's not even close.  There was a time that Apple owned the "Desktop Publishing" arena and that just isn't the case anymore.  I can't remember, but wasn't Photoshop originally a Mac only application?  I know that most kitchen design software was almost all Mac and now I don't know what is ported to a Mac, all the designers I know use PCs.  I've been designing houses for many years and I use a PC.  

"If you doubt this, consider the industries that have gravitated to Mac vs. Windows...Photo, Graphic Arts, Film (and I don't mean CGI farms that are generally Linux), a lot of science disciplines, a lot of medicine research, many writers all are Mac based."

If anything, I'd say that a huge percentage have migrated away from Mac in the Photo, Graphic Arts fields; I bet at one point Mac had 100% market share.  Engineering, Science, Medical field very strongly Windows and others.

"I know Windows users will chafe under the collars by being called "conformist"...well, sorry, but that's the way the numbers stack up"

What numbers?  Or should I ask, whose numbers?

"I don't know what the current Mac/PC market share is, but Windows (for "consumers, not "pros") was in the 90%+ range but Apple has been growing at a rate MSFT would LOVE to be able to see. Where do you go when you have about 90% of the market? Down...where do you go when you have less than 10% of the market? Hopefully up."

The current Mac/Pc market share is as it always has been, over 90% for Windows, that says it all.  "Hopefully up"?  If you look at history of Apple, they have tanked at times and been on death's door, with Bill Gates and Co. bailing them out, keeping them alive.

"Being in the software biz (a bit) this is what I've seen...the number of people switching FROM Windows TO Mac is hugely in the favor of Macs...(this decade, in the 1990's it was the opposite)."

So maybe it's going back to the way it was?  What does "Hugely" mean?  The US or global numbers for PC and Mac shipments just don't support this statement.  The markets where Apple always lead by substantial margins, they have lost ground.  In other words, I believe Apple is selling more computers to less creative people than they used to and have lost market share in the "Desktop Publishing" arena.  And I bet the global market is more like less than 5% Mac and over 90% PC, isn't that amazing, just as it has been for a very long time.  You've been in the software biz a bit, it would seem that that end of the business was always overwhelmingly Mac, how could it grow hugely?  Since all you creative types were already using Macs?  

"So, if you have to ask the question which platform to use, you really need to ask yourself the question, why are you even asking the question...get the Mac!"

That would be emotional so no comment is needed.

"And I agree, Windows 7 sucks less..."

And that is about as much a compliment Windows will get from any Mac zealot, reading between the lines, Mac users realize Windows is just as good, stable and reliable.  As I have stated, it's truly the cost of the hardware from Apple that I have the concern with, the OS are close enough to call equal for most tasks, there is still a lot of software not ported to a Mac and I believe most game software is Windows only, though not sure since I don't play games, but I build a lot of gaming systems and I have found them to be the biggest spenders and the look / design is very important.

I'll agree that a great workstation (as I spec'ed) is the way to go for digital imaging, 3-D CAD work, engineering design/analysis etc.  Apple doesn't offer that type of machine, one must buy a Mac Pro and upgrade, whereas one can buy a PC to his/her own specifications.


Pascal is correct about Apple's perceived quality, even I (in 2006) perceived Apple as having higher quality, more reliable, had better components and were less prone to crashing than the "average" pc.  Actually I had thought Macs NEVER crashed, because that's what the Macophiles said!  I have a few friends that are 100% Mac guys and talking to them and reading online you'd swear a Mac never crashed, ran 24/7/365 without rebooting and never broke down.   That just isn't the case, the Macs use all the same components as every other computer company (Apple is a marketing company), break down and that little colorful spinning wheel tells me they crash just as often if not more than as Windows PC especially Windows 7.  I didn't start buying Macs thinking they would break down, crash, be very difficult to repair and it would cost $50 if I lost a screw to a laptop.  I am one of the open minded, OS agnostic computer users out there, yes, some of us exist.  There are zealots in both camps, but the Mac zealot seems to be the more vociferous of the two.  I can understand if you have been using a Mac for many years it's a pain learning a new OS, but some people like myself find it challenging.  I remember the first time I tried to change the resolution within Linux, it took more than 10 seconds, actually more like 30 minutes     I remember firing up the Mac and trying to maximize the window, I hit the + sign and not much happened, the window got bigger but not much, I proceeded to move the window to the corner and stretched it manually, which is how it has to be done, well actually there's a little program available for this as well.  I did know I couldn't have 2 batteries for my MBP 15" and that I didn't like, I like having a choice, Apple doesn't give me those choices.  Change is difficult, getting a divorce, moving, death of a loved one, and changing Computer OS are all challenging but you can live through each.  I'm still learning the Mac OS and it has a lot of little weird idiosyncrasies, but learning it has been fun.  At the end of the day I look at price for what I'm getting and with a Mac you pay a lot more and get a lot less, especially with the Mac Pro.

