This means pretty much zero. As an aside, I've had no anti virus software on my PC for the last 5 years and haven't had a virus or anything of the sort either.
The way macs work definitely makes it more difficult to get a virus, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you don't have a good understanding of what you're doing, it's no harder to get a virus in OSX than it is in Vista or 7 with the security cranked up. The reason more people don't get viruses on their macs is that there simply aren't that many out there. If you code viruses, are you going to go after the OS with 5% of the market share, or the one with 92%?
This means pretty much zero. As an aside, I've had no anti virus software on my PC for the last 5 years and haven't had a virus or anything of the sort either.
The way macs work definitely makes it more difficult to get a virus, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you don't have a good understanding of what you're doing, it's no harder to get a virus in OSX than it is in Vista or 7 with the security cranked up. The reason more people don't get viruses on their macs is that there simply aren't that many out there. If you code viruses, are you going to go after the OS with 5% of the market share, or the one with 92%?...Show more →
So the bottom line is that you have less chance of getting a virus on a MAC than on a PC. Who cares why the risk is less....as long as it is less.
lordarka wrote:
While the comment lays your biases bare, it doesn't provide the OP with accurate information. Your "wallet" won't be the only thing that knows you're on a Mac... you certainly will, and your productivity in terms of photography and other areas could benefit as a result. Macs have, for many years, enjoyed interface benefits that lead to tangible improvements in productivity. It is also true, however, that the release of Windows 7 may render the Mac "premium" less justifiable than before.
You exaggerate the "crazy" premium while understating the productivity benefits that may accrue from the "slicker software interface." While an Intel CPU may "perform" at the same speed under either WinXP or MacOS, overall "productivity" for the user may benefit if one OS allows a more efficient workflow at a given CPU clock speed. In my own experience, the productivity balance strongly favors OSX, though Win7 may change that.
From an application view, there is little difference; PS runs the same, and one could argue that PS enjoys certain advantages in Windows (64-bit, for example). However, I prefer my Macs for personal imaging work because of how the tools in the OS subtly but noticeably enhance my workflow outside of the application.
That said, many Macs are, in my view, unjustifiably expensive. Since MS has finally delivered a polished OS product with the interface niceties of MacOS, we may see downward pressure on Mac prices. That being said, there are certain end-user benefits in having a system with coordinated hardware-software interfaces, and integrated support through both live (Apple Store) and telephonic resources.
Yes, I certainly don't hide my biases. I'm all for getting the slickest toys (I have a garage full of them), but choosing systems to run my business on is a business decision. And as such are made wiser on a cost/benefit analysis, and unless Mac steps up with something drastic in the future, either in terms of features or much lower costs, PCs are well ahead for now in the cost/benefit race. For photographers anyways, there's nothing a Mac can do that a PC can't do for significantly less money.
That said, many Macs are, in my view, unjustifiably expensive. Since MS has finally delivered a polished OS product with the interface niceties of MacOS, we may see downward pressure on Mac prices. That being said, there are certain end-user benefits in having a system with coordinated hardware-software interfaces, and integrated support through both live (Apple Store) and telephonic resources.
Arka C.
I think that many many people feel that MS has provided a competitive OS running on competitive hardware from third party vendors for years now. And I think that Apple is in the business of making a profit on a premium product and benefiting from the cache of being a "luxury brand", not putting a Mac in the hands of every computer user in the world thru price reductions. At the very least, Apple draws users to its brand not on the basis of price but rather on the basis of perceived quality.
mdude85 wrote:
I think that many many people feel that MS has provided a competitive OS running on competitive hardware from third party vendors for years now. And I think that Apple is in the business of making a profit on a premium product and benefiting from the cache of being a "luxury brand", not putting a Mac in the hands of every computer user in the world thru price reductions. At the very least, Apple draws users to its brand not on the basis of price but rather on the basis of perceived quality.
That is very true, not unlike purchasing a BMW. A Ford will get you there just as well, but how well will you enjoy the ride?
