PC or Mac ?

Mikhail Bogdanov · Apr 20, 2002

Member said:
The Mac is
definately much more enjoyable to use.
It's so intuitive.

Did you ever try to use Corel's Draw or Photopaint on Mac?

Michael Martin · Apr 20, 2002

Daniel Lauring said:
Once again, so many problems with Windows stuff is because there
are so many choices...so many bad and good ones and so many
compatibility issues that arise because of this. But, reliable
software (actually some of the same software that is available on
the Mac) and hardware is available for PCs and if you buy the right
stuff you should have no problems. Adaptec EasyCD creater (Roxio
now) is child's play for burning CDs for example. Pinnacle and
others make several firewire editing cards that work similar to
iMovie. It is out there, but there are just a lot of holes to fall
into. You can avoid the holes buy buying a Mac.

Danny

When I'm questioned by friends who have PC's about limited software choices on my MAC I explain to them that there might be 10 different programs on a PC for one application and only 3 on a MAC, but 7 of the 10 for the PC are bad, and the 3 available for the MAC are good. What good is more choice if most of it is bad? It's sort of like cable tv today, 100 stations and only a hand full are worth watching.

Member said:
grzzi said:

Moviemaking on iMac shows PCs need to catch up
By BOB LEVITUS
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle

I have had the new top-of-the-line iMac for almost a month. Of
course I loved it. I'm a Mac guy, and there's nothing about it not
to love.

Even the inconvenience of the ports being on the back of the
snow-globe base didn't bother me (other reviewers have complained
about it, but I think it's a nonissue). It's cool to look at,
blazingly fast, nearly silent in spite of its internal fan, and has
a 15-inch flat-panel display that's as sharp, bright and vivid as
any I've seen. And the stainless steel arm, which lets you adjust
the screen's height, depth and angle with one finger, is perhaps
the slickest piece of industrial design magic ever seen in a
personal computer.

There is no doubt in my mind this is the best (and best-looking),
fastest, most capable, iMac of all time, as well as the best iMac
value ever. This computer is so fine that even Windows users lust
for them.

Now allow me to reintroduce my neighbor, Dave (not his real name),
whom you first met in my Sept. 22, 2000, column.

When my neighbor saw my iMovies, he immediately ordered a board and
software that he said would let him do that on his PC. I told him
he should get a Mac. A month ago I asked him how his moviemaking
was coming. He looked properly chagrined as he said, "I haven't
figured out how to make it work yet."

I lent him the new iMac for a few days and issued a challenge.
Since he still, 18 months later, had not completed a single movie
project on his Dell, I told him to try making a movie, an audio CD
and a DVD on this iMac. And to make things interesting, I offered
him no assistance or support -- I told him to look in Mac Help if
he had questions.

Three days later I interviewed Dave.

On the first day, he unpacked the iMac, set it up in five minutes
and burned two audio CDs with iTunes. He said he never needed to
refer to Mac Help and that this whole project was "no problem
whatsoever."

On the second day, he used iDVD to create a pair of slide shows
using existing digital photos and burned his first DVD. I watched
it later, and it didn't stink. In fact, most people would no doubt
find it impressive. (I'm so jaded.)

On the third day, he borrowed my Canon ZR-25 camcorder and a tape
of my son's last basketball game. I handed him the camera, manual
and FireWire cable, and told him he was own his own.

By the end of the day he had imported raw footage into iMovie,
edited it, added music and titles, then burned it onto a DVD with
iDVD.

As I scribbled furiously, Dave's long-suffering wife added, "He
swore less at the Mac than he does at his Dell."

Dave then said he had created more multimedia in three days with
the iMac than he had in 18 months with his Dell. He only opened the
Help file a couple of times. He concluded, "The hardest part was
getting the iMac back in the box."

Before departing I asked if he'd consider a Mac next time. He
replied: "Absolutely. In fact, if we hadn't wasted so much money
trying to transform that Dell into a multimedia computer, I'd get
one today."

It was music to my ears.

Click to expand...

Michael Martin · Apr 20, 2002

Micheal Kelly said:
It is simple, 4% of the computers in the world are Mac and 90% are
pc's.

No it's not that simple. Just because on format is more popular doesn't make it the best. What is the best selling car in the USA, and what is the best made car? When you think of it like that the answer is not so easy.

Micheal F. Kelly said:
Greg M said:

Simple question with a lot of parts. Consider price, speed, ease
of use, available software, and final output.

Click to expand...

tony b35095 · Apr 20, 2002

Greg M said:
Simple question with a lot of parts. Consider price, speed, ease
of use, available software, and final output.

Ok Greg,

Coming into this late.... Here's my 2, or maybe 3 Cents:

1) For anyone who has come up on a Mac, Or a PC it's going to be very difficult for them to change, or admit the other is more capable...

2) That being said, It's A PC WORLD.. Go into any major comptuer store and there are 30 asiles of sofware, and accessories for the PC, and 1 for the Mac

3) Mac was what the early designers all used, so the stigma that it is better for creative design sticks with it to this day... Albiet no longer true.

4) Performance wise... Again there is, NO CONTEST... the PC wins. Any P4 or Athlon XP will destroy a Mac interms of speed. Your workflow will always be faster on a PC..

