p.3 #1 · Is Mac OSX Mountain Lion ok for photographers ?
Well you inversed my remark (I guess on purpose). I don't think any n00b would disagree. In OS X all settings are in one place, easy to understand and easy to get to. In windows they are everywhere and in layers upon layers. Most of the terminology used in Windows settings don't make sense to even seasoned engineers such as myself let alone to n00bs. BUt the settings in windows reflect it's architectural footprint so I guess there's no way around it. Since version one the OS itself has basically been a kludge and this is still true to a large degree today. This kind of kludgery lends itself to instability on customized installations. This is probably why the most common recommendation from MS Support is just to reinstall the OS. Which of course by anyone's common sense logic is actually nuts! But Windoze is fine for this who don't want to customize anything or for those seasoned users who know what they can and can't customize over some acceptable amount of instability.
In that department yes, no one will argue that OS X is the more elegant solution - by far! You can call it dumbed down or simple minded if you like but the fact is there's a huge difference between the two in this area.
Yup, Apple's prices are (usually) too high over DIY solutions - that's true. But I didn't imply M$ were "money-grabbing bandits", did I? If I did please allow me to include almost every company on the planet in that category. Certainly as you point out, Apple needs to be included in that list as well. If anything I would rather bring up my beliefs that WHAT M$ spends their money ON is what's so terrible about M$. I mean, if we're leaving the realm of product specification. Of course then we would probably end up talking about the German NASI government, eugenics, unethical illegal spying, racism, and shite like that... oO
p.3 #4 · Is Mac OSX Mountain Lion ok for photographers ?
Bifurcator wrote:
Well you inversed my remark (I guess on purpose). I don't think any n00b would disagree. In OS X all settings are in one place, easy to understand and easy to get to. In windows they are everywhere and in layers upon layers.
Can you give us some examples of settings and controls you need to access in Windows Seven on a regular basis that are buried beneath layers and layers of menus? I have personally have found Seven to be very user friendly; I typically just tap the Windows key and start typing and can locate the controls I need with minimum effort. For example. If I wanted to change the power settings on my laptop or change user and group settings, I would tap Windows and then start typing power settings or user and my choices would be highlighted within the top few entries.
[Most of the terminology used in Windows settings don't make sense to even seasoned engineers such as myself let alone to n00bs.
Again, could you give us some examples?
But the settings in windows reflect it's architectural footprint so I guess there's no way around it. Since version one the OS itself has basically been a kludge and this is still true to a large degree today. This kind of kludgery lends itself to instability on customized installations.
What kind of customizations are you talking about? Can you be more specific please? I personally run several Seven machines, both bare metal and as VMs on Oracle VB or ESXi and I am yet to find a single problem with the OS that leads to this “instability” you speak about. If you are experiencing blue screens on your Windows box it is likely you have hardware issues.
This is probably why the most common recommendation from MS Support is just to reinstall the OS. Which of course by anyone's common sense logic is actually nuts!
Again, I don’t know whose experiences you are talking about, but that has not been my experience at all. Reinstalling an OS is a fairly drastic measure and I haven’t had to do that with ANY of my Windows Seven machines, either real or virtual. I have an old box running Seven (old Core 2 generation Intel on a P45 board with 4GB DDR2 memory) back from when Seven first hit Technet, and it has run all these years without once needing a reinstall. Where are getting your anecdotal evidence from?
But Windoze is fine for this who don't want to customize anything or for those seasoned users who know what they can and can't customize over some acceptable amount of instability.
Again you bring up this “customization” without telling us what it is specifically you are trying to customize. If you don’t like how Windows looks by default there are many 3rd party themes you can download and use, most of which are shareware and free to use. What are you trying to make Windows look like and where have you looked for solutions; can you clarify please?
In that department yes, no one will argue that OS X is the more elegant solution - by far! You can call it dumbed down or simple minded if you like but the fact is there's a huge difference between the two in this area.
You obviously prefer the OSX user interface over Windows and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. It is largely a matter of personal preference. I personally prefer working on Unix boxes because of the advantages of the powerful CLI, and this would be a big selling point (to me) for OSX also because it is based on Unix.
Yup, Apple's prices are (usually) too high over DIY solutions - that's true. But I didn't imply M$ were "money-grabbing bandits", did I?
Then what are you trying to communicate by deliberately misspelling MS as M$? Is this just an attempt to troll for Windows users? We are not mind readers here.
If I did please allow me to include almost every company on the planet in that category. Certainly as you point out, Apple needs to be included in that list as well. If anything I would rather bring up my beliefs that WHAT M$ spends their money ON is what's so terrible about M$. I mean, if we're leaving the realm of product specification. Of course then we would probably end up talking about the German NASI government, eugenics, unethical illegal spying, racism, and shite like that... oO
I have no idea what you are talking about here, or how you got there.
p.3 #5 · Is Mac OSX Mountain Lion ok for photographers ?