"Exactly - Less Headache, Less Downtime

This is proven every time I try to give Microsoft a try again - people have become brainwashed into thinking it is normal and ok to have a buggy, crash prone, system hog OS.

Its not the PC I hate..its the OS....a previous poster spoke of a PC running OS X with 24 cores !....sign me up ..that I would try."

The Brainwashing is actually opposite, it's from the Apple side.  Prior to me buying my first Mac in 2006 I believed (erroneously) that Apple computers were of a higher quality than the larger brand name PC manufacturers.  I also believed that they rarely broke down and that the Mac OS never crashed or could get a virus.  Yes, Apple's marketing is so good, it has brainwashed their user base into believing this nonsense!   I never favored Windows over a Mac or a PC in general aside from cost and the fact my software isn't ported to the Mac OS.  When I bought my first Mac I was happy with the purchase because I like the IMac as a concept for a simple computer, but then when my IMacs started to crash (first day) break down (within months, hard drive failure) and I started tearing them apart I found out there was a huge difference between my perception of a Mac and the reality.   I never did have many issues with the Windows OS, starting with Win98, never having used a Mac until 2006 I don't know if Macs were more stable than Win98, all the Mac users I knew said that Macs were more stable, reliable, etc.  I starting building my own machines because I wanted the highest quality components all per my specifications.  I figured out early on, it wasn't Windows as much as it was the hardware and software from other companies.  Now, since Win XP I could never ask for a more stable system.  I haven't crashed Windows 7 yet and quite frankly I have a couple Vista computers that haven't crashed in many many months.  If you are having so many problems with a Windows XP - 7 machine I can assure you, you have a defective machine, cheap components or you are doing something wrong.  Windows 7 is absolutely rock solid with more hardware configurations than you can imagine. I have been using Windows forever, Linux since 2000 and Mac since 2006 and I can tell you they ALL are equally stable and reliable.  Windows has the largest disadvantage because we expect so much more from a Windows machine, we expect it to run more hardware, software than both the others combined.  Think about all the motherboard manufactures, we expect Windows to work with every brand and every model, how many motherboards does Apple offer as an option?  How many video cards?  Hard drives?  etc.  Windows is suppose to be 100% stable no matter what we throw at it and for the most part, amazingly IT IS.  Apple is closed architecture and I suppose that could make sense.  Amazing, closed architecture for the creative types.    

So we have Macs, which you can't customize and they are built for the "Creative Types" and then we have PCs which can be customized including the paint on the case and these are for the "conformists"  seems like an oxymoron, custom for the conformists and closed architecture for the creatives.  

[Dennis Carbo]

Gemmtech,

I am glad Windows never gave you many problems ...I had just the opposite experience - At the time I worked for a Large company based in the Northeast - we ran Dell, Gateway desktops and Dell, Toshiba laptops back in the Beginning running Win 3.0 up until Win XP PRO. It was an absolute nightmare with crashes and viruses, laptops not working or crashing in sales meetings etc. It greatly compromised my ability to be productive. I bought a 667 mhz Titanium Powerbook with both OS9 & OS X, set it up to run on our network (with no issue at all) and ran WIN 2000 thru Virtual PC for a Light CAD program when I needed to. I still own this Laptop and I can tell you it has never crashed to this day. That is my experience - real world - I was simply free to work and not worry anymore. When I went full time as a Photographer I stayed with the Mac as I had no reason to switch  - My Sinar Digital back didnt even support Windows at the time and the Pano program and Blending software I use has no Windows Version. Was all my PC trouble due to poorly configured PC's and a poor I.T. department ? Quite possibly - the ones I built myself were much more stable, however - I just needed a Reliable machine and as soon as I plugged the Mac in I never needed I.T. again. None of my current Macs crash either - ever....yes I use them everyday...am I just lucky ? Maybe but Mac always works for me . Nice to hear Window 7 is stable and has  caught up to the reliability and features the Mac OS X had 10 years ago.

