Reading mode: Light Dark

So tell me again why I should buy a Mac?

Go to last post
An article today:

"All in all, Apple's revenue painted a rosy financial picture for the company this past year. For the fiscal year 2004, Apple reported US$8.279 billion in net sales, $2.062 billion more than for FY2003, and more than $2.5 billion more than 2002. Net income for the year rose to $276 million, up from $69 million for 2003 and $65 million for 2002. That translated into diluted earnings for stockholders of $0.71 per share, up dramatically from previous years -- $0.19 for 2003 and $0.18 for 2002. Shareholders' equity in Apple rose to $5.076 billion, compared to $4.223 billion for 2003 and $4.095 for 2002. Apple ended 2004 with $5.464 billion in cash, cash equivalencies and short term investments, compared to $4.566 billion for 2003."

http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/12/03/10k/index.php

--
http://www.pbase.com/interactive
 
jatilios said:
If you plan to use NikonCapture... you SHOULDnot use a MAC...Nikon
Capture is not well programed for MAC, you can read post of guys
with G5 dual precessor and 2 mg of RAM and still Nikon Capture
terrible slow...
Click to expand...
... it must run excruciatingly slow for this poor guy.....
-flat- :)
 
No.

Beta was a much better format than VHS.
VHS became the dominent format because of marketing.

Prior to Windows 95, the Mac OS was substantially better than the competing Microsoft OS, yet Microsoft always had the dominent market share.
Joe E Baker said:
I mean, if you really truly believe in the power of the free
market, then won't the consumers choose which product is the best?

If Apples are such great computers, then why do they have a paltry
2.8% market share and it's getting smaller every year?

I'm actually suprised they are still in business. If you would have
asked me five years ago, I would have thought the doors at Apple
would be nailed shut by now with a big (artfully designed) sign out
front stating, "Out of business"
Click to expand...
 
mchaboud said:
Mac vs. PC wars are silly, but the previous message is just too
untrue to be left unanswered. Rather than argue about aesthetics
or UI, I'll just touch up a few errors in the previous post.

Side note about my comments:
I use both Macs and PCs, but image-editing and video work generally
gets done on my PCs. Because of the nature of high-end pricing,
I'd strongly advise the purchase of a middle-of-the-line machine,
regardless of the platform that you choose.
Click to expand...
And, for me that work usually gets done on a Mac. See that movie Cold Mountain? It was done on Macs because they could get the same amount of performance for less $$ on Macs running Final Cut Pro, than they could on PCs running Avid. I've used Avid, it's great, it's just overpriced. The price difference is enough right now, that you can buy a more expensive Mac, plus Adobe AE and come out at the same price as an Avid setup. PC World found the same results in an article last fall.
mchaboud said:
klinux said:
Whatever you do, if you really care about color, you shouldn't be
using a laptop screen. Yes, they're convenient, I have a 12"
PowerBook, and love the small portability, yet also having all the
power I need (1.33 Ghz proc, 1.25 GB RAM, 80GB drive, DVD/CD
burner, BT &WiFi).
Click to expand...
The new crop of LCDs can not only show greater contrast than CRTs,
but have a wider color gamut than CRTs. With a sparkly new LCD,
you'll be fine. Some will perform better than others, and I'd
strongly urge you to take a look at the screen you plan on buying
(or, even better, take a calibration pattern file and the
correstponding cards).
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't say LCD, I said laptop. I know that current LCD screens can offer great color. LaCie makes some very accurate color LCDs, as do some other vendors. But, usually, laptop screens are neither consistently bright across the image, nor is their angle of view as accurate as desktop LCDs.
mchaboud said:
klinux said:
The real benefit in choosing a G5 based PowerMac right now, is that
Mac OS X 10.3 and later all take advantage of 64-bit code without
requiring a total rewrite of applications or the OS. So, Adobe
could rewrite Photoshop with only enough 64-bit code to enable it
to use more than 2 GB of RAM per image, and OS X would be able to
run it no problem. However, MS is only working on a total 64-bit
conversion of Windows. Not a hybrid.
Click to expand...
This is completely untrue. WinXP x64 runs 32-bit code without any
emulation, and partial-recompilation for new G5 features is
actually more difficult than AMD64 optimization for Windows,
predominantly because of the available developer toolsets.
Click to expand...
Umm, yes, if you're running it on the right chips. (AMD) In fact, AMD forced Intel's hand. But both the AMD chip and the IBM G5 were designed from the ground up to be both 32 & 64-bit compatible. And, if you think G5 optimization is that hard, you haven't used Apple's free X Tools. You can add 64-bit code into a 32-bit application. You can change any parts of your existing code into 64-bit, if you think it will provide an advantage, without having to recode the whole app.
mchaboud said:
klinux said:
The G5 chip in the current
PowerMacs is like the AMD chip in that it can run both 32-bit and
64-bit code without a speed penalty in either. And under OS X right
now, you can currently utilize as much RAM as you can pack in your
system. With current PowerMac G5s that is 8 GB. It will be 16 GB as
soon as 2 GB chips hit the market. So, you have the advantage of
gobs of RAM right now, which significantly improves the smoothness
of using multiple apps at once, plus the benefit of a little bit of
future proofing as Photoshop and other apps become 64-bit enabled
in the future.
MS could have done this with AMD, but the Windows market is
currently split between AMD and Intel. So MS was not willing to
come out with a version of Windows that only ran on the AMD chip.
Click to expand...
Windows XP x64 is slated for a January release, and the public Beta
is out (and stable) right now. Microsoft is simultaneously
shipping Windows Server 2003 x64 and Windows XP x64. Server 2003
is holding XP up.
Click to expand...
OS X 10.3.6 is already out, and already supports 64-bit code when run on a G5. In fact, 10.3 came out last year, and supported 64-bit code on the G5. Notice, this is a 32-bit OS, which can hand 64-bit calls off to the chip. Windows XP x64 is a separate 64-bit OS. That was my point, the AMD and the IBM G5 chips don't require a separate OS, just a small update to add 64-bit handling.