That is very true, not unlike purchasing a BMW. A Ford will get you there just as well, but how well will you enjoy the ride?
True, of course my BWM is RWD and doesn't' do well in the snow. Much like my Mac which doesn't have drivers for my Shinko printer, my DNP printer or Network drivers for my Epson 7880 printer. One could say my new 27" iMac is a fair weather computer...
Chris, I do not think your paying a premium for the 27" iMac, it's a great value considering the display. 27" IPS screen with 2560 x 1440 resolution. Years ago a display would last me 3-4 generations of computers, however with screen technology rapidly changing and PC technology slowing down one can justify buying a pc-screen combo.
jrf37 wrote:
Everyone is telling me that a iMac is much better than a PC. For photography and editing can anyone tell me why? Wont Photoshop CS3 or 4 and all my add ons work the same?
I suspect most of those people are graphics pros who have been using macs for a long time. Hardware-wise, Macs did used to be better than PCs for graphics applications... in the 1990s. Now the hardware is identical to that in a PC so that advantage no longer exists, but some of those in the biz still seem to cling to the outdated myth.
Take any sweeping generalizations you hear about Macs or PCs with a huge grain of salt. For example, Windows might have a bad rap, but the new version 7 is a damn good OS. Maybe not up to par with OS-X in terms of features and eye candy, but stable, fast and lean nonetheless. And be aware that for every Windows horror story there's a Mac horror story (mostly hardware-related in my experience). I use both Macs and PCs and have never had a single crash with any Windows system, whether XP or Win7. I have, however, experienced the Macbook overheating and had both a battery and CD drive die prematurely on a Macbook.
Personally I'd treat Macs as just another brand of PC and choose a computer based on other factors, from your own legacy software to price, features and support. Whatever you end up buying, be sure to get a 64-bit operating system. IMO you can get more bang for the buck with a PC in terms of hardware -- avoiding the Mac "design premium" as I call it. But if you find a Mac with exactly the configuration you want at a decent price, then go for it.
lamonica66 wrote:
I use a PC. I am always getting spyware infections, trojan downloaders etc. Someone told me that the mac os is immune to a virus.
Is that true?
Wow, what exactly do you do with your computer?
I have a decent antivirus software and have never had an infection by either a virus or a Trojan (a few have been caught trying, however). In my experience, those who do have tons of virus issues either visit risky parts of the web regularly and/or don't understand how to properly implement a basic security system on their machine.
It is true that the vast majority of viruses and trojans are written for PCs, but that's because the vast majority of computers in the world are PCs. The Mac OS is not immune (and in fact Apple this year quietly suggested people install AV software on their Macs) but is just not targeted nearly as much.
mdude85 wrote:
I think that many many people feel that MS has provided a competitive OS running on competitive hardware from third party vendors for years now. And I think that Apple is in the business of making a profit on a premium product and benefiting from the cache of being a "luxury brand", not putting a Mac in the hands of every computer user in the world thru price reductions. At the very least, Apple draws users to its brand not on the basis of price but rather on the basis of perceived quality.
Many people may feel that way, but my view, derived from using MS and Apple OS'es in photo, art, and legal businesses, is that neither XP nor Vista ever held a candle to MacOS. I don't buy into the form over substance arguments proffered by some, because those people often dismiss the "slickness" of MacOS, and fail to recognize many instances of true interface innovation.
There are tangible benefits to MacOS, particularly in the area of desktop search. In my current practice, I find it far easier to manage and compose documents using tools built into the OS , and tools produced by third parties for the Mac. The attitude Apple has towards elegance in design is also shared by many dedicated third party OSX developers. They exhibit an attention to UI issues that is often lacking in a Windows world obsessed with cheap hardware and infinite configurability.