Bifurcator wrote:
No, the black helicopters would be Apple. Silent, fast, easy to fly, yet so powerful!
Now I know you're trolling (as if using words like Windoze and M$ wasn't enough). Did you say "powerful"? Figure out what a barebones MacPro with minimum hardware specs would set you back (about $2,500) and then look up what you could get for that same money if you were to build a Windows box and get back to us with your findings
p.3 #6 · Is Mac OSX Mountain Lion ok for photographers ?
Sigh. Having been in the business since before Apple or Microsoft existed I can't even begin to express how tired I am of the juvenile carping the MS and Apple fanbois get into anytime someone asks a OS specific question. Obviously the OP isn't going to swap systems based upon the barking of those who hate Apple and I doubt any user comfortable with Windows on up-to-date equipment is going to be won over by snarky remarks by those who think OS choice has something to do with manhood or intelligence or whatever their problem is. Also the old canard about price disparity isn't really true if one compares apples to apples. (or maybe in this case bananas to bananas
Sure, I say windoze sometimes (as in nothing interesting happening here), but I'd get banned from the forum if I printed the things I rant at Apple's idiot engineers as they try to make a powerful UNIX operating system work like an iPad.
To the OP, standard cautions apply. (1) Make sure you are backed multiple ways. (2) Make sure all applications are current. (3) Recognize certain programs won't survive the change. (I lost SpellCatcher because its author died pre-Mt Lion.) (4) Make sure you take all reasonable precautions before upgrade. Like repairing disk permissions, running fsck at the command line, deleting everything not necessary that's hanging around. It's good to run a quality system utility before the upgrade. (OnyX comes to mind.)
I'd say ML under the hood is a bit quicker and cleaner than Lion. This on a 2010 MacPro with 32GB RAM, 4TB storage, multiple printers and input devices - in other words a complex workstation. Print drivers generally need updating and most of them have been - though Canon seems the slowest of all. A big reason why I don't use their printers. As is true with both companies major upgrades, some older printers and devices get left behind.
At the user interface level Apple's nit-witted engineers have cluttered it up with non-productive things (at least to me) like being able to Twit at the system level. Sheesh! Mail has been improved in non-productive ways, but still over all it's worth 20 bucks.
To others you can boot from multiple partitions. I do it all the time. To create a bootable backup of your own system, SuperDuper is your friend - highly recommended. I can, if I choose boot different versions of OS X, UNIX, Linux, Windows 7 (no urge to try 8).
I think it's 10.8.2 or 3 now. Most of the early adopter bugs have been squashed. The only thing I'd worry about are really old programs (CS4 may be as far back as you can go though I've seen claims of CS3). Also anything that relied on Rosetta was already history with Lion. If you're jumping from Snow Leopard (which IMHO was well executed) make sure you don't have any legacy non-Intel programs around.
Standard disclaimers apply: YMMV, don't run with scissors, no animals were harmed during this tirade, etc., etc. (The world actually is a dangerous place
p.3 #9 · Is Mac OSX Mountain Lion ok for photographers ?
aubsxc wrote:
Now I know you're trolling (as if using words like Windoze and M$ wasn't enough). Did you say "powerful"? Figure out what a barebones MacPro with minimum hardware specs would set you back (about $2,500) and then look up what you could get for that same money if you were to build a Windows box and get back to us with your findings
Having spent a long part of my life building and overclocking PC's I was absolutely flawed at the performance of my wifes C2D iMac compared to my i7 (930). I was a die hard PC fanboi until that point, then I realised its not all about hardware specs - its about implementation too.
p.3 #10 · Is Mac OSX Mountain Lion ok for photographers ?
Yup, I like to draw parallels between [OpenGL versions & DA hardware] and [OS Versions & System Specs].
For example we can bake ambient occlusion and normal mapping and run it in OpenGL 1.2 on a modern DA at 800FPS or we can use the OpenGL 3.0 extensions instead of baking and only get 15FPS on the same exact DA.
Visual and operational results are identical for all intents and purposes but one executes at break-ass speeds and the other is so slow we wanna just walk away.
Currently this gap in relation to OS speed and experience, is much MUCH narrower than is was 8 or 10 years ago but Windoze in particular still suffers a few things almost no other OS does. Convoluted complexity and a general lack of organization in both its structural design and it's UI is chief among them.
Of course then we would probably end up talking about the German NASI government, eugenics, unethical illegal spying, racism, and shite like that... oO