[Gemmtech]

"I am glad Windows never gave you many problems ...I had just the opposite experience - At the time I worked for a Large company based in the Northeast - we ran Dell, Gateway desktops and Dell, Toshiba laptops back in the Beginning running Win 3.0 up until Win XP PRO. It was an absolute nightmare with crashes and viruses, laptops not working or crashing in sales meetings etc. It greatly compromised my ability to be productive."

My brother used to say the identical thing, almost verbatim until probably Windows XP at work, plus he was in love with IBM 0S2  However, once I built him a machine using Windows 98 (built him many since) he said he never had the issues he was having.  I don't dispute large companies tend to buy cheap hardware and therein lies the problem, you have a lot more problems with it.  I have purchased Gateways, Sys technology, HP etc. and that is what made me realize where the main problems where.  

"My Sinar Digital back didnt even support Windows at the time and the Pano program and Blending software I use has no Windows Version. Was all my PC trouble due to poorly configured PC's and a poor I.T. department ? Quite possibly - the ones I built myself were much more stable, however - I just needed a Reliable machine and as soon as I plugged the Mac in I never needed I.T. again. None of my current Macs crash either - ever....yes I use them everyday...am I just lucky ? Maybe but Mac always works for me . Nice to hear Window 7 is stable and has  caught up to the reliability and features the Mac OS X had 10 years ago."

It is true there have been very small niche products ported to a Mac at a time and as they have grown have also added Windows support, I'm not sure if Photoshop started that way but I believe they did.  I believe when somebody says "I've never had my Mac or PC crash", they aren't telling the truth.  What you said is one of the reasons why I bought a Mac "They never crash" all Mac zealots say that.  I can't believe I am so unlucky that every Mac I own has broken down and or crashed. Every client I have who owns a Mac their computers have crashed and some have broken down.  And as far as windows catching up to the Mac OS, it happened many years ago and then it surpassed it.  I'll agree that they are close, but IMHO Windows 7 is the better of the two, but they are close enough.  If you are having nothing but issues with a Windows 7 machine and your Mac never crashes or breaks down you might have munchausen by proxy, the computer version of the disease  

It's like the Japanese cars, I'd hear people say "My Honda has 200,000 miles on it and never broke down"  "My Toyota is 10 years old with 150,000 miles on it and I only put oil and gas in it"  Then you look at the service history and it tells another story.  Then you read about all the recalls.  Yes, I have owned a Honda and a Toyota, but they haven't been anymore reliable than my Fords.  Both Ford and Mercedes had to buy back new vehicles from me because they were lemons.  What were my absolute most reliable vehicles?  All 3 Jeeps. Sure, each one went in for service, however very few times and for very minor issues.  Now go and read about Jeeps, not very good reliability.  Everything breaks down, all computers crash, all cars break down, video cards go bad, printers fail, all hard drives will eventually fail, etc.  Making a claim that your computer never crashed usually means you don't use it much.  I do have one XP machine with about 40 beta programs on it and I just leave it running, reboot it about once every 3 months, I don't use it much anymore because I can't believe it's still running, it hasn't crashed in several years.  I've seen too many colorful spinning wheels just on my own personal Macs to know that they crash and the fact every Mac client I have (Yes, I have recommended Clients buy a Mac) has called with a crashed machine.  Macs crash and they break down and aside from a Mac Pro they are a PITA to service and repair, they are my biggest headaches.  Anybody who says a Mac doesn't break down or crash, I'm sorry, since 2006 I don't believe you!!!

[Pascalf]

In this edition, I attempt to translate parts of "Gemmtech" postings*.

Anybody who says a Mac doesn't break down or crash, I'm sorry, since 2006 I don't believe you!!!

Translation: No matter what your personal, professional or IT experience, Apple/ OS X/ Macs "break down or crash"  at rates that I, "Gemmtech", think they do.  No matter what your level of expertise, knowledge, or luck, Apple products have MORE issues than any custom machine(s) "Gemmtech" has every built.
That is the way of the universe, so decreed by I, "Gemmtech".

If you are having nothing but issues with a Windows 7 machine and your Mac never crashes or breaks down you might have munchausen by proxy, the computer version of the disease 

Translation: If you don't believe me, 'you be crazy'!  Crazy, I say!