4b) My Custom built, Overclocked Athlon XP Runs @ 1980MHz. (A 250MHz Overclock), with 1 Gig of DDR333 running close to a 400MHz FSB. It has 4 hardrives running Raid 0, With A Over 200 gig capacity.

It will open Photoshop 6, in 2 seconds, and change.... Any Mac users like to compare..... I thought not...

5) Versatility, and Customization. Again absolutlely no contest. You can get a PC with any software, in ANY Hardware configuratioin you could imagine... From a Gazillion companies..... You can get a Mac from Apple period with what they say......

5a) The Infamous Cinema display... I have a Sony GDMF-520 21" .22 pitch Flat screen (gorgeous), display. That is rated the best monitor in the world... I'll take it over the Cinema anytime.

5b) And to boot, Like I do you can build your own custom PC with more horsepower that you could ever dream of with a case, and hardware, and peripherals, and software that you choose. Try doing that with a Mac...

6) Price PC wins easily, there are So many companies offering loaded PC's at bargin prices...

7) Final Output.... A Draw... Each is Capable.... This is more up to the person at the controls.

Bottom line, If you have a Mac now, and like it stick with it.. It certainly will do the job.

But if you are starting out, go with a PC, it's advantages are too numerous to ignore..

Hope this helps.

Tony B.

Gregory T. · Apr 20, 2002

Greg,

Since you are posting this in the Canon SLR forum, may I assume that you have a D30 or D60? If so, I would reccommed going with a PC based machine for this reason, if you are shooting RAW format out of your D30/D60, there is not a good RAW conversion sftware available for the MAC operating system. The only one available is the one provided by Canon (yuck). iView only extracts the embedded .jpg in the RAW file and not converting the .crw file.

I have not read all of the posts. It was turning into a 'Ford vs Chevy' discussion instead of trying to help you with your dilemma. If you don't shoot RAW, either system will work for you. It would then be personal taste. Both systems will work very well.

PhotoShop is optimized for a MAC system. Adobe and Apple have been working with each other for many years.

Remember one thing, Windows XP and OS X do not support all the software and hardware of its previous version operating system. Also, if you have a good investment in software of either platform, it will very expensive to convert from one to another.

Just a couple of points that I thought would be helpful.

BTW, I currently use Windows based machines, but am slowly converting some of them to MacIntosh, so I am well aware of the costs involved. I will not fully convert to a MacIntosh system because I shoot about 30% of my photos in RAW. It would take an eternity to convert them with Canon's software.

From one Greg to another,

Greg T.

Michael Eckstein · Apr 20, 2002

I have a G4 400mhz running OS X and a PC with XP1700+ running wiindows XP. For photography it's really very simple the Mac is far superioir. I have two 17" monitors same brand sitting side by side and the screen display on the mac just blows windows XP out of the water. More clarity, sharper defined images and text. Phoroshop is a whole better item in mac OS. OS X doesn't get in the way of doing things the way windows XP does. If you have a chance visit an Apple store and just look at the screen images ...even on the new iMacs and they will blow you away. I realize most people have an investment in what ever system they are using and that makes it difficult to change...fortunately I have both and it's really simple the Mac is just more logical in function and has superior graphics handling capabilites...not faster just superior output. As far as speed is concerned my 400mhz G4 using Canon Raw images Converter 2 takes about 20 seconds per image to convert. With OS X you can be doing 10 other things while the images are converted in the backround...so really not a problem.

grzzi · Apr 20, 2002

This is one surprising thread, since pc vs Mac discussions tend to attract a lot of trolls. This one is really tolerant one, so far.

tony b35095 said:
1) For anyone who has come up on a Mac, Or a PC it's going to be
very difficult for them to change, or admit the other is more
capable...

Well I m a Mac user but when my friends are in trouble with their windows systems I usually can help. I m aware of other OSes, I just dont like the look and feel of them.
Also I have no problem admiting that there are purposes for both systems.

tony b35095 said:
2) That being said, It's A PC WORLD.. Go into any major comptuer
store and there are 30 asiles of sofware, and accessories for the
PC, and 1 for the Mac

Yes it is a pc world (Microsoft Windows world would be closer to the mark). You can easier find people who claim to be familliar with your pc setup than those who use Macs. That I admit. But there are accessories and most every major software title for both, except some (a lot actually) of the games.

tony b35095 said:
3) Mac was what the early designers all used, so the stigma that it
is better for creative design sticks with it to this day... Albiet
no longer true.

Again, people in graphics, video and music industry and everywhere else tend to use Macs because they chose to. Mac is a platform of choice.

tony b35095 said:
4) Performance wise... Again there is, NO CONTEST... the PC wins.
Any P4 or Athlon XP will destroy a Mac interms of speed. Your
workflow will always be faster on a PC..

4b) My Custom built, Overclocked Athlon XP Runs @ 1980MHz. (A
250MHz Overclock), with 1 Gig of DDR333 running close to a 400MHz
FSB. It has 4 hardrives running Raid 0, With A Over 200 gig
capacity.

It will open Photoshop 6, in 2 seconds, and change.... Any Mac
users like to compare..... I thought not...