Since Adobe will not release Photoshop with 64-bit support until Windows XP with 64-bit support is shipping commercially, it doesn't matter so much from that perspective. However, if the Intel/AMD version of 64-bit is so great, one wonders why Sony, Nintendo and MS have all chosen to use IBM's 64-bit PowerPC chips as the derivative of their next-gen consoles. Surely, MS would have stayed with Intel if it was better, since that's what they're used to. I won't get into the performance differences of the Power 4 & Power 5 over Itanium. But, it is relevant since the PowerPC G5 (aka 970) is a Power 4 derivative, and the upcoming PowerPC 980 will be a Power 5 derivative.
mchaboud said:
Hopefully this clears some things up.
Click to expand...
Bottom line, can you get work done on both? Absolutely! I do everyday. I've simply had a better experience with my Macs than with my PCs. And, I'm willing to pay a little more for a more refined experience. Others might be as well.
 
You are right, you probably first heard it in 1990 or so. And MSFT has STILL not gotten on a par with Mac color management.
PerL said:
PerL said:
The fact is that Intel fab plants turn out chips with much faster
clock speeds than do fab plants producing PowerPC chips. And the
volumes of the Intel fab plants amortize the fixed costs of
manufacturing over many more units, yielding greater economies of
scale and better price/performance ratios than Mac chips. Mac
software lock-in effect helps keep Apple Mac alive, but that is
getting harder for Apple to maintain... note MSFT dropping IE
support on Mac.

If MSFT ever got its act together on color managment and other
graphics issues, they could kill the Apple computer competition for
good.
Click to expand...
...was around 1990. Or was it earlier?... :-)

http://www.pbase.com/interactive
Click to expand...
--
[email protected]
 
PiqaPop said:
Again, what am I missing? Why does everyone tell me to get a Mac?
Click to expand...
Those are actually two very different questions with different answers ; )

First, let's talk about benchmarks. Yep, the PC is a bit faster at the top end (I have a Pentium 3.2Ghz and a G5 2Ghz). True of very portable notebooks, too (I have a Centrino 1.4Ghz and a Powerbook 1.2Ghz). On a standard set of stuff I do with images, the only place where I get tangible, visible differences in speed is in the drives (especially true of the slow drive on my Powerbook). It's just not enough difference in speed to worry about, IMHO, especially when I can hear my Pentium's fan running and can't hear my Mac most of the time (okay, it came on loud enough a few times in the heat of summer to hear it). I suppose if you're batching 100's of images at a time, a second here and there adds up, but I don't fret about it with individual images.

What hasn't been mentioned are two things that set the Mac apart from the PC right now. First, the Mac (since the Macintosh II) is color aware from bottom to top. The OS does the color management and does it well and consistently. There's no real need to fiddle with every application and set color spaces for rendering, as there sometimes is with PC apps (one of the top questions I get emailed about, actually, and I don't believe I've ever had a Mac user ask it). Proofing has always worked well on the Mac, and it works well even with CYMK conversions, something I've had a bit of a problem with on PCs from time to time. That's not to say color management is foolproof on the Mac; it isn't. But it's consistent and well-known.