I can't believe I am so unlucky that every Mac I own has broken down and or crashed.

Translation: My experience trumps all other experience by anyone, ever!

I do have one XP machine with about 40 beta programs on it and I just leave it running, reboot it about once every 3 months, I don't use it much anymore because I can't believe it's still running, it hasn't crashed in several years.

Translation: I have a computer that runs XP with beta programs/ software(s) and I am so amazed it does not crash I keep it running and reboot it and point at it and am amazed it does not crash and I can't believe it.  I can't believe it.  A stable, reliable XP computer.  I have one.  Amazing.

Macs crash and they break down and aside from a Mac Pro they are a PITA to service and repair, they are my biggest headaches.

Translation: Apple machine, made to be appliances  and not easily serviceable/ expandable, are not easily serviceable/ expandable, apart for the machine that is made to be easily serviceable/ expandable/ upgradable, the MacPro.  Apple machines are not as easily customizable as by CUSTOM built machines.  Apple bad.


I am not saying Gemmtech has no valid points in his/ her posts.  I'm alluding to the re-occuring theme that your personal/ professional/ IT experience SUPERCEDES all other.
From my experience, at best, ones' personal experience EQUALS the experience of others, and one has to work to convince that, in some instances, it could be more, in terms of numbers [more years, or more incidents resolved].

Again, YMMV.


Pragmatic-ly,
Regards,
Pascal


*: This might be humour.

[Dennis Carbo]

"If you are having nothing but issues with a Windows 7 machine and your Mac never crashes or breaks down you might have munchausen by proxy, the computer version of the disease "     That is funny ....

[Schewe]

Apple's global market share (I believe there are creative people all over the world) is probably less than 5%, if we have 1000 computer users, then 50 of those are using Mac and roughly 90% +/- (900 people) use Windows and then we have Linux etc.  If ALL Mac users are to be termed "creatives" that gives you a total of 50 people and if just 10% of those using a PC are creative that gives us 90, so it would seem that a lot more creative people are using a PC. I highly doubt (actually I'm 100% positive) that every Mac user is what I would qualify as creative!  The fact is, more creative types are using a PC and it's not even close.  There was a time that Apple owned the "Desktop Publishing" arena and that just isn't the case anymore.  I can't remember, but wasn't Photoshop originally a Mac only application?  I know that most kitchen design software was almost all Mac and now I don't know what is ported to a Mac, all the designers I know use PCs.  I've been designing houses for many years and I use a PC.  

By MSFT's own internal numbers at the end of 2006 [EDIT I just changed 2007 to 2006 after checking some emails] (and I can't tell how I know this fact for several reasons) showed that Mac "owned" 65% of the professional graphics market which includes design, graphics, pro photo, and prepress. So, while consumer computer markets may be 90% Windows vs less than 10% Mac, in pro graphics the numbers are more like 65% Mac vs less than 35% Windows (Unix does have a place in pro graphics).

And yes, Photoshop was first released as a Mac only app. The Windows version came with version 2.5. Currently, from Adobe's sales, PS sells at about 50/50 Mac to Windows with some version being plus Mac and some being plus Windows. For example, Photoshop CS5 which introduced 64 bit processing to Mac has sold upgrades at a very high level. Same with Photoshop CS3 which introduced the Universal Binary version of Photoshop to the Mac. Photoshop CS4 was slightly higher Windows to Mac because of Win 64 bit.

So, you may as well throw out the 90/10 argument for Windows over Mac. It's simply not accurate nor useful for discussing platforms for photography...and I stand by my overall characterizations of Mac vs Windows...and the fact you've cast me as a Mac "zealot" says more about you than me. (and kinda backs up my characterizations of Mac vs Windows :~)

Edited to correct the year relating to MSFT's numbers...

[Farmer]

The 90/10 figure is about as useful as the 65/35 figure.  Neither proves performance, reliability or ease of use.  Merely, popularity, which in both segments is based as much on historical context as anything else (in fact, more so than any other factor, really).

What the 90/10 figure is useful for is for accounting for the 9 to 1 ratio of complaints about PCs compared to complaints about Macs :-)

As I said before, I'm looking forward to this:

http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_Home.aspx

Just for old-time's sake, because at the time, both PC and Mac looked very ordinary next to an Amiga (yet PC and Mac survived and Amiga didn't).