Opening Photoshop and such trivial tasks are dependant of many things, number of fonts installed, plug ins, speed of your hard drive etc...my three years 400 MHz G4 can open it in two seconds either if I want it to, that doesnt mean anything. BTW, that same old 400 MHz G4 is about five times faster than 800 MHz Celeron we also use, Yes I know it is not overclocked, huge and hot Athlon, but should be at least close to Mac in Photoshop and such, no?

tony b35095 said:
5) Versatility, and Customization. Again absolutlely no contest.
You can get a PC with any software, in ANY Hardware configuratioin
you could imagine... From a Gazillion companies..... You can get a
Mac from Apple period with what they say......

True, but any harddrive will fit in Mac, optical drives also if you wish to change for some reason. Thing is there are only few graphic cards for Macs, but those for pcs are all the same anyway, They all use ATIs or nVidia procesors nowdays, and those are available for Macs also.

tony b35095 said:
5a) The Infamous Cinema display... I have a Sony GDMF-520 21" .22
pitch Flat screen (gorgeous), display. That is rated the best
monitor in the world... I'll take it over the Cinema anytime.

Great monitor, a friend of mine is using the same with his old G4. Really the best CRT u can buy today. Apple cinema display is something else...wouldnt compare the two, Sony is great but go and take a good look at cinema display 22 or 23, not the same cathegory so no point comparing them though...for some uses it is much better.

tony b35095 said:
5b) And to boot, Like I do you can build your own custom PC with
more horsepower that you could ever dream of with a case, and
hardware, and peripherals, and software that you choose. Try doing
that with a Mac...

6) Price PC wins easily, there are So many companies offering
loaded PC's at bargin prices...

Yes, pcs are cheap. At least to start with...btw a friend of mine have just sold his 4 years 120 MHz Mac for 500 $ (without display), not bad

).

tony b35095 said:
7) Final Output.... A Draw... Each is Capable.... This is more up
to the person at the controls.

Very true, a creative persons can use anything, they just tend to use Macs.

tony b35095 said:
Bottom line, If you have a Mac now, and like it stick with it.. It
certainly will do the job.

But if you are starting out, go with a PC, it's advantages are too
numerous to ignore..

Hope this helps.

Tony B.

...again, it is all thing of personal choice but there is one thing people tend to overlook. Mac people are usually quite familiar with pcs, much more than vice versa anyhow. I mean there are 90% of pcs out there after all so how can I be ignorant of them. So what does that tell you? It is quite simple - Machintosh is a platform of choice, pcs are mostly what are you forced to use.
I have been using all flavours of Windows a bit. But I choose Mac.
The OS is the main reason, hardware is more or less the same.

Most of pc users arent even aware that my Macs dont run Windows, they have never even tried Mac.

G.

Dan Ferrin · Apr 20, 2002

And could you tell me what percentage of watches in the world are Rolex versus Timex. Or perhaps the percentage of Ferrari's versus Chevies. The percentage of Linhofs versus Kodaks. I'm perhaps out of my own forum a bit here. My digital camera is a Canon G2. My 35mm equipment is Canon EOS 3. I've been doing professional prepress for the past twelve years, web design work for the past five. My degree is in commercial photography, and I still do some catalog shooting now and then. I own seven Macs and three Windoze machines. I used CPM machines before there was a "PC", then DOS machines when they had 64K of RAM and single sided floppy drives. I'm comfortable using whatever computer best meets my needs for a particular task. Without hesitation, however, if the same or similar applications are available on both platforms, especially if they are graphics and require anything remotely resembling accurate, much less critical, color, I'm at the Mac. The PC's may be faster, but I'd bet dollars to donut holes that if you put two equally qualified users at two machines, comparably configured - one Mac and one PC - at the end of the day, the guy with the Mac will have accomplished more real work. Of course the PC guy could have had all that fun tinkering under the hood.

Dan
http://www.pbase.com/digital_edge

Micheal Kelly said:
Greg M said:

Simple question with a lot of parts. Consider price, speed, ease
of use, available software, and final output.

Click to expand...

tony b35095 · Apr 20, 2002

Grzzi,

Hey there....

A couple of further points....

I don't know how you can say your 3 yr old Mac can open PS 6 is 2 sec? I don't mean get to the screen, I mean.. have the program entirely loaded and ready to operate from a fresh boot...

I've been there when people open the program on their Macs, and I mean... You could go make a sandwich, and come back, and it still wouldn't be finished...(no insult intended, this is just what I've seen..)

If you look at a mag called Maximum PC they test the new Mac, and benchmark it with PC's In their PS 6 test... the Mac took 157 sec. The PC which was a Athlon XP1700(which is much slower than mine)... took 52 sec.. That's 3 times faster! Check it out yourself it's the May issue.. Or maybe it's availible online..

Another post made reference to the output quality being better on the Mac vs. a PC he had seen... What video card did the PC have... Again freedom of choice is the Key, With a PC you can put any quality card you want. the sky's the limit..

I like having the versatility, and knowing that if a program comes out, that it will be made for my platform, or a device, what have you.. I use my machine for a lot of things..... Why not have a system that is more universally accepted, and can do anything... What happens when someone sends you a Word document, and you have Mac?

I don't like that MS has all the power either, but with that, you get a lot of cool stuff...

You mentioned games, yes I'm a gamer also.... And what this Leadtek GeForce 4 Ti 4600 card with 128mg's of RAM, can do with the games is not to be believed! Playing a game on a Mac after that would be like going back to the stoneage...

Don't get me wrong... Mac's are very cool, the OS's look bitchin' And Heck MS practically stole the Mac OS when they released the first Windows.. Apple was the Inovator, and first with the Graphical User Interface. Props Given.. The Mac stuff is also Beautifully made..