Second is AppleScript. One of the big issues in digital photography is workflow. If you use different programs to capture, convert, edit, noise reduce, catalog, and output images on a PC you'll know that you wished there was an easy way to string a series of applications and commands into a reusable sequence. On a Mac, there is (AppleScript). Not for the faint of heart, but any serious photographer would probably find it worth their time to think about their workflow and see if they can automate it with AppleScript.

Setting up networks is easy, wired or wireless. Setting up a D2h with wireless connection to a Mac was so much simpler than all four PC solutions I tried while working on the D2h book (and it worked first time).

All is not roses, though. Office crashes much more consistently and often on a Mac than it does on a PC (even with all the latest and greatest patches installed). You pay more for the priveledge of owning a Mac. Sometimes software from hardware companies runs funky (early versions of Fujifilm's EX converter and Nikon View come to mind, as do some of the Canon printer drivers I've tried). There aren't enough USB ports on most Macs. And the list goes on.

There's no perfect PC, just as there's no perfect camera. Figure out what you need most and look for the product that has that. For most people, that's cost, BTW. Since you really should have 1GB RAM, 250GB drive, tons of USB ports, and a DVD-RW along with that fast processor, the costs start to add up fast and the PC usually begins to win by a country mile at that point.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guides to the Nikon D70, D100, D1 series, and Fujifilm S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com
 
PiqaPop said:
The thing is, my notebook is a 650Mhz with 256RAM. The desktop is a
1.8 GHz with 512. It's PAINFULLY slow trying to work with RAW
images on either, but particularly on the notebook where I do most
of my work.

SO, every says: Ah, you're working with photography. You need a Mac.

BUT, every benchmark test I've seen, and I've looked at a few,
shows that the PC performs better with ALL of the photography
software, including specifically Photoshop and Nikon capture.

SO, what am I missing? Once upon a time I know the Mac was the
computer of choice if you were heavily into graphics. But now it
seems the Mac is just trying to catch up. I know the OS is more
stable; I know the security is better, BUT it's quite a bit more
expensive, it's slower, and I already have all the software for the
PC.

Again, what am I missing? Why does everyone tell me to get a Mac?

I just want to be able to work with my pictures without having to
have a novel to read while stuff is processing.

--
Art
Newfoundland, Canada
http://www.artandcarol.ca
Click to expand...
Let me put it this way, do your own research, consider all of the options and factors and make your own choice. A PC if properly configured will serve you well. A Mac properly configured will serve you well. Also, while it is true OSX is elegant and stable, Windows XP is also very stable. Yes PC's are more vulnerable but with a good antivirus, a good firewall and antispyware programs you will be quite safe. I personally use a PC and I do not feel handicaped just because it is not a Mac. My advise is stop listening to others and make up your own mind.
 
klickitatdave said:
PiqaPop said:
The thing is, my notebook is a 650Mhz with 256RAM. The desktop is a
1.8 GHz with 512. It's PAINFULLY slow trying to work with RAW
images on either, but particularly on the notebook where I do most
of my work.

SO, every says: Ah, you're working with photography. You need a Mac.

BUT, every benchmark test I've seen, and I've looked at a few,
shows that the PC performs better with ALL of the photography
software, including specifically Photoshop and Nikon capture.

SO, what am I missing? Once upon a time I know the Mac was the
computer of choice if you were heavily into graphics. But now it
seems the Mac is just trying to catch up. I know the OS is more
stable; I know the security is better, BUT it's quite a bit more
expensive, it's slower, and I already have all the software for the
PC.

Again, what am I missing? Why does everyone tell me to get a Mac?

I just want to be able to work with my pictures without having to
have a novel to read while stuff is processing.

--
Art
Newfoundland, Canada
http://www.artandcarol.ca
Click to expand...
Let me put it this way, do your own research, consider all of the
options and factors and make your own choice. A PC if properly
configured will serve you well. A Mac properly configured will
serve you well. Also, while it is true OSX is elegant and stable,
Windows XP is also very stable. Yes PC's are more vulnerable but
with a good antivirus, a good firewall and antispyware programs you
will be quite safe. I personally use a PC and I do not feel
handicaped just because it is not a Mac. My advise is stop
listening to others and make up your own mind.
Click to expand...
 
Oh yeah, Macworld.com -- that's a real impartial source.

At one time Macs claimed market share of more than 10%, now they are at 1.7%. How, by any stretch of the imagination, can you consider that success?

It's true the ipod is doing quite well, but the question at the begining of this thread was about the computers, right? I don't think the guy is thinking about buying an ipod.
 
Because you hate the Burger King Whopper!!!!!
PiqaPop said:
The thing is, my notebook is a 650Mhz with 256RAM. The desktop is a
1.8 GHz with 512. It's PAINFULLY slow trying to work with RAW
images on either, but particularly on the notebook where I do most
of my work.