[tom b]

Reality.

At work we have 500 plus PCs and less than 20 Macs. We have a nice big IT department, all PC trained. The Macs are all 10.6 and of course the PCs are all Windows XP. Says it all doesn't it.

Cheers,

[Gemmtech]

Pascalf,

What is your age?  I ask this seriously because your posts are quite puerile in nature.  I don't need my posts translated, you aren't comprehending what I am saying.  

You have no idea of the sample size I am talking about.  I'm a numbers guy, my background being in mathematics tells me what is and what isn't bullshit.  I'm too smart to realize that if I buy one Mac and it breaks down within 3 months that doesn't mean 100% of all Macs are junk and if I buy another that doesn't mean that 50% of all Macs break down within 3 months if the other has no problems.  The fact is Apple has a customer service department, I have been in many Apple stores across the country more times than I care to count and that damn "Genius" bar is always full and the people aren't bringing their Macs into the store to tell them how happy they are.  I know Macs break down and the OS crashes, because every problem I have had with a Mac, Googling the problem yields a plethora of results, that tells me that many others have had the same issues I have!  I just don't believe the BS I had heard so much of, "Macs never crash" "Macs are made with higher quality components and are more reliable than any PC"  Not only don't I believe these statements, I know they are nonsense.  How?  I have taken enough of them apart and repaired more than I care to count and the parts inside are just like any other "average" computer.  Forget my own Mac OS crash experience, I field calls everyday from Mac users with OS crashes and other issues.  

"I am not saying Gemmtech has no valid points in his/ her posts.  I'm alluding to the re-occuring theme that your personal/ professional/ IT experience SUPERCEDES all other."

If I have valid points then don't post a childish response.  Anybody who has a large enough sample size can NOT say that Apples don't crash and they don't break down.  You can't deny the math.

"From my experience, at best, ones' personal experience EQUALS the experience of others, and one has to work to convince that, in some instances, it could be more, in terms of numbers [more years, or more incidents resolved]."

Again, it all depends on sample size.  If I buy 3 Macs and all 3 break down (let's forget about OS crashes right now, they all crash) that is not a sufficient size to judge anything other than possibly the luck of the draw.  If you buy 3 Macs and not one piece of hardware ever fails that doesn't prove they are the most reliable computer ever built.  However once you have seen enough of a cross section of a particular product, then things become clearer.  It wasn't my own defective IMacs, Iphones, or IPods that made me believe Apple products are not what Mac Zealots claim, but rather 4 years and many Macs later that convinced me that they aren't perfect, that they do crash.  I haven't said at what rate Macs break down in my experience, but I'll tell you, I rarely have spoken to a Toyota, Honda or Mac owner who said that their machine ever broke down, enough people that the math didn't make sense. Initial car reliability is ranked by number of problems per 100 cars within the first 90 days of ownership and a ranking of 100 to 100 is pretty darn good, but that would mean on average every car has at least one problem within 90 days, however if you talk to 100 Toyota or Honda owners you'd be lucky to find 2 that said they had a problem with their car; speak with the head mechanics at the top dealerships and you find out they ALL have their issues, some small and some HUGE.  Back to Apple, they have a hardware failure rate and a customer dissatisfaction rate, do you know what they are?  So maybe you go to church or temple every Sunday or Saturday and God has just blessed every Mac you have owned,
I suppose anything is possible.  

I must admit, I had wondered why Apple doesn't use Maytags marketing scheme, you know, the one with the lonely repairman who never has anything to do!!!  

Jeff Schewe, First I'd like to say that I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and your knowledge of digital imaging, I certainly have learned from you.  I love the tutorials, though they leave me wanting for more, I do appreciate what you do.

"By MSFT's own internal numbers at the end of 2006 [EDIT I just changed 2007 to 2006 after checking some emails] (and I can't tell how I know this fact for several reasons) showed that Mac "owned" 65% of the professional graphics market which includes design, graphics, pro photo, and prepress. So, while consumer computer markets may be 90% Windows vs less than 10% Mac, in pro graphics the numbers are more like 65% Mac vs less than 35% Windows (Unix does have a place in pro graphics)."