Grzzi, listen... I'm no troll, but in terms of performance, practicality, accessability, Interoprobility, freedom of choice, and cost effectiveness, I just feel that the PC is better.. And am just trying to steer him in the right direction...

Another factor that we do not know is... Will he use this system just for photography? or will it be used for other things also. If the answer is the latter, then I feel my points are even more relivent

Oh, and PS, that is an awesome monitor isn't it... You know I don't even mind paying that much money when you get what you pay for, I'd buy one again in a heartbeat...

As far as the re-sale value is concerned, I'm not up on that... With PC's it is terrible.. So If your friend got that much for his old Mac, that's great.. I'll conceed the point!

Happy Mac-ing!!!

Regards, Tony B.

grzzi said:
Member said:

1) For anyone who has come up on a Mac, Or a PC it's going to be
very difficult for them to change, or admit the other is more
capable...

Click to expand...

Well I m a Mac user but when my friends are in trouble with their
windows systems I usually can help. I m aware of other OSes, I just
dont like the look and feel of them.
Also I have no problem admiting that there are purposes for both
systems.

Member said:

2) That being said, It's A PC WORLD.. Go into any major comptuer
store and there are 30 asiles of sofware, and accessories for the
PC, and 1 for the Mac

Click to expand...

Yes it is a pc world (Microsoft Windows world would be closer to
the mark). You can easier find people who claim to be familliar
with your pc setup than those who use Macs. That I admit. But there
are accessories and most every major software title for both,
except some (a lot actually) of the games.

Member said:

3) Mac was what the early designers all used, so the stigma that it
is better for creative design sticks with it to this day... Albiet
no longer true.

Click to expand...

Again, people in graphics, video and music industry and everywhere
else tend to use Macs because they chose to. Mac is a platform of
choice.

Member said:

4) Performance wise... Again there is, NO CONTEST... the PC wins.
Any P4 or Athlon XP will destroy a Mac interms of speed. Your
workflow will always be faster on a PC..

4b) My Custom built, Overclocked Athlon XP Runs @ 1980MHz. (A
250MHz Overclock), with 1 Gig of DDR333 running close to a 400MHz
FSB. It has 4 hardrives running Raid 0, With A Over 200 gig
capacity.

It will open Photoshop 6, in 2 seconds, and change.... Any Mac
users like to compare..... I thought not...

Click to expand...

Opening Photoshop and such trivial tasks are dependant of many
things, number of fonts installed, plug ins, speed of your hard
drive etc...my three years 400 MHz G4 can open it in two seconds
either if I want it to, that doesnt mean anything. BTW, that same
old 400 MHz G4 is about five times faster than 800 MHz Celeron we
also use, Yes I know it is not overclocked, huge and hot Athlon,
but should be at least close to Mac in Photoshop and such, no?

.

Member said:
Member said:

5a) The Infamous Cinema display... I have a Sony GDMF-520 21" .22
pitch Flat screen (gorgeous), display. That is rated the best
monitor in the world... I'll take it over the Cinema anytime.

Click to expand...

Great monitor, a friend of mine is using the same with his old G4.
Really the best CRT u can buy today. Apple cinema display is
something else...wouldnt compare the two, Sony is great but go and

Member said:
take a good look at cinema display 22 or 23, not the same cathegory

Yes, pcs are cheap. At least to start with...btw a friend of mine
have just sold his 4 years 120 MHz Mac for 500 $ (without display),
not bad ).

Jason Stoller · Apr 20, 2002

I have both. To be honest by the time you get done spending your money on the Macintosh you will have spent more than you would have on a PC. I personally do not think the Mac is superior but it does handle graphics in a different way. You have to watch which model of Mac that you buy unless you wanted to be limited in your upgrade ablity. I also build PC's and I have been able to use a Single PC case to keep up with inovations over several years, by either changing a motherboard or adding hardware. Price out a motherboard for a Mac and tell me you can do that. I picked up a Power PC years ago that was nothing but trouble, but that can happen with any computer.

Right now I have an iMac DV that I actually bought for my kids to use because they had them in the local school but to be honest even they prefer the PC's that I have built for them. I went ahead and upgraded the Imac by putting in a larger hard drive and more memory but that is the extent that you can upgrade the iMac. The built in screen is too small in my opinion and I mirror a monitor off of it so I can have more area to edit pictures or movies. I do like the firewire capablity but that can be added to any regular pc via an open slot and a $49 firewire card.

Osx was a nightmare when it first came out, and I have now upgraded to the lastest versions. You will get occassional lockups with the Mac as well.

Since I have installed XP professional on the main PC I use I have not had any problems and it runs steady as a rock.

I do think Apple is a very innovative company. It all depends if you can afford the price tag when they move to the next generation of technology.

There are pluses and minuses is both systems. You have to know how to add programs with both the PC's and the Mac. So it's a personal choice.

The big plus for Mac is the way it handles color and graphics but again you can accomplish good color and photoprocessing on a PC as well.

Jason

James Sarantis said:
I've used Macs for 11 years and pc's for 7 years. The Mac is
definately much more enjoyable to use. You asked about price, etc.
When all is said and done, it's the experience you have on a tool
that you probably use almost as much as your camera if not more. I
spend a lot of time tweaking my photos on the mac and I love it.
It's so intuitive. It's a joy to work on and on the other hand the
PC's are more work to me. One thing I can say, everytime I show PC
users what the Mac can do, they always get an envious look on their
face and start asking about the details of getting into one.

