I think both camps have individuals who grossly exaggerate their opinion. Windows doesn't have blue screen of death anymore. I've even heard people argue that Windows boxes cannot be backed up, because SuperDuper is for OS X only. They only fail to recognize that Windows has Acronis TrueImage.
That said, Windows inherited a lot of inferior design decisions from the old days, which include the registry and DLL hell. Programmers know the best how incredibly nasty it is down there, and perhaps that's why I see so many engineers using a Mac recently. It's a Unix based system, with a development environment that's even more beautiful inside than how shiny it looks on the outside. Each OS X application is a self-contained file, kind of like a ZIP, which includes the icons, images and shared libraries. Windows requires overcomplicated installation procedures, which usually involves 100s of registry items and countless DLLs. Of course Apple is not perfect either -- there's no such thing as a 100% flawless system.
PCs tend to have occasional issues with peripherals, like microphone abruptly stops working, web cam is no longer recognized, or Windows update breaking the video driver, rearranging the desktop icons, and stuff like that. Apple has a close control over their hardware, so it's easier to make it stable.
Perhaps the strangest issue with PCs is that they tend to mysteriously slow down over a long time, and even the same apps that used to fly initially are getting remarkably sluggish after a while. I don't know if Windows 7 will do that.
If you go the Windows route, 32-bit no longer makes any sense at all. The minimum memory required for smooth operation is 2GB, and that's the maximum the system can address (it can't utilize 4GB). The only reasonable choice on a PC is Windows 7 64-bit, especially for Photoshop. RAID 0 for the main drive, RAID 1 for backup.
^^^^^ Well no, the maximum that any 32-bit Windows-based OS can access is around 3.3GB. I believe Linux doesn't get you much more than that anyway. But your point is still valid about getting a 64-bit OS in this day and age.
These mac vs. PC discussions always contain a million technicalities, technicalities that I couldn't care less about. I take photos. A computer is a device I use to edit and print those photos, period. While I accept that a PC may work as well as, or even better than, a Mac if it's configured correctly, my experience is that it requires skill and knowledge (I've used all varieties of the Microsoft operating systems, from MS DOS to Windows XP). So, since computers is not one of my hobbies, not anymore, I use a Mac. I switch it on, and it works.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
These mac vs. PC discussions always contain a million technicalities, technicalities that I couldn't care less about. I take photos. A computer is a device I use to edit and print those photos, period. While I accept that a PC may work as well as, or even better than, a Mac if it's configured correctly, my experience is that it requires skill and knowledge (I've used all varieties of the Microsoft operating systems, from MS DOS to Windows XP). So, since computers is not one of my hobbies, not anymore, I use a Mac. I switch it on, and it works....Show more →
+1
I switched after using MS OS for 30 yrs. A short learning curve, but, they do "just work." I had to clean up the HDs on my Dell XPS before I gave it to my daughter. Damn, I forgot what a pain Windows is. Deleting old programs took forever and ruminants would still surface. Worse thing was an old copy of Norton that was almost impossible to clean out.
Man, there is so much misinformation about operating systems and how a computer works in this thread that I would recommend deleting your own memories after reading this if you are actually trying to learn anything legit about how a computer or OS works.
If OSX "just works" then why did I have to install a driver to use my crappy HP printer? In 7, all I did was plug in the USB cable, wait to see the "Device ready to use" notification, and print.
If OSX "just works" then why did I have to install a driver to use my crappy HP printer? In 7, all I did was plug in the USB cable, wait to see the "Device ready to use" notification, and print.
Well that's the kind of "fact" that is bascially irrelevant for 99% of people who do not own that crappy HP printer, or perhaps don't own a printer at all. Windows7 just works for you. OSX doesn't work for you. It is as useful as saying that OSX works for me because I plugged my Canon printer in the Airport Express, wait for it to sort itself out and then print. That wouldn't work for you because you have neither a Canon printer nor an Airport Express access point.
Windows 7 is not better than OSX and OSX is not better than Windows7. They are different flavours of the same thing and can both do very similar things.The only statement we can safely make is that Windows7 or OSX are better than Windows 3.1. That's that. Anything else is just personal opinion.
I hear a lot of people talking, but I haven't heard one person "flame" anyone or any system. Personally, this is all pretty informative (there are a few unsubstantiated opinions, but mostly useful info).
So I wonder when we have these conversations if there aren't people who WANT a flame war.
Nov 04, 2009 at 07:09 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
DragonflyDM wrote:
I hear a lot of people talking, but I haven't heard one person "flame" anyone or any system. Personally, this is all pretty informative (there are a few unsubstantiated opinions, but mostly useful info).
So I wonder when we have these conversations if there aren't people who WANT a flame war.
Flaming others only causes hurt all around and derails useful conversation. I have no desire to flame people. But I do like good conversation.
I have to say you started the most civilized thread on this topic I have seen. Either way, I think you will have a good system. It boils down to the features you want, the OS you are comfortable with, and your pocket book. Good luck on the choice ... and do let us know what you finally get.
"I would have to boot the machine before I left my office to go to a client meeting, otherwise everyone would be waiting around for 15 minutes for the machine to boot-up."
Exaggerate much? And if your not, you have rocks in your head for not thinking something was wrong.
I love Mac and the OS we use as much as the next guy but lets not spread crap like this when there is some honest advice being given here.
DragonflyDM wrote:
I hear a lot of people talking, but I haven't heard one person "flame" anyone or any system. Personally, this is all pretty informative (there are a few unsubstantiated opinions, but mostly useful info).
So I wonder when we have these conversations if there aren't people who WANT a flame war.