Win7 represents a step in the right direction insofar as implementing certain tools Mac users have enjoyed for years. Will Apple respond by slashing prices on Macs? I hope not. I like the idea of Apple having a small market share, because it keeps the quality of post-purchase support high, and keeps the company nimble and innovative. That said, I would like to see moderate reductions in certain computers, esp. their Pro lines. These computers are priced far too high to justify their specifications.
mhayes5254 wrote:
The integrated hardware software support that Apple provides is worth real money to me.
When my friend's iMac had a virus(es) that killed the OS (unable to boot), and he called support to ask how to do the restore of the OS, they wanted money. His iMac was not even a year old at the time, so yes it is worth real money.
I used windows for about six years and I had a geek coming to my house
once or twice a week and be there for hours installing and reinstalling it was very frustrating.
One day I got a mac and I've never had to call him again. And NEVER had to pay him again.
So for me my $ 7000 dollars I paid for my mac (not including monitors) was well worth it.
I even went and got 2 Imacs for the front desk and 4 for the waiting area. Couldn't be happier.
I used windows for about six years and I had a geek coming to my house
once or twice a week and be there for hours installing and reinstalling it was very frustrating.
Right now every clock in hugop's house is blinking 12:00
hugop wrote:
I used windows for about six years and I had a geek coming to my house
once or twice a week and be there for hours installing and reinstalling it was very frustrating.
hugop wrote:
I used windows for about six years and I had a geek coming to my house
once or twice a week and be there for hours installing and reinstalling it was very frustrating.
One day I got a mac and I've never had to call him again. And NEVER had to pay him again.
So for me my $ 7000 dollars I paid for my mac (not including monitors) was well worth it.
I even went and got 2 Imacs for the front desk and 4 for the waiting area. Couldn't be happier.
Albert Einstein said the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"... Hey, Einstein said it, not me...
jrf37 wrote:
This might not be a good question, but I am somewhat curious. The screen on the monitor of a iMac 27 inch with its glossy, glass design is cool and looks sharp. My question is does this help or hurt during editing and then the final print output? I send my prints out and most customers like the matte finish. Or is this just something you learn to overcome. I do realize I can set a color profile and use the spyder3.
Glossy is a real pain when using PhotoShop - I have one glossy Mac screen (13" MacBook Pro), and I only use it for email and websurfing (for which it works fine).
My MacBook Pro 17 is matte finish (small extra cost), and I can edit on it. My serious PhotoShop machine is a Mac Pro running two matte-finish Eizo screens. I do my detailed retouching on the 30" CG-301W, complete with hood.
The gloss screen is the iMac's big failing as a Photoshop box (IMHO)
Well, my 27" iMac died last night and will be going back for a refund. Besides crappy driver support and limited software the OS is/was slick. Instead of comparing it to a BMW which has been a VERY reliable car for me I would rather compare it to a Corvette. Slick to look at and fun to drive but don't be surprised when the gas cover won't close with only 15,000 miles on it...
I've worked with both Macs and PCs. The Photoshop experience is near identical. The rest of the experience—aesthetic, functional design, support, virus-infections, etc. is quite different. For example, I use a Mac Pro tower. Flip a latch, the side panel opens, and you can slide in the drives without tools. Elegant, simple, functional. Those kind of factors have made me a Mac user. Cost? You get what you pay for. I believe it is worthwhile to invest in excellent tools.
As for reliability and support satisfaction—go by the surveys, not anecdotes from individuals complaining in forums. Remember, all tech has failures. Macs, overall, perform better.
lucidbrands wrote:
For example, I use a Mac Pro tower. Flip a latch, the side panel opens, and you can slide in the drives without tools. Elegant, simple, functional.
And I can do this on my Win7 tower.
As for reliability and support satisfaction—go by the surveys, not anecdotes from individuals complaining in forums.
And the above quote even provides the perfect example.
lucidbrands wrote:
As for reliability and support satisfaction—go by the surveys, not anecdotes from individuals complaining in forums. Remember, all tech has failures. Macs, overall, perform better.
Why? Why is a survey more accurate? I have market research clients, I know just how biased and inaccurate things like consumer surveys are.