Once you've had Mac, you won't go back.

James

Greg M · Apr 20, 2002

Stephen thanks for the detailed reply. I would like to just make a few comments.

Stephen Cook said:
I've decided to go Mac next time around. Working at a college, I
get an educator discount, so here's what I found:

It seems that you get a better discount on Macs. Is this a fair assumption?

Stephen Cook said:
First, while a Mac IS more expensive, when you go to a mainstream
manufacturer, and configure units similarly, it's not much more
expensive. When I compared a PowerMac 733 to a Dell P4 1.8 (Dell
has slightly faster processor) the Mac was $1252, the Dell was
$1263. Also, the Mac comes standard with 2 firewire ports that the
Dell doesn't and has built-in dual monitor support. I deliberately
configured them both with 256 meg ram, 40 gig hard drives, etc.
You can bounce back and forth with options, but the new Macs simply
are not much (if at all) more expensive than similarly equipped
PC's from mainstream manufacturers.

Mainstream manufacturers are more expensive then mom and pop stores. You do have the option of finding a better price for a complete system if you want. There is a lot more choice and flexablity with a PC purchase. This may not be true for your situation but it is for those that do not get discounts.

Stephen Cook said:
Yes, I understand that I can build my own box for less than I can
purchase a Mac, but I don't want to build my own box. This comes
back to the issue of do you want to be a PC tech or do you want to
use the computer?

Putting together a PC is very easy even if you are not a "PC tech". It is much easier then it use to be. I rather enjoy it myself.

Stephen Cook said:
There is an inherent sneer in some of the responses that indicates,
"well, if you're a moron who can't master PC's, then yes, you
should get a Mac." I disagree with this.

I'm not so sure about this. I think that there have been several that think that if you are new to computers that the Mac is easier to pick-up and use. You don't have to be smarter to use a PC but you do have to be willing to learn a little more about how it works then if you used a Mac.

Stephen Cook said:
I owned old pickups and
worked on them myself for years, and yeah, it cost me less than the
new pickup with the extended warranty and the service agreement
plan that means I don't have to lift the hood. It saves me money
in the long run, though, because my time is more valuable than the
cost of the agreement. Yeah, it's great to be able to work on your
car, but, do you want to be a mechanic, or do you want to get from
one place to another? I still remember t-shirts that were very
popular among the PC crowd in the early eighties that said "Real
men don't use mice."

That's back when the Mac was much better then the PC. What else could they say?

Stephen Cook said:
Ease of use is also a key component in relation to speed. If I
take four more steps to do a task, does the greater inherent speed
of the system really make any difference?

Stephen Cook said:
Although you didn't mention it, I really have a problem with the
new XP licensing agreement, which gives Microsoft the right to
search your hard drive. XP also shuts itself down if you make too
many system changes. I've avoided XP, and intend to continue
avoiding it.

In another thread a week or so ago I addressed this very subject. I agree with you 100%. Microsoft needs to be put in it's place. They are getting out of hand. If you are interested here is the link.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=2499900

Stephen Cook said:
Microsoft has started doing things that disturb me.
For example, they pulled a "feature" out of the last release of
Internet Explorer called "smart tags", due to serious protests. It
turned text in any browser into a link to a manufacturer who would
pay Microsoft advertising money. For example, if Kodak payed a fee
to Microsoft, it could turn every instance of the word "photograph"
at any site into a hotlink to Kodak's web site. I just found out
that Microsoft network has been attaching hotmail advertisements to
the bottom of my email messages (I'm talking about my paid MSN
account, not a free hotmail account). Microsoft has just done too
much of this junk lately. I don't trust them.
As to software availability: I use Office (would use something
else if I didn't have to deal with the compatibility issue),
Photoshop, a web browser and file management utilities. Yeah,
there is more software for the PC, but is there software you need
that isn't available for the Mac?
All the mainstream stuff is available for Mac, except some games.
Gaming isn't a big deal to me, so I don't worry about that.
Your final output will be more printer than system dependent,
although if you're going to a service bureau (I don't) I have been
told that Macs are more consistent.
What you purchase is, of course, your business. I've used PC's
ever since there was such a thing as a PC (first was an 8086 IBM in
DOS mode), but I've decided to go Mac next time around. Actually,
I started with an Atari 800, but that's getting way back there.

irdigital · Apr 20, 2002

I was speaking about output. Not only on the monitor but where it matters...in print.

I have similar video cards in both my Mac (G3-266) and PC (P3-1000), ATI with 64Mb Ram.

The important difference in the systems is not how fast it loads...this you only do once a day! The quality of output, and how it equates to the image on the monitor is the biggest difference. Just try to manage color on a PC. It's a nightmare! On a Mac it's simple. My prints are more consistant from the Mac regardless of which printer I use. All my printers are on a switch which lets me use them on either.

If my old G3 266 beats my much newer Pentium 3 1000 on photoshop filters and actions I can only imagine how a G4 1000MP will beat the newest incarnation of a PC.

The only speed benifit of the PC is rendering Canon RAW files...the PC is noticably faster at this.