I won't argue with your numbers, however I believe they are very telling.  The markets you are referencing (for some reason you discount Architects, CAD users and designers as "creatives") at one time were 100% Apple, so wouldn't that mean Windows has gained market share?  Windows hasn't lost Photoshop market share since at one time they had 0% of the market.  With kitchen and bath design software Apple probably at one time had 100% of that market, now it's rare to see a Mac used.  I don't believe Planit or 20-20 are ported to the Mac and as I found out yesterday Auto-Cad just starting selling a Mac version within the past year, so Windows basically had 100% of that market and yes some of us are the creative types who aren't conformists!  

"And yes, Photoshop was first released as a Mac only app. The Windows version came with version 2.5. Currently, from Adobe's sales, PS sells at about 50/50 Mac to Windows with some version being plus Mac and some being plus Windows. For example, Photoshop CS5 which introduced 64 bit processing to Mac has sold upgrades at a very high level. Same with Photoshop CS3 which introduced the Universal Binary version of Photoshop to the Mac. Photoshop CS4 was slightly higher Windows to Mac because of Win 64 bit."

Ok, so Windows has in fact made substantial gains in market share regarding Photoshop, so my question is, are you claiming that the 50% of the group which migrated to the PC were conformists who were only using a Mac because Photoshop was only available for a Mac?  In other words, the Window OS Photoshop users are not creative?

"So, you may as well throw out the 90/10 argument for Windows over Mac. It's simply not accurate nor useful for discussing platforms for photography...and I stand by my overall characterizations of Mac vs Windows...and the fact you've cast me as a Mac "zealot" says more about you than me. (and kinda backs up my characterizations of Mac vs Windows :~)"

So you want to just throw out all those people who don't work for a professional firm?  That's convenient isn't it?  Because the 90% of the market that does use Windows very few of those people are creative?  

When somebody states

"So, if you have to ask the question which platform to use, you really need to ask yourself the question, why are you even asking the question...get the Mac!"

And

"And I agree, Windows 7 sucks less..."

Yes, I'd say they are a Mac Zealot (that's not an insult from my perspective).  And I don't believe it says anything about me. I don't believe your statement that Mac users tend to be "creatives" and Pc users "conformists"

And I don't believe your statement

"If you want to think of the ultimate difference between Mac vs PC, current Macs CAN run Windows (if you really need to) but "PC boxes" will NEVER be able to run Mac OS's."  

For Pascalf's benefit, I know this personally to be false.

What I'd like to see Jeff, is you and Michael doing a tutorial using a PC using Windows 7  

And again, I'll reiterate, I'm OS agnostic, my main issue with Macs are the cost of the machine, yes, the hardware, the OS is a lot cheaper than Windows, the value, IOW, you are spending more money for less machine, this keeps on getting lost in Pascalf's translations!!!  Pascalf, quit translating what I am saying, you keep on screwing it up! 

"Reality.

At work we have 500 plus PCs and less than 20 Macs. We have a nice big IT department, all PC trained. The Macs are all 10.6 and of course the PCs are all Windows XP. Says it all doesn't it."

No, it doesn't say it all, actually it doesn't say much, it does say that your firm has 25+ times more PCs than Macs.  There's a lot of other information needed in order to extrapolate any other type of information!  Don't ever go to court with that type of evidence!    

You say you have 500 plus PCs?  What brand?  What hardware is inside?  What programs are you using? your nice big IT department are all PC trained?  I truly don't know how many people make up "nice big"?  You state that they are all "PC trained"  a PC can run a lot of different operating systems, which operating systems are they trained on?  So the Macs have the latest version of the OS?  And the Windows machines are several versions behind?  Are they Windows XP/ SP1? SP2? SP3?  

Every company that I have visited that use Macs, they have an IT department and Apple has the "genius" bar, if Macs never break down or crash why have them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7z6AKPGDZ4

Please insert Mac for Maytag  

Ps,  I never said Windows never gave me any problems, what I have said, many times, is that since 2006 I have found that PCs using a Windows OS have been just as reliable as a Mac, relating to the OS and more reliable relating to the Hardware.  I have never claimed that Windows never crashes and PCs never die, quite the contrary.  I believe ALL hard drives will and do fail, however I haven't yet experienced a SCSI hard drive failure in 12 years and with my sample size I'd say that SCSI HD are much more reliable than IDE or SATA and again the math doesn't lie.  I have very little experience with SSD hard drives and have no opinion regarding their reliability, stability or data corruption, I do know they are fast as hell, don't run hot and have no known problems at high altitude.