SO, every says: Ah, you're working with photography. You need a Mac.

BUT, every benchmark test I've seen, and I've looked at a few,
shows that the PC performs better with ALL of the photography
software, including specifically Photoshop and Nikon capture.

SO, what am I missing? Once upon a time I know the Mac was the
computer of choice if you were heavily into graphics. But now it
seems the Mac is just trying to catch up. I know the OS is more
stable; I know the security is better, BUT it's quite a bit more
expensive, it's slower, and I already have all the software for the
PC.

Again, what am I missing? Why does everyone tell me to get a Mac?

I just want to be able to work with my pictures without having to
have a novel to read while stuff is processing.

--
Art
Newfoundland, Canada
http://www.artandcarol.ca
Click to expand...
--
Dean D. Fetterolf
http://www.pbase.com/dfettero
 
OI used a G3 for one miserable year, for your information.

If Macs are so dang good, then why are the sales in decline? Oh, I get it. The average Joe isn't "elite" enough for a Mac.

I don't want to be good enough for a machine, I want a machine that's good enough for me!

I guess you don't believe in capitalism, either? If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door -- but sadly the world is beating a path away from Apple's door -- home of the one-button mouse!

And if what you're saying is true, why don't we elect the candidate who gets the fewest electoral votes!

Yes, that's the ticket!

Macs have come a long way from the early days but market share for Apple was once greater than 10% but now it's 1.7% -- if they make these computers any better, they soon may be out of business!

I've got to stop posting to this thread. It's like trying to convince a flat-worlder that the world is indeed round.
 
Joe E Baker said:
Oh yeah, Macworld.com -- that's a real impartial source.

At one time Macs claimed market share of more than 10%, now they
are at 1.7%. How, by any stretch of the imagination, can you
consider that success?
Click to expand...
I didnt say success, but they are not exactly dying either.
Joe E Baker said:
It's true the ipod is doing quite well, but the question at the
begining of this thread was about the computers, right? I don't
think the guy is thinking about buying an ipod.
Click to expand...
I dont think MacWorld.com make those figures up, no. The reason for discussing the finances of Apple in this thread is that some people here seems to believe that Apple is on the way to bancrupcy, and therefore not a credible alternative.
--
http://www.pbase.com/interactive
 
Peter iNova said:
3. You're not a Republican any more.
Click to expand...
Most of the mac users I know are Republican.
Mac is for people who want to show off and
think they're better than others. You can bet
that your average spoiled white boy with a rich
daddy has a mac.

--
'There is nothing worse than a sharp
picture of a fuzzy idea.' (Ansel Adams)
  • Equipment list in profile.
 
Dean D Fetterolf said:
Because you hate the Burger King Whopper!!!!!
Click to expand...
this one looks pretty good...nice lighting but i think that the composition could be simplified some...the burger king could have been left out of the picture.....he's not really adding anything to it....go for the essence in this case , focus on Whopper.....
nice work,
-flat-
 
PerL said:
Yes, and Ford is better than BMW or Porsche, Britney Spears is
better than Mozart, Tom Clancy is better than Dostojevski, because
they sell more.
Click to expand...
Art and technology. Apples and oranges.

--
'There is nothing worse than a sharp
picture of a fuzzy idea.' (Ansel Adams)
  • Equipment list in profile.
 
PerL said:
I dont think MacWorld.com make those figures up, no. The reason for
discussing the finances of Apple in this thread is that some people
here seems to believe that Apple is on the way to bancrupcy, and
therefore not a credible alternative.
Click to expand...
If you keep downsizing your workforce and investing less and less in the quality of your product, you will never go bankrupt -- you'll just become so small that no one will even care.

Take a look -- if you're interested in the truth:

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/29.6.shtml
 
PiqaPop said:
The thing is, my notebook is a 650Mhz with 256RAM. The desktop is a
1.8 GHz with 512. It's PAINFULLY slow trying to work with RAW
images on either, but particularly on the notebook where I do most
of my work.

SO, every says: Ah, you're working with photography. You need a Mac.

BUT, every benchmark test I've seen, and I've looked at a few,
shows that the PC performs better with ALL of the photography
software, including specifically Photoshop and Nikon capture.

SO, what am I missing? Once upon a time I know the Mac was the
computer of choice if you were heavily into graphics. But now it
seems the Mac is just trying to catch up. I know the OS is more
stable; I know the security is better, BUT it's quite a bit more
expensive, it's slower, and I already have all the software for the
PC.

Again, what am I missing? Why does everyone tell me to get a Mac?

I just want to be able to work with my pictures without having to
have a novel to read while stuff is processing.

--
Art
Newfoundland, Canada
http://www.artandcarol.ca
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top