But I ALWAYS print and do critical color work with the Mac.

David

grzzi · Apr 20, 2002

Tony B said:
Grzzi,

Hey there....

A couple of further points....

I don't know how you can say your 3 yr old Mac can open PS 6 is 2
sec? I don't mean get to the screen, I mean.. have the program
entirely loaded and ready to operate from a fresh boot...
I've been there when people open the program on their Macs, and I
mean... You could go make a sandwich, and come back, and it still
wouldn't be finished...(no insult intended, this is just what I've
seen..)

FYI, just tried on my 867 MHz G4, and it took 6 seconds, but I got hundreds of fonts to load and extensis plugins take about 2 seconds to load...If I try to load clean photoshop it would be in 2- 3 secons I guess, I m talking OS 9.2 here, dont know for X, so it is not a big deal?

tony b35095 said:
If you look at a mag called Maximum PC they test the new Mac, and
benchmark it with PC's In their PS 6 test... the Mac took 157 sec.
The PC which was a Athlon XP1700(which is much slower than mine)...
took 52 sec.. That's 3 times faster! Check it out yourself it's the
May issue.. Or maybe it's availible online..

Dont know for those tests, there are a lot of them on the web, but I ll tell you from my personal experience as I make living on photoshop. I have tried Athlon, think it was xp 1600 or something, a good friend of mine has a lot of newer pcs in his studio (although he personaly use an G4 and have just had to boy a new Asus MB for that Athlon couse it was crushing constantly...nobody figured why so the "tech guy" told him to try another board...) I didnt try to stopwatch time, I just made 60 Mb RGB file and tried some manipulation and filters. Guess what, I couldnt tell if it was any faster than 867 MHz Mac, in fact it felt a bit slower, I guess they are somewhere close. Also a pc had faster card, my Mac has geforce 2mx. I dont know, should try to make a test myself to be sure, but my feeling is enough for me. Does PC feel faster? It doesnt, but photoshop looks uglier on it for sure

. no offence either Tony

tony b35095 said:
Another post made reference to the output quality being better on
the Mac vs. a PC he had seen... What video card did the PC have...
Again freedom of choice is the Key, With a PC you can put any
quality card you want. the sky's the limit..

Like I said, the fastest cards people buy these days are Gforce 4 titanium and Radeon 8500 as far as I know (I m talking mainstream graphic accelerators) both are available for Mac, and the price is more or less the same...Dont know what more of a card ordinary user needs?

tony b35095 said:
I like having the versatility, and knowing that if a program comes
out, that it will be made for my platform, or a device, what have
you.. I use my machine for a lot of things..... Why not have a
system that is more universally accepted, and can do anything...
What happens when someone sends you a Word document, and you have
Mac?

Well, youre right I like it also, but all good software is here...most of devices work as soon as you plug them in, though there are some that are windows only, but there are some that are MacOS only also...very rarely both cases, but can happen. For instance Mimaki large size printer we use has software for printing jumbo prints that works only on windows, although printer works with Mac... there is a virtual PC software that lets you use windows only software and hardware on Macs also, so it can help sometimes if neccesary.

tony b35095 said:
I don't like that MS has all the power either, but with that, you
get a lot of cool stuff...

You mentioned games, yes I'm a gamer also.... And what this Leadtek
GeForce 4 Ti 4600 card with 128mg's of RAM, can do with the games
is not to be believed! Playing a game on a Mac after that would be
like going back to the stoneage...

Yes pc is still faster with games, I use playstation if I want to play games or I stick whith those available for Mac (most of good or popular titles are available) but sadly it is very rarely I have time for that...

tony b35095 said:
Don't get me wrong... Mac's are very cool, the OS's look bitchin'
And Heck MS practically stole the Mac OS when they released the
first Windows.. Apple was the Inovator, and first with the
Graphical User Interface. Props Given.. The Mac stuff is also
Beautifully made..

Grzzi, listen... I'm no troll, but in terms of performance,
practicality, accessability, Interoprobility, freedom of choice,
and cost effectiveness, I just feel that the PC is better.. And am
just trying to steer him in the right direction...

Another factor that we do not know is... Will he use this system
just for photography? or will it be used for other things also. If
the answer is the latter, then I feel my points are even more
relivent

Your personal preference, but you should try Mac sometime if you have not, I mean...

tony b35095 said:
Oh, and PS, that is an awesome monitor isn't it... You know I don't
even mind paying that much money when you get what you pay for, I'd
buy one again in a heartbeat...

Yes it is much better than even Sony's 24" version, I have tried both...I also have Nokia 445 pro (FD trinitron tube) and Apple studio display (21" crt version) and Sony is better than both. This Apple has more accurate colors, but less contrast and overall sharpness...

tony b35095 said:
As far as the re-sale value is concerned, I'm not up on that...
With PC's it is terrible.. So If your friend got that much for his
old Mac, that's great.. I'll conceed the point!

Just wanted to say that Macstend to keep their value for a long time...too long sometimes

)

tony b35095 said:
Happy Mac-ing!!!

Regards, Tony B.

Good luck to you also, hope you got a big fan on that monster, tends to overheat I was told

!!!

G.