Things can get incensed quickly because Macs for whatever reason have a passionate cult following. People love their Macs and they want everybody to have one, God bless them.
Heck I still have my Macintosh LC right next to me. Ahh the memories.
I hate to repeat myself, but right now, Apple's hardware is only good to install Windows 7. I don't understand how Mr. Jobs' company managed to get all this support from photographers when, at this moment, an 8-core Mac Pro with 12 gigs of DDR3 yields such a poor performance with Photoshop CS4, Capture NX 2 and ptgui. As I said before, Photoshop CS4 performs worse than my home configuration (3-core Phenom processor with 4GB of dual channel DDR2 and 32-bit Windows XP Professional). Capture NX 2 is better, but by a small margin, while ptgui blends panoramas faster, but at the cost of a sluggish performance when placing control points.
Perhaps one of you hardcore Mac users can shed some light on this matter. I don't understand how an app which runs ok on a weaker PC can have a decrease in performance with a top of the line Mac.
If OSX "just works" then why did I have to install a driver to use my crappy HP printer? In 7, all I did was plug in the USB cable, wait to see the "Device ready to use" notification, and print.
simple.
Windows is installed with probably hundreds or drivers for printers and scanners corresponding to the most used one. with Mac OS X, the by default drivers set is much reduced, and during hte installation procedure you can even choose to only install drivers corresponding to your printers/scanners/peripherals. It would save you a lot of space on your HD (true for both OS).
So, from my experience it is also better to get the latest drivers from the manufacturer of your printer as this is usually the best one, as the one included in the OS might be the previous version, or the versio navailable at the time things were frozen whe nthe OS version was declared "gold".
Leoric wrote:
I hate to repeat myself, but right now, Apple's hardware is only good to install Windows 7. I don't understand how Mr. Jobs' company managed to get all this support from photographers when, at this moment, an 8-core Mac Pro with 12 gigs of DDR3 yields such a poor performance with Photoshop CS4, Capture NX 2 and ptgui. As I said before, Photoshop CS4 performs worse than my home configuration (3-core Phenom processor with 4GB of dual channel DDR2 and 32-bit Windows XP Professional). Capture NX 2 is better, but by a small margin, while ptgui blends panoramas faster, but at the cost of a sluggish performance when placing control points.
Perhaps one of you hardcore Mac users can shed some light on this matter. I don't understand how an app which runs ok on a weaker PC can have a decrease in performance with a top of the line Mac. ...Show more →
I told you, there is something odd in your system, you might want to ask some help to Mac users.
I think a good photographer, and Mac user could give you some advice:
Chambers Lloyd: http://macperformanceguide.com/index.html
I have been in contact with Lloyd several times for exchanging data and information about Mac for our Mac-dedicated websites. I hope it helps you
Thanks (I must have missed your reply), but I've been on his website and did most of the things there. Still the same. Plus, the Mac has the "out of the box" reputation. Thanks anyway.
To me it's like dark and white chocolate. I love them both, and each have their place. It would be as much mood driven as necessity. With that said there's a decent reason why MAC's are beloved for graphics work....even in recording studio work. Out of the box with little dinking around they are more stable than PC's. However IF (and it is a big IF) one becomes familiar with the tweaks needed on a PC the PC can in turn become MORE flexible and faster overall. Problem is most folks don't know or care to bother with the PC tweaks. And as for those that whine all day about how crappy Vista is, it is just another example of "buy and use right out of the box" mentality. I knew going in that my 32bit Vista and 64bit Vista systems would need tweaking. The newer 64bit I7Core machine I have is rock stable and very fast indeed using it's resources wisely.....BUT that is because I've become familiar with the tweaks. If you're not a tweaker by all means Mac may be your thing. Frankly I like to tweak and learn little tricks to make things better. Windows is very happy with this in mind. I suspect Windows 7 is another step forward from everything I've read from users.
I've been a PC user for a very long time, so I'm used to tweaks and stuff like that. Windows 7 does seem to be THE way though. Actually using all those 12 GB of DDR3...
OK I'll be the one to ask the DIRECT question. This if for those "in the know" so to speak. Those that have some real computer knowledge.
I'm still tossing back and forth between PC and MAC but get so damn confused when I go to a site and try to build my own - I really have no idea and ofter end with a final build over $3,000.
27" iMac is gonna run about $2,000 - right!?
Can some post up a PC build in the price range of $1,250-$1,450 that will be as good as or better than the iMac. PC would be with Windows 7. Adding a 24-25" monitor is gonna add another $500-$650 so the final prices should be compariable.
The 27" iMac starts at $1,699. 4GB memory, 1TB HDD. I'm sure if you copy the stats and assemble your own from Newegg, you can cut that price in half, if you ignore the "invisible" statistic of design/sleekness. I'm not saying it is worth it or not, but there is a cost factor in there.
To me, comparing stats of PC vs Mac makes no sense at all. I would NEVER use a PC, but only because I will not use Windows ever again. I appreciate Mac hardware, I love the software, but my real attraction comes from their unity. Having one company control hardware and software is a model I really like. I realize that PCs use most of the same components as Macs (with the exception of Mac Pros that get some Xeons far in advance of PCs), but having one company control everything is very appealing to me. I'd prefer the hardware to be a little cheaper, and I would very much enjoy a mid-range tower or a little better expandability in my Mac Pro, but I think everything comes down to what OS you prefer.
If you are thinking about a Mac, go into an Apple store and ask one of the employees to show you around the OS. It may not be something you like, but just check it out. And even if you bought a Mac and ended up not liking the OS, you could always run Windows if you wanted to. I'd say, decide what OS you like, and go from there.