Jason Stoller · Apr 20, 2002

If you look at what is actually used in the overall market it will tell you a story by itself. I have been involved with personal computers since the Sinclair hit the market. At that time Apple was having trouble selling machines and so they did a really intelligent thing. They basically gave away their equipment at that time to the school systems. That in my opinion is one of the real reasons that they survived. So what does a parent at that time go out and buy for their kids? The system that is being used in school of course! Whats funny is that even though they put them in the classrooms, the schools continued to run the business side off of PC's. Apple made big money by ripping off the schools and consumers with high priced software that was not readily available.

I came out of industry to teach in 1992. If I recall the numbers at that time, Apple had about 4% of the market and the rest was PC. Now this number may be different in the Graphics world but let me remind you they used Comodore Amiga's for many years for producing animation, Commericals, and Music.

The big plus that Mac has is it has a user friendly interface that was easy to manipulate for a new and inexperienced user and you had to start the PC up in Dos. Remember early Apple computers still needed a Disk inserted to run. That was before hard drives and the event of the Mac itself. That was great at the time but the PC now offers the same thing. There is alwasy going to be a big debate about Microsoft stealing the Mac operationg system but since Microsoft now has an interest in Mac and some of the same players are involved it makes you wonder.

The mouse was one of the greatest inovations that hit the market in the early years and many think that Apple developed this. The truth is that both Microsoft and Apple stole that from Xerox who were the real inovators at the time.

Now with all this being said I noticed someone mentioning their school was getting new Mac's and LCD panels take up less space. I think its great that someone decided to help keep Mac afloat but adding Mac's to the graphics department in that school, but the trend in other school districts is to go the other way. Its a personal choice. In fact the previous school system my children were in ripped out all the Macs and put in a brand new PC lab for obvious reasons. Check out Goodrich school in Woodridge IL if you do not believe me and the whole school district went with PCs. This is also the case in the Chicago Public School system which has a very large population.

Now for the LCD panels. LCD panels do take up less space! The only problem with them is they are harder to calibrate if you can calibrate them at all. The angle you view them has a lot to do with the results you will get. I personally feel that to get the best color representation you still need to use a CRT based monitor. I am sure there are some professional graphics people on this forum that can comment on this. By the way I do like the LCD size and space saving benefit they offer but I do not want to sacrifice quality.

Speaking of Monitor calibration, I think many home users overlook this when they work and edit their digital photography. This is probably one of the most important things to do before you even consider editing your pictures. Yes its the print that matters but how are you going to even get close if you what you see on a monitor is no where near what your output is. I do think Apple handles color better but that is a process and not a monitor alone. For years apple uses ATI chips to handle their color and recently other options have popped up for Apple.

Ati cards have been available for PC's for years. The G force which is an option that is available now has been adopted by some. Last but least lets not forget the Avid cards that were produced and used early on as an option in some Macs.

In todays world I see the PC every bit as capable of Mac in the graphics market. I see the interface to be as good. I sure others will disagree, but I think its all personal choice.

Sorry for this rant but I really needed to get this out.

Jason

Greg M said:
gorham said:

deep breath OK here goes.

I've used PCs since 1985 and have owned a ton of 'em through the
years. Right now I'm on a PIII Dell with 256MB RAM and, because I'm
a camera addict, a 17" monitor.

Click to expand...

I'm about 5 years behind you.

Greg M said:

I work from home but my department has all macs ranging from the
iMac to brand new G4s. I also have an older powerbook at home to
proof my webpages against.

Enough of the background.

I prefer PCs because I "grew up" with dos and installing hardware
and prefer both the interface and the ability to work "under the
hood" on the PC.

Click to expand...

I love to pull apart my PC and upgrade it myself. As a matter of
fact, I want to build a dual processor machine later this year so
that I can print and continue to work at the same time without my
computer slowing down. It really will make a difference since my
Epson 870 takes sooooo long to print.

Greg M said:

Several of my co-workers have machines that would do every bit as
good a job but they are at the mercy of a repair disk if something
goes wrong and have to call the university computing services to
have new hardware installed or upgraded.

Bottom line. Both have probably equally good apps and, in the case
of the Adobe group, pretty similar too.

IMHO it's really up to the user and his/her experience base and
preferences.

That must be worth two cents!

Click to expand...

Definately worth 2 cents. I guess that the Mac advantage is more
myth then reality.

Greg M said:

G

Greg M said:

Simple question with a lot of parts. Consider price, speed, ease
of use, available software, and final output.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Halldór Gíslason · Apr 20, 2002

On my other table now, Dell PIII 800 something, 19 inch monitor....., guess I will grab it once in a while for games(and the Oracle stuff I do for a living) but for anything to do with visual processing I do it on a iMac 800, highly recommended.

For ease of use and quality there is no competition, the Mac wins it hands down. The iMac is an absolute joy to use, go take a look at one and try out for a few minutes. That should take care of some of your questions.

Greg M said:
Simple question with a lot of parts. Consider price, speed, ease
of use, available software, and final output.

tony b35095 · Apr 20, 2002

David said:
I was speaking about output. Not only on the monitor but where it
matters...in print.

I have not seen a comparision in print from the same file, so I cannot comment

irdigital said:
I have similar video cards in both my Mac (G3-266) and PC
(P3-1000), ATI with 64Mb Ram.

Well PS is RAM dependent with a PC So this makes your judgement invalid

irdigital said:
The important difference in the systems is not how fast it
loads...

Well If you read my last post referencing the Max PC test... It did not involve loading, It was a PS Benchmark... And the PC was 3 times faster than A brand new Mac using what is now a below average PC system.... Period. End of story.

irdigital said:
difference. Just try to manage color on a PC. It's a nightmare!
On a Mac it's simple. My prints are more consistant from the Mac
regardless of which printer I use.

Again.... Your Inferior PC...

irdigital said:
If my old G3 266 beats my much newer Pentium 3 1000 on photoshop filters and actions I can only imagine how a G4 1000MP will beat the newest incarnation of a PC.

It Won't, I again refer you to the tests.. that have been conducted again, and again By various publications.

Even though PS was a Mac Program the PC beats it at it's own game, and has done so for quite some time just look at any result from a qualified testing lab.... Sorry

Tony B.

tony b35095 · Apr 20, 2002

Ladies, and gentlemen, another unbiased opinion...

Tony B.

Jason Stoller said:
I have both. To be honest by the time you get done spending your
money on the Macintosh you will have spent more than you would have
on a PC. I personally do not think the Mac is superior but it does
handle graphics in a different way. You have to watch which model
of Mac that you buy unless you wanted to be limited in your upgrade
ablity. I also build PC's and I have been able to use a Single PC
case to keep up with inovations over several years, by either
changing a motherboard or adding hardware. Price out a motherboard
for a Mac and tell me you can do that. I picked up a Power PC
years ago that was nothing but trouble, but that can happen with
any computer.

Right now I have an iMac DV that I actually bought for my kids to
use because they had them in the local school but to be honest even
they prefer the PC's that I have built for them. I went ahead and
upgraded the Imac by putting in a larger hard drive and more memory
but that is the extent that you can upgrade the iMac. The built in
screen is too small in my opinion and I mirror a monitor off of it
so I can have more area to edit pictures or movies. I do like the
firewire capablity but that can be added to any regular pc via an
open slot and a $49 firewire card.

Osx was a nightmare when it first came out, and I have now upgraded
to the lastest versions. You will get occassional lockups with the
Mac as well.

Since I have installed XP professional on the main PC I use I have
not had any problems and it runs steady as a rock.

I do think Apple is a very innovative company. It all depends if
you can afford the price tag when they move to the next generation
of technology.

There are pluses and minuses is both systems. You have to know how
to add programs with both the PC's and the Mac. So it's a personal
choice.

The big plus for Mac is the way it handles color and graphics but
again you can accomplish good color and photoprocessing on a PC as
well.

Jason

tony b35095 · Apr 20, 2002

Ha, Ha..... Good spirt here! I love a good debate ;-)...

lets just say, you likes your Mac's and I likes me PC's !

I've learned alot more about them just from this forum, and that's a good thing....

And, Oh yea' about the fans... Don't worry about that... I've got 9! With a Monster 5lb. Copper heat sink for the CPU.

Heat is not a problem.. But this is only necessary because the Motherboard is modified to supply much more current to the CPU to stabilize it at the overclocked speed, more juice makes more heat... It's a little noisy but I love it LOL

)

I'll have to send you a picture sometime, I think you would get a kick out of it...

Take care, Tony B.

grzzi · Apr 20, 2002

tony b35095 said:
If you look at a mag called Maximum PC they test the new Mac, and
benchmark it with PC's In their PS 6 test... the Mac took 157 sec.
The PC which was a Athlon XP1700(which is much slower than mine)...

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

Here are some of the tests...

G.

Jason Stoller · Apr 20, 2002

I am not Dvorak fan either. I would also point out that his expertise may not be in upgrading a system. Note he mentions he is still using a 486 for his writings so how long has it been since this guy has been involved in hardware. I will not dispute that XP has some problems but those problems are related to proper drivers being supplied. The same can said of OSX. What was frustrating for many was the lack of programs that would run in OSX and maybe thats why you still have to load the 9.2 OS on a Mac. So I am sorry I will not buy into that OSX has any less problems than XP. I am able to crash my Mac by simply letting my girlfriend play a game that was included in with the Mac software. So much for that theory.

Jason

David Foster said:
Greg M said:

I've thought that this "Mac is superior" was a myth. Maybe not in
the past but definately now. I am not knocking the Mac but it does
seem that the PC has overcome the advantages that the Mac once had.
If I am wrong then please show me the error of my ways.

Click to expand...

PCs are very vunerable to viruses and hacker attacks. Active
scripting and other "features" plus the way explorer is so
integrated with the OS makes them so (plus the fact that their
market predominance means the idiots who do this sort of thing can
screw up more people if they target PCs). For this reason alone I
do not store original or creative material on my PC.

Furthermore there is something terribly wrong with Windows XP. I'm
not sure exactly what but even industry pundits (at least ones who
speak their minds) are beginning to notice. I am no fan of John
Dvorak but I'm willing to spot him as someone with some Windows
experience. Check out his latest column:
http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s=1500&a=25434,00.asp
If you must use Windows, use Windows 2000. If you buy a new PC with
Windows XP, scrape it off your drive before you do anything else.

Mac is also simply more fun. With Photoshop 7 out now, there are
fewer and fewer reasons to go PC. You can save money in the short
term, but read Dvorak's column carefully. How expensive is
frustration?

PC or Mac ?

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Gregory T.

Guest

Senior Member

grzzi

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

grzzi

Guest

Veteran Member

New member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

grzzi

Guest

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts